What will be the issues at the 214th
General Assembly?
And how will they be connected?
by Gene TeSelle, Witherspoon Society Issues Analyst
[published in the Spring 2002 issue
of Network News, and posted here on 5-22-02]
What will be the main business of the
Assembly?
1. The Theological
Task Force
We may be sure that this Assembly will pay a lot of
attention to the work of the Theological Task Force on the Peace,
Purity, and Unity of the Church, established by last year's Assembly.
The Task Force was directed to report on its work to each General
Assembly - and to the presbyteries, to ensure that there is broad
discussion of issues. Its final report will be to the 217th
General Assembly in 2005.
The agenda that the Task Force set for itself (which
could be revised by the Assembly) includes the following six topics: The
doctrine of the Trinity, Christology and revelation, ecclesiology,
denominationalism in contemporary society, the role of the confessions,
and the form of government of the PC(USA).
One topic that is not mentioned is "power,"
which the 213th General Assembly made a part of the Task
Force's job description; in fact, this was the one issue on that
Assembly's agenda that it specifically referred to the Task Force. We
know that big money is being spent to influence the Assembly and the
church at large; we feel that those who wield this kind of power should
be more accountable to the church, and we offer some specifics below.
The leadership of the Task Force has promised that the
issue of power is not being avoided; rather they see this, along with
unity and diversity, as permeating every topic they address. The six
items, they say, are intended to be not a complete agenda but a way of
beginning to start addressing their mandate.
2. The New "Three
Fundamentals"
The self-proclaimed "Confessing Church
Movement" continues to suggest that the rest of the church is both
lax and vague about enforcing the Book of Confessions. The wedge issue,
ever since a misleading story about a Peacemaking Conference in 2000, is
whether Jesus is the "only" path of salvation. Added to this
are issues over the authority of Scripture and "ordination
standards."
| Several overtures call upon the
Assembly to adopt formally the paper "Hope
in the Lord Jesus Christ," prepared by the Office
of Theology and Worship.
What would it mean for the Assembly to adopt
this or any theological statement? Unlike the Book of
Confessions, it would have only the authority of the Assembly
that adopts it. On the other hand, there may be some who would
like the Assembly to adopt it as an "essential tenet"
or an "authoritative interpretation" of the
Constitution. And that seems to be far more weight than this
document can carry.
The paper was hastily written and was not
meant to say everything. It does not really carry out the charge
given by the 213th General Assembly. And it does not
deal with the many issues raised in the Book of Confessions
(e.g., the salvation of infants and persons living outside the
sphere of the Christian message; the meaning of predestination;
and the posture of the church toward "religion" and
the dialogue among religions). The Office of Theology and
Worship has several other projects that are still "in
process," including an important one on the Trinity. We
encourage the Office to continue work on this issue, too. To
adopt the paper at this stage would be to engage in premature
closure on issues that deserve serious theological reflection. |
While these three issues are being presented as a summary of the Book of
Confessions, all they really do is point up some of the variations in
understanding our confessional heritage. They are being made into a new
"three fundamentals," in much the same manner as the five
fundamentals in the 1920s. Our church rejected that approach in the
1920s, since it arbitrarily took a few "essentials" out of
context and ignored the many other important affirmations in the
confessions of the church. Members of some of the "confessing
churches" are standing up to their sessions, especially when they
took action without consulting the membership as a whole.
At a conference organized by the Witherspoon Society
at the Stony Point Conference Center in February, Professor Douglas
Ottati of Union Theological Seminary in Richmond reminded us that the
Book of Confessions as a whole is our doctrinal authority. None of the
confessions stands alone. Several of them, including the Barmen
Declaration and the Confession of 1967, were brief and
"thematic" because they presupposed other larger confessional
statements. Even these larger ones were written with an awareness of
earlier confessions, and they were immediately sent to the other
Reformed churches in order to continue the conversation. Our confessions
understand themselves to be declarations subordinate to the authority of
Christ and the Scriptures, addressing the issues of their own day; they
also acknowledge that they are fallible and may be in error. Humility
and a sense of partnership with others are always virtues in a
confessional church!
Let's look at the issue of "power" as it
relates to this issue.
Earlier this year, the session of the First
Presbyterian Church of Sebastian, FL, required assent to its own
"confession" in addition to the Book of Confessions as a
prerequisite to ordination or installation as an officer or a call to
any ministry in the congregation. The Permanent Judicial Commission of
the Presbytery of Central Florida directed them to rescind this action,
since no doctrinal standard other than the Book of Confessions can be
required for ordination. In addition, Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick
has pointed out in connection with another case (the Mount Auburn church
in Cincinnati) that a nominating committee is a committee of the
congregation (G-14.0201b); while the session must examine nominees, it
cannot interfere with the nominating process or impose criteria beyond
those specified by the Book of Order.
This was only a more explicit form of something that
is far more widespread, the use of a doctrinal "litmus test"
for candidates for ordination or installation. In fact the Coalition, a
consortium of conservative organizations, has drawn up a list of
questions to ask, either in committee or on the floor of presbytery, of
anyone seeking ordination. The "Confessing Church Movement" is
the latest version of an attempt to regulate admission to presbyteries
and shift voting power.
3. The "Parallel
Church"
At the conference of the "Confessing Church
Movement" in March, some speakers spoke of the PC(USA) as a
broken-down building and a patient that deserves no more life supports.
For a number of years some of the same organizations that participated
in the CCM gathering have promoted withholding per capita payments,
boycotting the program budget of the General Assembly, bypassing the
governing bodies of the church, and setting up their own programs and
placement networks. Church members, whose addresses have been gathered
without their consent, have been bombarded with right-wing publications;
elders have been encouraged to think of themselves as a corrective to
the supposedly corrupt clergy, who are represented as having seized
control of the denomination (the most visible leaders of the CCM,
however, are clergy themselves); and governing bodies have had to deal
with numerous judicial cases. The actions of these well-funded
organizations have created many of the realities about which they
pretend to complain: the lack of trust and cooperation, the weakening of
denominational budgets, and the loss of members. (This Assembly will be
hearing an extensive report from the General Assembly Council concerning
per capita payments, reductions in budgets, and a new Mission Initiative
to fund mission personnel and church development.)
Officials of conservative organizations have declared
that the PC(USA) is already two separate churches, with differing
beliefs and practices. Fear of schism is one explanation for the recent
vote against Amendment A in the presbyteries. But does the conservative
movement really intend to leave the church? Two years ago the Institute
for Democracy Studies published A Moment to Decide, a study of
the radical right in the Presbyterian Church, in which IDS presented
evidence that the strategy of these organizations is not to leave the
church but to take it over.
Even if conservative congregations were to leave the
church, what would the consequences be? The hard-core conservative vote
at the General Assembly is usually around 15 percent, and this is just
about the same percentage of church membership that attends the
congregations that have joined the "Confessing Church
Movement." Not all members of those congregations agree with the
CCM, of course. And not all conservative elders and pastors would decide
to leave, even if there were a split. In any case, we cannot allow the
policies of the church to be determined by a small minority.
Parachurch organizations are an old Presbyterian
tradition. But they need to be accountable to the whole church. The
UPCUSA had provisions for accountability in Chapter 26, later Chapter 9,
of the Book of Order. Even this, of course, did not prevent numerous
controversies with the Lay Committee, which claimed to be exempt from
supervision - not on the basis of the Sermon on the Mount or the Book of
Order, but on secular grounds such as freedom of the press,
confidentiality, and proprietary information. In 1990-91, through a
series of misunderstandings, Chapter 9 was removed from the Book of
Order.
The loss of accountability has been partially
corrected by the last two General Assemblies, which adopted, by
overwhelming margins, resolutions calling for voluntary disclosure of
the finances of all voluntary organizations or "affinity
groups." The 214th General Assembly, and every
Presbyterian, has every right to continue asking about the finances of
the powerful organizations that lobby it. This entire issue of power and
accountability is part of job description of the Theological Task Force,
and we have the right and the responsibility to make sure that it is
taken seriously there.
| The
Witherspoon Society has regularly filed reports on its finances.
Our total income in 2001 was $56,953. What about some leading
conservative groups? Presbyterians for Renewal reports that it
anticipates a budget of about $5,300,000 in 2002. The
Presbyterian Coalition reports an income of $259,000 in 2001.
The Presbyterian Lay Committee has declined to report its income
to the PC(USA), but in 2000, according to Guidestar,
a public database (), the Presbyterian Lay Committee reported to
the IRS revenues of $2,092,397, and assets of $4,278,809.
Click
here for another take on the matter of annual reports (or
lack of them) to the General Assembly. |
4. Proposed Changes
in the Book of Order
a. Biennial
General Assemblies. For many years there have been proposals to
convene the General Assembly every other year; now the idea has been
endorsed by the General Assembly Council, chiefly as a budget-cutting
measure. Before we leap to this, let's remember some of the benefits of
the annual General Assembly. It is a major educational opportunity,
reminding both ministers and elders of the scope and variety of our
church, not only nationally but internationally. It enables several
different Assemblies to review the work of committees and task forces,
avoiding major disputes when a report finally comes out. And it spreads
the work of staff members over a span of years. If Assemblies met only
every other year, more decisions would be made by the General Assembly
Council and various committees and offices without review.
b. Making the Book
of Order Harder to Amend. Several overtures propose changing
the Book of Order to require a vote of two thirds of the presbyteries,
rather than a simple majority, on any amendments to the Book of Order
(this is the ratio already required for changes to the Book of
Confessions). We know that there is a lot of "amendment
fatigue" in the church; we have heard it each year when amendments
are voted on, and "amendment fatigue" is one of the reasons
given for the failure of Amendment A this year. There are some who think
that this proposal comes from the Presbyterian Right, who would like to
make it harder to remove G-6.0106b from the Book of Order. Let's
remember that most proposed amendments are not about G-6.0106b.
In any case, there is a major principle of equity involved: Do we want
to give a 33% minority veto power over the right of the majority to
govern? If our church were to require a two-thirds vote to amend the
Book of Order, a two-thirds vote should be required to adopt this rule
in the first place. Otherwise we would be going through a door that has
a no-exit lock on the other side.
c. Decentralizing
Nominations to Positions with National Responsibilities. Several
overtures to this year's Assembly propose to disempower the General
Assembly Nominating Committee and call for election of all members of
General Assembly entities by presbyteries or synods. This has the
appearance of grass-roots democracy. But it would open the way to
lobbying and manipulation in the middle governing bodies, for it
overlooks the value of what the Nominating Committee does by gathering a
wide range of nominations, seeking all the relevant information about
nominees, and (most important) ensuring that our constitutional mandate
of representation is carried out in a balanced way and with highly
qualified candidates.
5. How
Do We Live With Our Diversity? The more "liberal"
or "progressive" wing of the church does not intend to drive
out the Presbyterian Right. Those who preach tolerance must tolerate
diverse views; those who preach unity must work together; those who want
justice must embody it in their actions and not only in their goals.
Mutual forbearance means acknowledging that "the other side"
is also seeking the truth and that "our own side" may not have
the whole truth. That is why we oppose all attempts to manipulate and
control the decision-making process. It's why we oppose the use of
double standards, exempting oneself from the standards of accountability
by which others are judged. And it's why we disagree strongly with those
who say that the time for debate is past and the time for enforcement
has come.
6. Social
and Economic Issues. The PC(USA) has given public testimony
on a wide range of issues, and its positions have an impressive
continuity over many decades. (They are summarized in the Presbyterian
Social Witness Policy Compilation, PDS Order Number 68-600-99-001.)
Two important documents are coming to this General
Assembly. The Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy (ACSWP) will
bring a report calling for "restorative justice" as the basic
orientation for the criminal justice system. And the ACSWP and the
Advisory Committee on Litigation will be bringing their response to an
earlier Assembly's request for clarification of the church's position on
late-term abortions.
The historic task of the Witherspoon Society has been
to champion this heritage and guard against a weakening of our church's
testimony in society. Witherspoon does not do it alone, of course; there
are many other organizations, including the Presbyterian Peace
Fellowship, Presbyterians for Restoring Creation, and others that deal
with particular issues. Many of these groups belonged to Semper
Reformanda, where they networked with each other in order to avoid the
problems of a "single-issue" approach, and this continues to
be a part of Witherspoon's heritage and program. Another part of that
commitment is to ongoing theological reflection on the whole gospel as
the thread that ties all the issues together.
We do not forget, despite the recent defeat of
Amendment A on the ordination question, our church's historic stance in
opposition to discrimination against gays and lesbians in civil law. And
we do not forget the continuing injustice of the scapegoating of gays
and lesbians as the chief sinners of our time and their exclusion from
ordination.
| Here are the most "high-impact"
overtures coming to the Assembly:
1. The Church Polity Committee will consider
several overtures to require two-thirds vote of the General
Assembly and/or the presbyteries to amend the Book of Order.
Such a measure, because of its far-reaching effects, should be
approved by a two-thirds vote, not a simple majority.
2. The General Assembly Procedures Committee
will consider an overture to change the process for naming
members of the General Assembly Nominating Committee. Because
this committee has national responsibilities, its members should
continue to be appointed by the Moderator of each General
Assembly.
NOTE: The above point is corrected
from the version published in Network News. We apologize
for the error!
3. The Confessions and Christology Committee
will consider a number of overtures, some asking for an
affirmation of the Lordship of Christ, some for an authoritative
interpretation of the first ordination question (Jesus Christ as
"Lord of all and Head of the Church"), some for an
affirmation of three points -- the Lordship of Christ, the
authority of the Bible, and the ordination standards. We believe
it is important to consider the full range of the Book of
Confessions and avoid simple summaries, especially if they do
not go through the process for adopting confessions. |
