You're A Prayer for Owen Meany!
by John Irving
Despite humble and perhaps literally small beginnings, you inspire
faith in almost everyone you know. You are an agent of higher powers, and you manifest
this fact in mysterious and loud ways. A sense of destiny pervades your every waking
moment, and you prepare with great detail for destiny fulfilled. When you speak, IT
SOUNDS LIKE THIS!
Take the Book Quiz
at the Blue Pyramid.
I have opposed this Iraq War since it was first suggested. My original reasons were Christian. Long ago Augustine proposed the Just War Theory. It basically says that for a war to be just it has to meet the following criteria:
Before I explain why the current Iraq War does not meet these criteria, let me add one caveat to Just War Theory: war is always evil. Sometimes, alas, it is the least evil choice in this messed up, sinful world.
Having said that, the Iraq War fails to meet the first, third, fourth and fifth and sixth criteria listed above.
A just war has to have a just cause. This basically means that one’s country has been attacked or another country has been attack and one’s country comes to the defense of the other country. President Bush and his aides promoted the Iraq War by calling for a preventative war. A preventative war cannot be just because one’s country is not under attack. Even the threat of potential weapons of mass destruction fails under this theory, not because no such weapons were found but rather because the U.N. inspectors were doing an adequate job, not of finding weapons of mass destruction but rather of preventing Saddam Hussein from using them, if they existed, the presence of the inspectors did not allow for sufficient space to make and deploy the weapons.
Further, the argument that Saddam Hussein supported Al Qaeda is laughable. Radical Islamicists hated Saddam Hussein as much as they hate us.
A just war has to be declared by a proper authority. This basically means that a legitimate government has to declare the war. I let this one go because the president did go to congress and get its permission. Still, a little more attention to the truth would make this criteria more justifiable.
A just war has to possess a right intention. Hmmm . . . What were our intentions again? The stated intention was to remove the threat of weapons of mass destruction. But evidence has come out that the administration knew that weapons of mass destruction, at least nuclear weapons, were not in
Now if one makes the argument that the people of
A just war has to be the last resort. In 2003 were there other actions the
Oh, and I have to say here, because I have to say it somewhere: the sanctions and the oil for food policies weren’t working. They weren’t working partially because some UN officials and others got very rich selling oil on the side for Saddam Hussein and also because Saddam Hussein didn’t care if the middle class of
Whew! Having got that out of my system:
A just war has to have a reasonable chance of success. Well, we did succeed, didn’t we? Saddam Hussein is dead and the Baath party is destroyed. So why are civilians and soldiers dying every day in
The ultimate result seems to be, no matter how many troops we pour into
By the measurement of number of deaths the Iraqis were better off under Saddam Hussein! At least under his rule only the army or the secret police might come and kidnap you in the middle of the night. Now kidnapping is a growth industry in
Please notice I’m not arguing that Saddam Hussein provided good or just rule in
In just war the end has to be proportional to the means. Curiously this can be argued two different ways. On the one hand, the amount of bombs we dropped on populated areas in
On the other hand, there is the Powell Doctrine. Colin Powell, after his frustrating experience in
Of course, no one was listening to me in 2003. For that matter few, if any, will listen to me now. But it isn’t fair to just critique the past and then leave. So I have a proposed solution. It ain’t pretty, but it’s mine.
Anyway, that’s what this simple-minded pastor thinks.
Heresy is a bit more difficult to define. Take a look at the early Ecumenical Councils and you will see what I mean. The Monophysites and Nestorians both believed Jesus was divine and human, but their ways of explaining his divinity and humanity were messed up. Basically they either said Jesus’ divinity and humanity were mixed up together or they were so separate as to make Jesus two different persons. Both of these heresies are complicated and I am not going to go into them.
Let’s consider some modern day heresies. Some say Jesus is not the only way to salvation, that is Jesus is not the only way to be forgiven of one’s sins. The person who says this may believe that Jesus is fully human and fully God and that Jesus died for his/her sins, but that Jesus didn’t die for everyone’s sins and one can receive freedom from sin and death without believing in Jesus and becoming a Christian. Others say that the Bible is a book of nice stories but not revelation from God. Still, we can learn from those stories. This person, again, may believe that Jesus is her/his Lord and Savior, and even that he literally died and rose from the dead. She/he doesn’t believe that the Bible is God’s revelation for the salvation of humanity. They are heretics.
My personal favorite modern heresy is the attempt to name the persons of the Trinity in new and different ways. Don’t get me wrong. I don’t believe God is either male or female. God is spiritual and not physical and therefore does not have gender. And I’m all for women’s rights, including the call of God to women to be leaders in the Church. The problem with changing the names of the person’s of the Trinity is that doing so tends to mess up how we think about the Trinity.
An example. Some try to get around the masculine language by substituting the words, Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer for Father, Son and Holy Spirit. There are two problems with this language. First, God is personal. God cannot be defined by job descriptions because God is more than tasks. Second, one cannot so easily divide the work of God into tasks of the Father, tasks of the Son, and tasks of the Spirit. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all involved in creation, redemption and in sustaining the faith of the Church.
Another example. Some simply exchange the feminine “Mother” for the masculine “Father.” Again, there are at least two problems with this exchange. First, Jesus told us to call the Father, “Father.” One of the basics of being a Christian is doing what Jesus says, even if it is politically incorrect. Second, the word “Mother: may suggest or bring up images about God that are untrue. If Mother simply means one who loves and nurtures like a parent, that’s one thing. But mothers also have wombs, and some outside of the Church today, and some, yes, heretics within the Church say that God creates like a mother, that the universe was created in the womb of God. This suggests that God did not create the universe out of nothing but rather that the universe is in some way an extension of God. One more problem: with the rise of Pagan groups such as Wiccans who worship the earth mother, we Christians need to be careful with our language so as not to be heard as agreeing with those who are outside the faith and, to be blunt, wrong about who God is.
What should the Church do about heretics? Certainly we should not ordain them as Ministers of Word and Sacrament! We want people who preach and teach in our congregations to be orthodox! Imagine if someone got up in the pulpit and said that Jesus was not fully human but that his soul was divine, the rest of him was human. Such teaching would have grave effects on the belief that Jesus, the fully divine and fully human person died for our sins. Are sins only done by bodies or are they also done by minds and souls?
Just as important, we need to make sure that those who teach in our seminaries and those who teach religion in our colleges and universities, are orthodox. Do we want those who teach the future pastors of the Church to be heretics and teach heresy to them? I hope not!
It was the practice of the early Church to excommunicate heretics. I am afraid that if we did so we would have almost no church members! Try to find people who know that believing that Jesus is fully divine and fully human is important! We need to do a much better job of educating the average church member. In the 19th Century the average Presbyterian Church member could debate the doctrine of predestination with their neighbors. Of course, in the 19th Century the average Presbyterian Church member had to memorize the Westminster Shorter Catechism. Today our standards are much lower. We need to raise our standards by educating our members.
As to church leaders, particularly Ministers of Word and Sacrament, we need to do a much better job of examining them as to their fitness for office. And we need to be willing to hold all of us to account and discipline (disciple) those who stray. The Church would be the stronger if we insisted on orthodox pastors.
Serious Error
Is there a difference between heresy and serious error? I think so. Let me explain.
Some of my closest friends believe that the Bible does not teach that homosexual sexual behavior is wrong. For that matter, I know some people that believe that a man and a woman who live together and have sex outside the bonds of marriage are not wrong. And just so that you all don’t think I’m fixated on sex, there are those who claim to be Christian and think that whites are better than those of other races. And I could go on to economic theories that clearly violate the doctrine of the sovereignty of God . . .
What is the Church to do with those who are in a state of serious error? The PC (USA) makes it clear that we will not ordain someone who believes that God makes a person whose skin is one color somehow better or more equal than a person whose skin is another color and acts upon that belief by refusing church membership or leadership to those of another skin color. We have, in fact, moved this belief into the area of heresy, as well we should. To say that all humans are not equal before God because of the color of their skin or their ethnic heritage is to deny the doctrine that says all humans are created in the image of God. Should we believe that white folk are created more in the image of God than those with darker skin? Or that those from
Of course, we white Christians may not believe this heresy but it still resides down in our bones. It is one of the Great American Sins.
The great debate in the PC (USA) today, however, is over questions of sexuality. Personally I would prefer to have a debate about the uniqueness of the person and work Christ. There are far too many out there in the denomination who believe people get into heaven because they are generally good people, not like those evil sinners over there. But of course people mouth the right words, no matter what they really believe.
Anyway, about sexuality, as that is the great debate. I know, we Presbyterians do not all agree about this, but I believe that the Scriptures teach that God created humans male and female for each other. Part of this for each otherness is that men in general exhibit certain traits, at least partially genetic and partially learned, and women in general exhibit certain other traits, also partially genetic and partially learned. This is one of the reasons we need Ministers of the Word and Sacrament who are men and others who are women. In general we have different styles. And that is a good thing.
But God also created males and females for the purpose of forming lifelong relationships called marriage. Yes, part of that lifelong relationship is having children. Now I know, some people when they get married are too old to have children and some are physically unable to have children. But on a practical level if the human race is to continue we have to have children! And the best environment to raise children is in a home with two parents. And yes, (I am now about to enrage the political gay and lesbian community), all other things being equal, children are best raised in a home with a mother and a father. I believe children of both sexes need a female and a male role model. I don’t mean this in a sexist way. Fathers should wash the floors and mothers should cut the grass! I do mean, however, that a boy needs a male role model and a girl needs a positive male figure in her life. A girl needs a female role model and a boy needs a positive female figure in his life. At the very least, teens need to see how their opposite sex parent treats his/her same sex parent, (preferably in a positive way), so that he/she will know what to look for in a mate.
Will all heterosexuals get married? No, they won’t. Some have the calling described by Paul as celibacy. Others, alas, never find mates or their mates die or divorce them. It is God’s intention that sex be a part of marriage because the sexual act binds people together not just in a physical way but also in a psychological and a spiritual way. At least that is what God intends. I don’t understand how people can go out and “hook up” and not feel that something is missing. Maybe something is missing in them.
I know, some will say that as a married man I have no right to speak about the issues of the single people. Every once in a while I imagine what life would be like without my wife and I am devastated by the thought. Being single must take great courage. Just having a spouse to talk with at the end of the day is a blessed gift from God.
I do not believe that God intends for people to live together and have sex together and not be married. Here I define marriage as a lifelong commitment that has been proclaimed in some way to the community. I don’t think that all the modern trappings of marriage are necessary. In fact I find the expense of most modern American marriages obscene. I think it would be sufficient if a Christian couple, after appropriate counseling with their pastor, stood up in Sunday worship and declared that they believed God called them to be husband and wife and to promise each other to love and support one another for the rest of their lives.
As a pastor I find myself continually picking up the pieces after a couple who lived together breaks up. I know, I do the same thing after divorce and the emotional process is very similar. But at least in
Unfortunately I have to come around to the issue before the denomination: homosexual sexual behavior. I wrote all that stuff above about living together outside the bonds of marriage because that sin is much more common. The truth of the matter, however, is that I cannot believe a presbytery would ordain someone who was involved in a heterosexual sexual relationship outside the bonds of marriage. And frankly I would refuse to ordain someone as elder or deacon who had such a living arraignment.
To put it simply, the debate in the church today, when separated from the political question of ordination, is whether God creates some people with homosexual desires and blesses those desires and invites those with such desires to find mates of the same sex. Let’s assume that we are talking about a couple of men or a couple of women who deeply love each other, who will not have sex with anyone besides their partner, and who, according to the American Psychological Association are in good mental health. Is sexual behavior between two men or two women, who are lifetime, exclusive sexual partners, blessed by God or not?
I know what I am about to say will cause an outcry, but as I read the Bible, the text says that God does not bless such behavior. Besides the passages that talk specifically about homosexual sexual behavior, there is a heterosexual theme in the Bible, from the first chapters of Genesis through the final chapters of Revelation. God creates man and woman for each other. Prophets and apostles and poets write about the relationship between God and
Some might think that I should have included this in the section under sin. I include it in the category of serious error because, if a leader in the Church tells someone that their sin is not sin, that leader endangers the eternal life of that person. We have to remember that Paul does say that several categories of people, “Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the
How shall the Church deal with leaders who commit serious errors? Well, we have a process. If I “borrow” my sermons off the internet and my behavior is discovered, I am sure that the Committee on Ministry in my presbytery would at the very least warn me not to do it again or else! And if I continued in such behavior I suspect that I would be disciplined by the presbytery.
We have had this debate for the whole of my career as a Minister of Word and Sacrament. For all those years the PC (USA) has said that conducting a wedding service for two people of the same sex is not allowed, that ordaining someone who is involved in a homosexual sexual relationship is not allowed, and that God does not intend for humans, no matter what their desires may be, to participate in homosexual sexual behavior. During this time the rules of the denomination have been ignored regularly with little or no discipline for those who break the rules. It seems to me that we could at the very least begin to discipline those who break the rules, who do not keep the promise they made at ordination: “Will you be governed by our church’s polity, and will you abide by its discipline? Will you be a friend among your colleagues in ministry, working with them, subject to the ordering of God’s Word and Spirit?” (The expected answer is, “I will.” If you don’t say “I will,” you don’t get ordained or installed!)
And yes, I will go out on the limb. The time has also come to say that teaching and preaching that homosexual sexual behavior is a gift from God and not a sin is a serious error and must be disciplined.
If anyone is reading this, let the flaming begin!
More on sin and adiaphora later.
Let’s start with some basics. What does one have to believe to be a Christian? Yes, I know, being a Christian is more than affirming a bunch of statements as true and I’m going to get to that. And for that matter I would prefer to talk about belief by telling stories. I am after all a pastor. But sometimes we need shorthand. And certainly there are things that we can say Christians must believe to be Christian. This is my list.
God exists and is personal.
God created the universe.
God created humans in God’s image.
God is one God, yet has always existed in three persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. We call this the Trinity. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit agree about everything and act together. Their love for each other and for the universe they created is overwhelming
Humans a long time ago messed up really bad. We call this sin. We humans still sin.
Sin usually causes great pain, sometimes to the sinner but all too often not to the sinner but to people around the sinner.
The wages of sin is death.
Somehow sin is transmitted from one generation to the next.
We humans, no matter how hard we try, are not able to stop sinning and even if we were we would still be sinful because we inherited our sinfulness from our ancestors.
We needed God to do something about sin because we couldn’t.
God chose to do something about sin. God chose for the Son, the second person of the Trinity, to become human.
The Son, now both fully divine and fully human, was and is named Jesus.
While resident in this world, although he was still fully divine, Jesus was affected by all the things that affect humans, except he was not born sinful and he did not sin.
When the right time came along Jesus gathered disciples, taught, healed, and basically stirred up a lot of trouble because people didn’t like what he said and did.
Jesus went down to
The religious and political authorities arrested Jesus, tried him, tortured him, and put him to death.
Jesus rose bodily from the grave. His body was transformed and was no longer subject to most if not all human limitations.
The life, death and resurrection of Jesus free us from the power of sin and death.
We don’t need to do anything to earn freedom from sin and death. It is a free gift.
When Jesus left the earth he sent the Holy Spirit to be with those who believe in him to help them avoid sin, keep them faithful, and give them comfort.
God created a community called the Church that is made up of people who believe Jesus lived, died and rose again for them so that they could be forgiven and set free from the powers of sin and death. The people in this Church are called Christians.
The story of God’s dealings with humans from the beginning of the universe to the end of the first century is contained in a book we call the Bible.
The Bible mostly tells the story of God’s dealings with humans particularly about God’s chosen task of saving humans from sin and death. Although it isn’t specific about a lot of things like nuclear physics and most of human history it tells us all we need to know to believe correctly and to live correctly as God’s people.
The Church’s job in this world is to so speak and so live that others will come to believe, (with the help of the Holy Spirit), in Jesus. Part of that speaking and living must be to try and fight against the evil that still exists in the world.
Sooner or later Jesus will return and then there will be no more evil and no more pain and no more death.
That’s my list and I’m sticking to it. You may want to rephrase some of the ways I say things. You may want to argue with me about the necessity of something being on the list. Nevertheless, it’s my list. I think that believing all of these is necessary to being a Christian. They are, to use the current buzz word in the PC(USA), essential. Essentials for being a Christian, that is. Are there other essentials to being a Presbyterian? Of course! Notice I left out predestination, covenant, stewardship, salvation by grace alone and a bunch of other stuff.
Does this mean that I think there are people who claim to be Christians but aren’t? Yes. I don’t think the Mormons or the Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christians. Neither groups believe in the Trinity. In fact the Mormons believe that the Father was once a human being! They may be very nice and decent people, but they aren’t Christians.
Of course thinking the right things about God isn’t enough. One time I was reading the minutes of the Session of a congregation I served, minutes from the 1850’s. Every time the Session met with people who wanted to join the congregation, not by letter of transfer but by affirmation of faith, they examined those people “as to their doctrinal and experimental religion.” I just went through the doctrinal part. The experimental part is just as interesting.
Turns out “experimental religion” in the 1850’s was a way to talk about one’s relationship with God. Back then the Session wanted to hear about the individual’s conversion experience and about how his/her life had changed after he/she became a Christian. Nowadays I want to hear about one’s experience of the presence of God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in the life of the person who wants to join the congregation. In other words, I want to hear what they believe (doctrine) and I want to hear about how they believe (experience). The two go hand in hand.
Now let’s go on and define those words I used in the title. An apostate is a person who used to be a Christian but now says that all that stuff about God and Jesus and forgiveness through Jesus’ dying for us isn’t true. In other words an apostate is someone who used to believe but now openly says she/he no longer believes. In the early Church there was a rather dramatic test for this, produced by the Roman government. If someone was accused of being a Christian that person was invited, (dragged), down to the local police station and asked if she/he was a Christian. If she/he said no, that was the end of it. If she/he said yes, that person was asked again after being warned that persisting in believing such foolishness would result in death. At this point the person who claimed to be a Christian could say, “Sorry, just kidding!” and the police would then ask him/her to prove it by making a sacrifice on the altar of the emperor/god. (The emperor foolishly thought that if everyone in the empire thought he was a god that there would be less rebellion and a more unified empire. It didn’t work.) If the person who claimed to be a Christian continued to claim faith in Christ, she/he was asked one more time. If he/she was foolish enough to say again she/he was a Christian that person was put to death.
People who went into the police station saying they were Christians and came out alive were called apostates. Later they were allowed back into the Church after some severe discipline/discipleship. No, they weren’t spanked. They were held up in front of the congregation over a period of years as the way not to live as a Christian. At the end of that time they were allowed to receive the Lord’s Supper again.
Today becoming an apostate is easier. A person just has to say, “I don’t believe that stuff anymore.” That’s it. And no, just because someone stops coming to worship and gets dropped from the role of the congregation doesn’t mean that person is apostate. That person does need to be warned, however, that the Church is the Christian community and avoiding the Christian community is dangerous to one’s spiritual health.
This is getting too long. I’ll talk about heresy and maybe serious error in my next blog.
I admit to being embarrassed by the Presbyterian Church sometimes. A year ago my doctor gave my wife a lecture about the 2004 GA decision about divestment in
But I'm not leaving the PCUSA. It would be better to say I can't leave the PCUSA.
I believe the only time to leave a denomination is when the denomination either becomes apostate or an action of the denomination would cause one to do something that is against one's conscience. We aren't there.
I read yesterday that a minister in Florida is leaving for the EPC with most of his congregation because he thinks the PCUSA is apostate because of the PUP report. I didn't and still don't approve of the PUP report. I was a overture advocate from my presbytery to speak against the PUP report. But was the PUP report apostate?
Let's define the word: "One who has abandoned one's religious faith, a political party, one's principles, or a cause." (from TheFreeDictionary. Yes, I Googled it.) Has the PCUSA abandoned the one true Christian faith? I think not. We have a Book of Confessions that every ordained person in the denomination affirms contains the "essentials of the Reformed faith." We haven't declared that the Book of Confessions is wrong. We say as a denomination that we believe in the one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in the full divinity and humanity of Jesus, in the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross for the forgiveness of sins, in salvation by grace alone, salvation by faith alone, and the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures for for faith and life. Even people who think the PUP report didn't change anything and is the greatest thing since sliced bread in the PCUSA believe all that. Well, most of us. Governing bodies do make mistakes sometimes in our examination of candidates. To quote the Westminster Confession: "All synods or councils since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as a help in both." (Book of Confessions, 6.175) So yes, sometimes a session or a presbytery makes a mistake and ordains someone who isn't really a Christian or who is a heretic. And yes, sessions, presbyteries, synods and general assemblies make mistakes. Sometimes they make decisions that are not in accord with the will of God or that are not Biblically grounded. But that doesn't make the denomination apostate. It makes us all together and in our various governing bodies and individually human and sinners and not God. We err. We aren't omniscient and we do sin.
Please be assured, I'm not celebrating that fact. The Church is a school for forgiven sinners. We are to teach and learn how to be more faithful Christians both in our beliefs and in our actions. But the truth is we aren't perfect.
No, I am not a Pollyanna. I work hard as a pastor to make sure that when I preach the Word it really is, to the best of my ability what the Bible says to this generation, no matter how difficult the passage may be to hear or to say. I teach the faith once received by the saints as best I can. And as a member of presbytery I stand up and shoot my mouth off and argue with the best of them. Does the session or the presbytery always bow down and say, "Yes Bob, we hear and agree with your great wisdom?" Of course not! Even my wife, wisely, does not do that! Am I sometimes wrong and the rest of the session or the rest of the presbytery right, (or maybe all of us wrong in different ways)? Of course! Am I sometimes right and the decision of the session or presbytery wrong? Probably not as often as I would like to think! But I have the obligation to state what I believe is right.
Read Church history. There never has been a time when the Church made perfect decisions and was at peace. The history of the Ecumenical Councils on the Trinity and the Divinity and Humanity of Christ read like a comedy of errors and a study in how not to come to good theological decisions. If you think Presbyterians get up to bad high jinks in our politics, read about the Robber Council of Ephesus!
Augustine was right. The Church is a bunch of sinners. But we are forgiven sinners. Don't give up on the PCUSA. And God, we Presbyterians believe, brought us together for a purpose. God isn't ready for the divorce of the PCUSA. God still has much to do through us.
The Presbyterian Coalition has done a fine job highlighting central problems with the proposed amendment
I'm going to cover a variety of stuff that may seem petty. They will not feel petty when they affect churches and ministers. Amendment A will replace the whole of Chapter 14. Other amendments move parts of the current Chapter 14 to other places in the Book of Order. I will refer to the proposed Chapter 14 sections as new 14.xxxx and the current Chapter
1. BE AWARE! All sections of Amendment A will be voted upon together. A presbytery cannot approve A1 and disapprove A2.
2. If your congregation elects elders who are under 25 to terms shorter than 3 years, the new 14.0222 makes no such provision.
3. Amendment A makes a change in the way smaller congregations make up their Nominating Committees. Currently old 14.0201c allows a congregation with fewer than 70 members to elect a smaller nominating committee with 1 member of the session and 2 members of the congregation. The new 14.0026b requires presbytery approval for a smaller Nominating Committee. Imagine how much that will be appreciated!
4. Old 14.0309d says that candidates for ministry shall not be allowed to negotiate with churches for ministerial service until he/she completes 2 years of seminary and successfully passes the 5 ordination exams. It does however allow situations in which a candidate may be allowed to start such negotiation earlier, if the presbytery approves by a ¾ vote. The reasons for the exception are to be recorded in the presbytery minutes. The new 14.0440 does not require that the reasons be recorded. While this may seem a small thing, removing the requirement to record the reasons would allow a presbytery to make an exception without providing any reason, effectively cutting off review by higher governing bodies.
5. Old 14.0310 says the presbytery certifies a candidate as ready to receive a call or may give this authority to the Committee on Preparation for Ministry, (CPM). When the presbytery gives this authority to the CPM the CPM must report the certification of a candidate to the presbytery. New 14.0450 gives the authority to certify a candidate solely to the CPM. Further the CPM is not required to report the certification to the presbytery.
6. Currently if a church has had a co-pastor model for more than three years an associate pastor currently serving in that church may be elected co-pastor if that election is approved by a ¾ vote of the presbytery (old 14.0501d). New 14.0513 does not require presbytery approval. Of course any changes in a pastor’s terms of call must be approved by the presbytery in both the old and the new Chapter 14, but by majority vote. The old 14 set a higher bar for moving an associate pastor to co-pastor as such a move can be problematic.
7. When ordaining elders and deacons old 14.0206 and 7 say the minister presiding will state the nature of the offices and ask the constitutional questions. Further concerning the ordination and/or installation of a minister of Word and Sacrament old 14.0405a and b and old 14.0510c says the member (of the presbytery or the ordaining/installing commission presiding is the person who states the nature of the offices and asks the constitutional questions. New 14.0330 says “The moderator of the governing body of those being ordained, installed, or commissioned shall ask them (the persons being ordained/installed) to stand before the body of membership and to answer the following (ordination) questions.” If a church is without a pastor and the moderator appointed by the presbytery is pastor of another congregation it will be impossible for that moderator to conduct the ordination/installation service during the regular morning worship service for the church without a pastor! There is no allowance for the moderator to appoint someone to take his/her place. Further the moderator of a presbytery would have to be present at every ordination/installation during his/her term of office. In a presbytery with many congregations this could be unbearable.
8. Old 14.0503a says that the moderator of session appointed by the presbytery or some other member of presbytery shall preside at the congregational meeting at which a pastor nominee is brought before the congregation for election. New 14.0532-3 do not say who shall preside. New 14.0533 simply refers to the moderator of the meeting. How does the moderator of the meeting get chosen? We can’t just say, “Well the Book of Order used to say it was the moderator of the session so he/she is the person referred to in the new Chapter 14!”
9. Old 14.0503b says that the election of a pastor shall be by written ballot. New 14.0532-3 do not require a written ballot. Imagine electing a new pastor by voice vote!
10. Amendment A2 a, b and c refer to advisory handbooks that agencies of the General Assembly will provide. The handbooks suggest procedures but do not require them. The presbytery, synod and GA have to have manuals of administrative operation “to provide effective guidance in the ordination, certification, commissioning and oversight of the work of ministry.” The following are things that will probably be moved to advisory handbooks and manuals of administrative operation as they are part of the old 14 and missing in the new 14
a. Old 14.0310d has definitions that describe the ordination exams. New 14.0431 just has a list of the exams. One hopes that the definitions will be in the handbook for the sake of candidates!
b. Old 14.0505 says what to do when there is a significant minority of the congregation which votes against the call of a new pastor. New 14 says nothing.
c. Old 14.054 says what to do when a candidate is elected as pastor of a larger parish. New 14 says nothing about larger parishes.
d. Old 140507a, b and c say how a call makes its way from the new presbytery of call through a minister’s old presbytery to the minister. New 14 says nothing.
e. Old 14.0510g says that the presbytery shall record that an installation has taken place. New 14 says nothing. How can there be no report of a commission appointed by the presbytery to the presbytery?
f. Old 14.0700 describes the accrediting process for a Certified Christian Educator. The accrediting process is almost completely moved to a handbook.
The Presbyterian Coalition has adequately described the larger problems with the proposed amendments. Let me add my support for their concerns. New 14.0613 says that the presbytery may dissolve the relationship between a pastor and a congregation without the request of the pastor or the congregation. It at least implies that a COM or an Administrative Commission might take this action on behalf of the presbytery. The relevant section reads: “The presbytery, through its committee on ministry or an administrative commission may inquire into reported difficulties in a congregation and may dissolve the relationship if, after consultation with the minister, the session, and the congregation (G-7.0304a(3)), it finds the church’s mission under the Word imperatively demands it.” The language seems to say that a COM may take this action on its own, as may an administrative commission. Further, what exactly are “reported difficulties?” What reported difficulties rise to the level of dissolving a relationship between a pastor and a congregation? How shall a presbytery, a COM or an administrative commission decide if the “church’s mission under the Word imperatively demands (the dissolution)?
Currently the relationship between a pastor and a congregation may be dissolved by the presbytery for three reasons:
1. When it is requested by the minister, (G-14.0602);
2. When it is requested by the congregation, (G-14.0603; and
3. When the pastor has been temporarily excluded from the exercise of the office of ordained minister (D-12.0104e).
4. “when (the presbytery) finds the church’s mission under the Word imperatively demands it.) G-11.0103o
When the minister or the congregation request the dissolution there are provisions and procedures for the minister and the congregation to tell the presbytery why the presbytery should not dissolve the relationship. In each case it says that the presbytery shall hear the reasons why the presbytery shall not dissolve the relationship. When the dissolution is the result of a disciplinary case, (item 3) the presbytery may not dissolve the relationship while there are still appeals pending. In other words, in each case the rights of all are protected. The last reads much like the wording in new 14.0613 and is in a long list of duties of the presbytery. G-11.0103o reads as follows: “to establish the pastoral relationship and dissolve it at the request of one or both parties or when it finds the church’s mission under the Word imperatively demands it.” The first two provisions are in the new Chapter 14, sections 14.0611 and 0612. If the minister requests the dissolution the congregation has the right to speak to the presbytery against the dissolution. If the congregation requests the dissolution the minister has the right to speak to the presbytery against the dissolution. But new 14.0613 allows no such protection if the presbytery seeks the dissolution! If a presbytery, a COM or an administrative commission dissolves the relationship between a minister and a congregation the presbytery need not provide any hearing before the presbytery as to why the dissolution should not be allowed. While the current 11.0103o seems to provide the same duty/right to the presbytery it does not allow a COM or an administrative commission the same power. Also, since it occurs in the list of all presbytery duties it doesn’t sound quite as bald or aggressive
Curiously, whenever a dissolution occurs the new Chapter 14 requires that a congregational meeting occur to consider the matter and to “request, consent or decline to consent to the dissolution (new 14.0610), Why make the congregation have a meeting to consider the dissolution if the presbytery does not need to listen to what the congregation has to say on the matter?
There are just too many changes for the worse and mistakes in this proposed amendment. Vote it down!
