New Wineskins Association calls for ‘moratorium’ on acts of discipline and coercion
By Parker T. Williamson, The Layman Online, July 24, 2006
TULSA – The “New Wineskins Association of Churches” a gathering of the leaders of 126 congregations, voted on July 22 to call on the moderator of the Presbyterian Church (USA) General Assembly and executives of its 173 presbyteries to declare a moratorium on acts of discipline and coercion against ministers and congregations that are seeking God’s will in the aftermath of actions by the denomination’s recent 217th General Assembly.
Noting General Assembly actions that have trivialized the historic, Christian doctrine of the Trinity and that allow ordaining governing bodies to declare the Seventh Commandment optional (“nonessential”), the New Wineskins Association anticipates that many Presbyterian congregations will now enter a period of agonizing struggle as they discern God’s will for their relationship with the denomination.
“This is a time of profound discernment,” said Forrest A. Norman III, an elder from First Presbyterian Church in Hudson, Ohio. “We have entered a period that is not of our own choosing. Christian ministers and elders must struggle with their consciences in the light of the General Assembly’s decisions. The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA) recognizes and protects acts of conscience, declaring that God alone is ‘the Lord of conscience.’ All we are asking is that denominational leaders recognize our constitutional prerogative to engage in a conscientious struggle whether we can live with what our highest legislative body has done, and that they not punish us for doing what the constitution clearly gives us warrant to do.”
Property claims
The New Wineskins group met in Tulsa amidst widespread reports of coercion from denominational officials. Recently, representatives of Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery entered the courthouse of each county where a Presbyterian congregation is located; filing an “affidavit of ownership” that effectively clouds the property title of churches in that county. Kirk of the Hills Presbyterian Church in Tulsa, the largest and fastest growing church in Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery, was a primary target of the presbytery’s preemptive action.
“Having clouded our title, the presbytery left us no option other than to respond in court,” said Rev. Tom Gray, the evangelical congregation’s senior minister. Kirk of the Hills called a meeting of the congregation and adopted amendments to its corporate documents, affirming the congregation’s absolute title and control of its property. Gray said that when he reported the action to his presbytery executive, the executive replied, “You have done what you felt you needed to do. Now we must do what we must do.”
Takeover attempts
Other presbyteries are considering forming floating “administrative commissions” that can remove the minister and lay leaders immediately upon hearing reports that any of their local churches are discussing their continuing relationship with the denomination. The denomination’s Book of Order does give presbyteries the power to create an administrative commission with the power to remove the minister and replace the congregation’s lay leaders when the presbytery learns of dissension within a particular congregation.
Ordinarily, the formation of such a high-powered commission occurs only with respect to a specified case, and only after less litigious, pastoral conversations have taken place between representatives of the presbytery and the congregation. If those conversations break down, a report is submitted to the presbytery with the recommendation that an administrative commission be formed with specified powers enabling it to deal with the identified situation.
But the creation of a powerful administrative commission in advance of and without reference to any specific provocation is unprecedented and, some believe, unconstitutional. “It’s tantamount to creating a Presbyterian Church KGB,” a member of the New Wineskins gathering told The Layman.
Conscience and church power
The New Wineskins Association of Churches enacted two resolutions that speak to these and other acts of coercion against congregations and their ministers. One was written by attorneys who seek to ensure that evangelicals will be assured of due process and fundamental fairness, and the other by an elder who cited references to the Book of Order that affirm the freedom of conscience and constitutional limitations on acts of discipline by church courts.
The “moratorium motion” adopted by the association states:
“To provide for open and honest discussion of the actions taken by the GA217, we call upon the Moderator of the PCUSA and all general presbyters to announce and adopt a moratorium on discipline of ordained members engaged in discourse regarding the issues of theology and polity which confront our denomination, including those discussions which may lead to a consideration of departure from the denomination. We call upon you to announce a moratorium on actions to seize or encumber property, interfere with the operations of duly elected session members, or otherwise exercise or initiate discipline upon ordained members of our denomination for engaging in such discussions on either side of the debate.
“We call upon you to pronounce a public statement of moratorium by August 15, 2006.
“Do this to protect and preserve the freedom of conscience upon which the Reformed faith was founded.” The limitation on discipline motion states:
“The New Wineskins Association of Churches appeals to the judicatories of the PCUSA to uphold and practice the historic principles of the PCUSA related to conscience and church power:
G-1.0301
G-1.0307
And refrain from exercising power contrary to these principles.”
G-1.0301 says: “(a) That ‘God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary to his Word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship.'”
“(b) Therefore we consider the rights of private judgment, in all matters that respect religion, as universal and unalienable: We do not even wish to see any religious constitution aided by the civil power, further than may be necessary for protection and security, and at the same time, be equal and common to all others.”
G-1.0307 says:
“That all Church power, whether exercised by the body in general or in the way of representation by delegated authority, is only ministerial and declarative; that is to say, that the Holy Scriptures are the only rule of faith and manners; that no Church governing body ought to pretend to make laws to bind the conscience in virtue of their own authority; and that all their decisions should be founded upon the revealed will of God. Now though it will easily be admitted that all synods and councils may err, through the frailty inseparable from humanity, yet there is much greater danger from the usurped claim of making laws than from the right of judging upon laws already made, and common to all who profess the gospel, although this right, as necessity requires in the present state, be lodged with fallible men.”
Both motions were adopted by an overwhelming majority.