Presbyterian Coalition - Renewal Leaders Respond

A Response by Renewal Leaders to
The Covenant Network's
"Interpreting Book of Order G-6.0106b"

Editor's Note: At their November 2003 conference, the Covenant Network distributed a paper titled “Interpreting Book of Order G-6.0106b.” The paper offers candidates for office as well as sessions and presbyteries sly ways to circumvent our denomination’s constitutional standards for ordination. Below you will find first the wording of G-6.0106b in our Constitution, second a section of what the Covenant Network paper wrote in error, and finally a critique of that section of the paper. The critique is part of a series of responses to the Covenant Network paper that appears on the Coalition’s website. Presbyterians for Renewal has posted the complete Covenant Network paper on their website so that others may view the errors firsthand. It can be found here.

What the Covenant Network erroneously contends in
"Interpreting Book of Order G-6.0106b":
“OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS”

Critique of the Covenant Network’s Interpretation of
“Other Constitutional Provisions”
by Paul Leggett

The Covenant Network paper reduces arguments about G-6.0106b to the straw-figure fallacy that “Amendment B trumps everything else in the Constitution,” as if G-6.0106b were at odds with the rest of the Constitution rather than in harmony. (Note that the authors still call our constitutional provision “Amendment B,” more than six years after a large majority of Presbyterians have made and kept it a well-defended part of our Constitution.)

The “Interpreting G-6” paper attempts to lift up “other important constitutional principles” in the interpretation of G-6.0106b. While some of the principles it cites are important, and others are overblown or misappropriated, the list as a whole seems to be an arbitrary selection. Additional principles equally important simply are not cited. The only reason apparently is that these other principles would not support the misleading interpretation the paper seeks to place on G-6.0106b.

1. Holding the Confessions subordinate to the authority of Jesus Christ as the Scriptures bear witness to him.
This phrase from our Constitution has been used by opponents of G-6.0106b to create the appearance of a conflict between Jesus Christ and the Scriptures. The critics imply that there is a difference, rather than a distinction, between Jesus Christ and the witness of Scripture. Our constitution makes no such distinction. At numerous points our Constitution calls for obedience to Holy Scripture (Book of Confessions 3.18-3.19; 5.001-5.003; 6.004; 8.04; 9.27; Book of Order G-1.0100c). The Directory for Worship states very clearly that the Word of God written (Scripture) and the Living Word (Christ) are inseparably linked (W-2.2001). To question any of the confessions, one must show that the confession contradicts Scripture in some way. The authority of Jesus Christ cannot be separated from the authority of Scripture, and there can be no basis for positing a Jesus apart from what the Scriptures authoritatively witness to us about him, which the Confessions have reliably exposited. A Jesus of personal invention may conflict with Scripture and our Confessions, but not our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

2. Recognizing that God alone is Lord of the conscience, and honoring our duty to show each other mutual forbearance in matters of conscience.
This highly selective summary statement does not do justice to the Constitution. If God alone is to be Lord of the conscience (G-1.0301(1)(a)), that means the individual is not lord of his or her own conscience. God is. With regard to any behavior which is contrary to Scripture, conscience must give way and mutual forbearance must include a gracious but clear call to repentance (Book of Confessions 6.110-6.111, 7.263, 8.18; Book of Order G-6.0108b)

3. Ensuring the right of the people to choose their leaders.
This again is a misleading statement as it stands. It means that leaders cannot be imposed from above (such as in an episcopal form of government); it doesn’t mean people can choose whomever they want as leaders in disregard of biblical and constitutional standards. Members are given the right to elect their leaders, but this is not an absolute right. Those leaders must fulfill the necessary requirements for church leadership and indeed must be examined and approved by the appropriate governing body (presbytery for ministers and session for elders and deacons) before they can be ordained or installed (Book of Order G-6.0106 a and b, G-14.0205, G-14.0314a, G-14.0507a,b).

4. Ensuring that all rights of membership (including rights to vote and hold office) are based solely and unreservedly on one’s profession of faith.
With regard to holding office, this statement is simply wrong. One’s profession of faith must be joined with all the other constitutional provisions required for holding office in the Presbyterian Church USA (Book of Order G-6.0100, G-14.0207). One cannot bundle some assumed “right” to leadership with church membership. Furthermore, even “profession of faith” ought to include consideration of a potential leader’s seriousness in making Jesus Lord in reality, not only by rote profession. That involves personal surrender and a lifestyle marked by obedience.

5. Working for reconciliation and unity amidst our diversity.
The concept “diversity” does not apply to those practices that Scripture and the Confessions call sin (Book of Confessions 4.087). Note: The comment has been made that the verse cited in this section, I Cor. 6:9, is only partially quoted in the German text of the Heidelberg Catechism. This is a strained and pointless observation. The Catechism is making reference to the whole verse.

6. Remaining open to God’s reformation of the Church.
Again this is an incomplete observation, as the texts the paper itself cites show. Reformation isn’t meant to be willy-nilly change, as if inconstancy were somehow a virtue. The reformation of the church is always to be “according to the Word of God and the call of the Spirit” (Book of Order G-2.0200). The Word and the Spirit cannot be separated; nor will they contradict each other. The reform of the church must always be based on Scripture (Book of Confessions 3.18). In the matter under debate regarding the ordination of self-affirming, practicing homosexual persons, the church has not found compelling any argument advocating the change of the historic interpretation of the Scriptures, an interpretation that has stood unchanged since God began revealing his moral will to humankind.

The Rev. Paul Leggett is pastor of Grace Presbyterian Church in Montclair, New Jersey. He is a member of the board of the Presbyterian Coalition.