Presbyteries in the Presbyterian Church (USA) have begun voting on the eight amendments sent down by the 221st General Assembly. While The Layman Online and other web sites are “tracking” the voting on the proposed redefinition of marriage (Amendment 14-F), some people are simply asking, “How would you vote on the rest of them?”
So, if I had a vote, here’s how I’d mark my ballot:
How I would vote on 2014 PCUSA amendments
My rationale?
Amendment 14-1 proposes amending the Book of Confessions by adding the Confession of Belhar. If you’re thinking we’ve been there and debated that, you’d be right. This same proposed amendment failed to achieve the 2/3 threshold in the last cycle of presbytery voting following the 2012 General Assembly. But the former Stated Clerk of the PCUSA, Clifton Kirkpatrick, is determined to see the Belhar in the PCUSA’s Book of Confessions.
The arguments against this amendment have been well articulated and I would vote against it:
Amendment 14-A proposes amending G-2.0509 to clarify that when a teaching elder (pastor) renounces the jurisdiction of the PCUSA while standing accused in an open disciplinary case, that person cannot serve in any capacity in a PCUSA congregation or related entity. Like most proposed amendments, this one has a back-story. Here’s the ugly reality: Sometimes teaching elders do immoral things. Ideally, the informal system of discipline (aka Matthew 18:15-20) would effectively bring recognition, repentance, reconciliation and restoration. The Church is at her best when she demonstrates this kind of redemption. However, we have a Book of Discipline and layers of ecclesiastical courts that bear witness to the fact that informal discipline too often fails. Two hundred years ago it must have been hard to imagine that anyone would “casually” renounce the jurisdiction of the denomination that ordained them. Today, pension benefits are secured by Federal rules and societal norms that regard holiness and accountability to righteous standards as inconsequential to ordained leadership. We face the reality that when accused of wrong-doing, some renounce the jurisdiction of the church instead of facing their accuser. The amendment would strengthen the penalty for such a choice — effectively barring the person from any service in the PCUSA or its related entities. Sadly, its a sign of the times that this particular amendment is necessary in our common life. I would vote yes on 14-A.
Amendment 14-B. 1 and 2 grow out of a the work of the Special Committee to Review the Preparation for Ministry Process and Standard Ordination Exams. Here’s the jist of it: Many people are failing the PCUSA standard ordination exams. Many others want to become ordained teaching elders without satisfying the mutually agreed upon constitutional standards outlined in the Book of Order. So, Amendment 14-B1 would allow for candidates to be assessed as ready to receive a call even if they fail their ords and Amendment 14-B2 says that if a presbytery “concludes there are good and sufficient reasons for accommodations to the particular circumstances of an individual seeking ordination, it may, by a three-fourths vote, waive any of the requirements for ordination in G-2.06, except for those of G-2.0607d.” But the following sentence outlines how the presbytery can circumvent the requirements of G-2.0607d as well. My question is this, “Why have standards if they can be waived?” Yes, I understand the arguments about desiring to accommodate people who cannot, for whatever reason, satisfy the requirements, but how is it a requirement if it can be waived? And although a 3/4 vote by the presbytery sounds like a valid gate against abuse, the reality is that 3/4 of a presbytery at a “special meeting” may well be only a handful of people. I see no harm in voting yes to 14-B1, but I would vote against 14-B2.
Amendment 14-C seeks to amend G-3.0301 which currently reads: “All councils shall adopt and implement a sexual misconduct policy.” The amendment would add “and a child protection policy” to the mandate. Again, this amendment is a sign of the times in which we live. Sadly, sexual misconduct, child abuse and molestation are dark realities from which we are not immune. Churches, presbyteries and the denomination often find themselves on the wrong end of civil and criminal lawsuits that expose the darkness and cost huge sums to settle with victims. This amendment is designed to expressly include the protection of children in the policies of councils at every level of the church. I would vote in favor of this amendment and then I would call my church’s insurance provider, my professional malpractice insurance provider, the clerk of my session, the chair of my church’s policy review committee, etc. Because this is an amendment that creates work at every level of the church. Every session, every presbytery, every synod and the General Assembly must, by constitutional mandate, “adopt and implement” both a sexual misconduct AND a child protection policy.
Amendment 14-D looks to amend G-30301 to allow for presbyteries with fewer than 10 churches. Again, as I’ve already noted, this is a sign of the times. The PCUSA is contracting in both raw membership and in the number of congregations in the denomination. These trends are universally acknowledged and efforts are underway to reverse them, but for now, “decline” is the reality. Even a cursory glance at the denomination’s comparative statistical reports reveals that in 2013 there were 89,296 fewer members, 224 fewer congregations and 1 less presbytery than in 2012. It is reasonable that as presbyteries multiply in both the EPC and ECO, presbyteries constrict in the PCUSA. The amendment rightly allows for flexibility in dealing with the declining numerics of the PCUSA and I imagine that the 2016 assembly will be asked by several synods to use this new found freedom to support the continuation of presbyteries that drop below the current threshold. In the ongoing conversation about the purpose and function of synods, filling in when presbyteries fail may top the rationale. I would vote yes on 14-D.
Amendment 14-E. Just vote NO. For rationale, read the advice of the Advisory Committee on the Constitution (which both the General Assembly committee and the GA plenary ignored). The proposed amendment would amend G-5.0102 to allow for explicit pluralism and a further dampening effect on evangelism. If the first great end of the Church is the proclamation of the Gospel for the salvation of humankind then Amendment 14-E is contrary to the Spirit of the Church’s very calling. Does it sound like I’m passionate about this one? Yes, I am. If I could I would vote NO audibly and if the amendment prevailed in my presbytery I would register my dissent with the stated clerk. I would make it know broadly that I did not support efforts to strip the Church of her primary calling to lead people into transforming encounters with Jesus Christ who alone is the way to salvation.
Amendment 14-F has already received a lot of press. It hopes to formally redefine marriage in the Book of Order of the PCUSA. Currently, under the Authoritative Interpretation (AI) issued by the General Assembly, pastors can perform whatever kind of “marriage” is authorized by the state. That license is however not currently available to pastors residing in states where natural marriage, between one man and one woman, continues to be the legal definition. The language of “two people” replacing “one man and one woman” in the Directory for Worship would allow all PCUSA pastors to perform same-sex marriages. It would also create a serious tension within the two parts of the denomination’s constitution. The Book of Confessions defines marriage consistently throughout as exclusively between one man and one woman. The amendment to the Directory for Worship in the Book of Order would have no effect on the Book of Confessions. An irreconcilable difference would thus exist. I would vote no on amendment 14-F and again, if the amendment prevailed in my presbytery, I would immediately ask the stated clerk to formally note my dissent in the presbytery’s vote record.
That’s how I’d vote, if I could.
8 Comments. Leave new
Carmen,
The top dogs in the pcusa could care less what you say or do because they are reprobates as Paul would teach in Romans 1. I can appreciate what you have written, but those misguided fools are delusional in need of a Savior, that is Christ the Lord.
I keep thinking about the idea of opportunity cost: If you devote resources to one thing, you can’t devote them to another. As a conservative elder in a denomination that has abandoned much of what you believe, you could devote your time and energy to going to presbytery meetings and making sure the stated clerk formally notes your dissenting votes on these issues, as Carmen recommends. Or you could refocus your time and energy in a different denomination that has not abandoned its obedience to God’s Word. Staying and fighting in a losing cause in PCUSA carries a heavy opportunity cost indeed.
Re: Amendment 14 -A, I agree with all of Carmen’s statements except her vote. This proposal is unenforceable. It not only does not allow for true any chance of rehabilitation, which is contrary to the Gospel, but more importantly is a boon to the Trial Lawyers.
Note that the Amendment applies to all positions in the Church whether paid staff or volunteer. Being impossible to enforce places the individual Church totally vulnerable when a person who had renounced jurisdiction under these circumstances, becomes involved with a Church in some other area of the country and then proceeds to commit some criminal act. Since the Church has a policy against allowing such a person to be even a volunteer but does not enforce it (one cannot run background checks on every volunteer), the way will be clear to assert negligence on the part of the Church for failing to enforce its own policies.
I am sure that this will be adopted given its emotional appeal, however, it will accomplish no good and has the potential to create great harm.
I would vote no on all of it and leave such a bloated institution….oh wait, I did! And I couldn’t be more happy in my Christ centered non book of order church. The heart and mind do not have room for both the Gospel and the institution.
Choose you this day whom you will serve…just sayin.
Most of your comments seem reasonable and predictable, but your opposition to Amendment 14-E shows an almost shocking lack of understanding for the truest and oldest form of Evangelism – which is that it begins with respectful and vulnerable dialog. You need to go no further than the Apostle Paul’s methods and famous speech in Athens congratulating the Athenians for their religious ardor by which he introduced Jesus Christ to pluralist society.
Further, to be imitators of Christ means to empty ourselves of our own power and to become vulnerable enough to incarnate into the language and culture of those to whom we wish to bring the Good News of the God’s Kingdom. Pouring out does not mean watering down, but it does mean getting off our high and mighty pedestals and engaging in open and vulnerable dialog with everyone, friends and enemies alike.
But you are not alone. Your lack of understanding of Evangelism is at the heart of the shrinking Church.
So Christ is not big enough to redeem the PCUSA? Hmmm. I agree it has many problems, and I don’t agree with its direction. But Christ does not call us to hunker down with other believers in Christian hovels… no… He does precisely the opposite. To be Christlike is to hang with sinners and “spur one another toward love and good deeds” in the words of Paul. This is why I stay. I choose to make disciples of all men… starting right here.
Not at all… unless you believe the Holy Spirit is powerless. I attend a large vibrant theologically conservative PCUSA church that spends its time ministering to the community and the world. We are the arms of Christ, bringing new believers into the fold and discipling people in the faith. There is nothing the denomination is doing or has done that prohibits us from doing God’s evangelical work in our world. Its simply a choice we make. God can redeem anything and we are the hands He has chosen to build His Kingdom. If everyone in our church bailed because of denominational stuff, there would be a huge ministry hole in our community. Would that be the will of God? I don’t think so.
“Pluralism” and “diversity” and “multiculturalism” are part of the secular culture’s mantras today. If Christians will not share the Gospel with others (regardless of what the culture classifies them to be) then we are disobedient to Christ’s commission for us. We either believe that Christ IS the Way or we do not. How can it be insensitive or politically incorrect to tell someone about a grace-filled life and an eternity with God in heaven? What could be wrong about telling someone the Good News that God through Christ will absolve them of their sins and allow them to be with God forever? Why should the greatest revelation to mankind ever (that one cannot earn their way to eternal bliss – one can only accept God’s grace as THE way to eternal bliss) be kept a secret or not communicated at every opportunity? The time is short for both believers and non-believers to act; in terms of eternity, human life is just like the blink of an eye. Just hoping that others can discern God’s glory being reflected in our lives is not a sufficient strategy for extending the Kingdom.