San Diego receives resolution, could lead to break with PCUSA
By John H. Adams, The Layman Online, November 16, 2005
The Presbytery of San Diego received a resolution Monday night that, if approved, could lead to a withdrawal from the Presbyterian Church (USA).
There was no discussion of the resolution, which was aimed at how the presbytery might respond to a change in the denomination’s ordination standards or the approval of the report by the Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity.
The presbytery plans to debate the resolution either at a regular meeting in February or a called meeting in January.
But there was one response in writing. “An Open Letter to the Resolution Team From those concerned about the Presbyterian Church, USA and The Presbytery of San Diego,” signed by 18 ministers and elders, urged the presbytery to delay action on the resolution. Both the proposed resolution and the response were distributed to commissioners.
The response called for a “dialogue process;” a “focus on the interpretation of the PUP Report and a general study of biblical passages agreed upon by both parties, which is proposed by the PUP Report,” and other deliberations “before coming to the presbytery with schismatic intentions to remove ourselves from the PCUSA.”
Meanwhile, ministers and lay elders will study the resolution and prepare their response. The resolution calls for “immediate action” if the 217th General Assembly approves an Authoritative Interpretation recommended by the denomination’s Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity.
The proposed Authoritative Interpretation would allow ordaining bodies to decide on their own whether to require candidates for deacon, elder and minister to abide by the denomination’s constitutional “fidelity/chastity” ordination standard.
It says the presbytery would:
- “… take immediate action in the event of a change in those standards – whether changed by official action, approval of the Authoritative Interpretation recommended by the Theological Task Force or simply rendered meaningless by means of official inaction to uphold the standard of the historic Church:
- a) Declaring that the Presbyterian Church (USA) is in a state of constitutional crisis and deep Biblical and confessional defection.
- b) Recognizing the breach in the covenant that binds our congregations and presbyteries together in the Presbyterian Church (USA).
- c) Assuming primary and exclusive responsibility for self-government because such a breach nullifies and voids the covenantal obligation to abide by the polity and discipline of higher governing bodies. By its own action, the Presbyterian Church (USA) will have broken covenant with us and divested itself of any authority to exercise governance over the Presbytery of San Diego.
- d) Exploring what, if any, long-term future association or relationship with the Presbyterian Church (USA) will be sought collectively by the Presbytery of San Diego and by any individual congregation within the Presbytery of San Diego.”
Several of the sessions that govern the presbytery’s 31 congregations have endorsed the resolution.
In his report to the presbytery, the Rev. Dr. Andrew M. Smith, the executive presbyter, said the “PUP Report and the upcoming actions of the General Assembly in June 2006 could further polarize and forever change the landscape of our beloved denomination. Indeed, these are turbulent times.”
Smith also cited a number of difficult issues in the presbytery that relate to dissension in the denomination.
“These are turbulent times in our presbytery,” Smith said. “We held eight presbytery meetings in one eight-month period.” he said. “Several of us attended a seven-hour session meeting at La Jolla Presbyterian Church, which attracted over 300 visitors and lasted until 2:00 a.m. We, as a presbytery, dissolved the pastoral relationship of one of our beloved pastors against his will. Again, over 300 visitors were present for that unforgettable February meeting at which nearly 90% of the presbytery concurred with the difficult recommendation of the La Jolla Administrative Commission. One month later, the presbytery was contacted by Mt. Soledad Presbyterian Church, after its session voted unanimously to leave the PCUSA for the Four Square denomination. A second administrative commission was formed around the Mt. Soledad congregation, and the third administrative commission of the year was established to deal with long-term conflicts at Pacific Beach Presbyterian Church. Ultimately, the conflicts at Pacific Beach led to the pastor’s resignation.”
If the resolution remains intact and is submitted as an overture, and if the General Assembly approves the Authoritative Interpretation recommended by the task force, the Presbytery of San Diego could become one of the first regional governing bodies to take steps toward renouncing the jurisdiction of the PCUSA.
The task force’s proposed Authoritative Interpretation is near the end its final report, lines 1048-1072. It calls for ordaining bodies to decide individually whether to regard the constitutional prohibition against ordaining practicing homosexuals as essential and for all parties to “endeavor to outdo one another in honoring one another’s decisions.”
The resolution goes against the recommendation of one of the presbytery’s most distinguished members, retired minister Gary Demarest, who is the co-moderator of the task force. Demarest and other evangelicals on the task force – who were outnumbered by liberals by more than 2-1 – joined the unanimous vote for the task force report.
Demarest presented the case for the task force’s recommendations at a meeting of the Presbytery of San Diego.
San Diego’s proposed resolution, developed after months of discussion by a writing group and preparation of a much-longer draft document, addresses other issues besides the task force report.
The presbytery has taken some evangelical positions on denomination issues that have been denounced. Because of budget shortages – some created by decisions by local sessions to redirect their members’ gifts and not remit their per-capita contributions to support the denomination – the presbytery voted to request that it not be required to reduce its own mission funding by having to pay the full per capita to the General Assembly. It informed General Assembly Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick of that decision.
According to a report at its Sept. 20 meeting, Kirkpatrick responded by warning the presbytery that one or more of its sessions might file a remedial action against the presbytery for failure to remit the full amount to support the denomination.
But Kirkpatrick, in responding to dozens of acts of defying constitutional ordination requirements by ordaining practicing homosexuals, did so in a gentle manner, not with threats of church litigation.
In a letter to stated clerks in January 2002, Kirkpatrick wrote about the ordination standard, “I am well aware that there is considerable debate about the wisdom of this provision in our Constitution in light of our historic Presbyterian polity and that an amendment has been approved by the 213th General Assembly and is currently before the presbyteries that could remove this provision.” He did say G-6.0106b was the law of the church, but he didn’t make any threats of church court actions – either by his office or others.
In that same letter, however, Kirkpatrick warned church officers against withholding per capita, which the constitution declares to be voluntary, or recommending “gracious separation” from the denomination. On the money issue, Kirkpatrick said, “Such actions are unconstitutional, and I urge that they stop. It is a violation of our ordination vows to promote schism or the defiance of constitutionally sanctioned governing body directives.”
The violation of an ordination vow is tantamount to renouncing the jurisdiction of the Presbyterian Church – or self ex-communication.
Another issue at San Diego has been its own list of “Essential Tenets and Reformed Distinctives” that it recommends to sessions as models for evaluating candidates for office. That list represents Reformed orthodoxy, but it has been ridiculed by some denominational leaders. Former General Assembly Moderator Herb Valentine, for one, accused San Diego of trying to prescribe “lockstep belief and check-off orthodoxy.”
Officially, the denomination does not have a list of “essential tenets” for officers, although the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission has ruled that the ordination standard is required.
In the draft paper that circulated before the proposed resolution was finalized, the presbytery’s working group said, “We have watched and participated with growing concern in our denomination; especially as the actions, judgments, policies and pronouncements of the upper governing bodies have become unmoored from Biblical faith and confessional standards.”
The document adds, “We have been hurt by having to explain away the lack of clarity within the Presbyterian Church (USA) and the oppressive discouragement of holding Biblical faith conviction.”
The following is the text of the response to the proposed resolution:
An Open Letter to the Resolution Team
From those concerned about the Presbyterian Church, USA and
The Presbytery of San Diego
We the Undersigned write this open letter to the framers of the Resolution in the spirit of collegial friendship and for the purpose of offering other perspectives on the issues raised in the Resolution. We have no desire to silence the debate. In fact we wish to extend it beyond the proposed February date in which a meeting has been called to vote on the Resolution. We all agree that your concern and your passion have provided a wake up call to our church. We are blessed by this concern and have been inspired to reflect on your Resolution in light of our own perspectives.
We offer the following reflections in the hope that we might suspend the vote on the resolution until such time we can engage each other, face to face, to discuss not only the issues raised in the Resolution but deeper theological issues that might divide us. In this hope we offer the following suggestions:
1. It is clear that liberals need conservatives and conservatives need liberals. There is not one expression that captures the totality of our belief in the God that stands beyond us and among us. Yet the church is bound by the scriptures and its standards under the rule of the whole church, and under the rule of the conscience of each believer. This is our Presbyterian heritage to which we are bound by constitution and conviction. Therefore,
2. We urge you to enter with us in a face to face dialogue – bathed in prayer and honest debate – beginning in the year 2006. We desire to discuss and reason together about the standards and beliefs of our church regarding ordination and theological integrity. We are convinced that experiencing oneness in Christ with whom we disagree with in both theological and behavioral issues can only occur in face to face conversation in a context of mutual trust and faith. Therefore,
3. We do not believe the issues that divide us can be addressed by a process of voting on resolutions, until such time we agree that we, the presbytery, have engaged in legitimate conversations over the issues that are important to us from all sides. We propose that together we create a series of discussions agreed on by both the Resolution Team and the Undersigned. We believe this to be the best alternative at this time, knowing that not all congregations are in agreement with the Resolution Team and that both the Resolution Congregations and the Undersigned Congregations can be hurt if this Resolution comes to a vote now. Therefore,
4. We understand that reactions in your congregations in light of the PUP Report and the spiritual energy necessary to withstand the queries might be pressing you; we, on the other hand, fear for the reactions of our congregations to the Resolution. Not that we may disagree theologically with some of your concerns, but we do disagree with your interpretation of the PUP Report and its possible effect on the church’s standards of ordination. We feel that this Resolution is premature and is not in the best interest of the whole church. Therefore,
5. We wish to move beyond any perceived or imagined conflicts that exist which might prevent us from future dialogues and a greater awareness of our unity. We hope that in this next year we can covenant together to “be a friend among our colleagues in ministry” through an intimate dialogue and friendship in which our lives and beliefs will be shared openly. Therefore,
6. We present a process that we hope will encourage all of us to live out our constitutional vows to pursue the peace, unity and purity of the church, increase our awareness of the rationale of beliefs that divide us and unite us, diminish the language of “us and them”, improve the hope that Christ is among us and assure our congregations that Christ can unite us even in the face of our differences. Therefore,
7. In the spirit of Paul’s instruction to the Corinthians, “Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God, who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life,” we offer the following strategy for the presbytery:
- Postpone the floor debate until the proposed dialogue process has been attempted.
- Work with the undersigned to develop a series of studies for the whole presbytery that would focus on the interpretation of the PUP Report and a general study of biblical passages agreed upon by both parties, which is proposed by the PUP Report.
- Work together to achieve recommendations 1-3 of the Resolution before coming to the presbytery with schismatic intentions to remove ourselves from the PCUSA, which is the intent of number 5 of the Resolution.
- Invite members of the Theological Task Force from opposing theological worldviews to explain how they came to a unified position and rationale. We believe this can be helpful to instruct us, give us understanding of the document and also help us find direction as to how we might proceed with our process.
- That both the Resolution Team and the Undersigned agree to live out our scriptural mandate to “bear one another in love, making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the body of peace. For there is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to o