Dear
Friends,
The Peace
Unity and Purity Task Force (PUP TF) seems to have come up with a
new Presbyterian game to play with the Book of Order. It’s called
“scrupling.” It originates from the old theological scrupling
that was permitted when candidates for ordination had to “subscribe”
to the Westminster Confession. When candidates were examined, they
were permitted to express doubt or disagreement with certain points
in the Westminster Confession, and then presbyteries could decide
if the scruple was sufficiently grave to exclude a candidate from
ordination.
The PUP
TF wants to apply that same approach to the Book of Order. The Book
of Order up to now has interpreted itself in the preface: “SHALL
… signif[ies] practice that is mandated”. Now if the PUP
Authoritative Interpretation passes just one general assembly, “SHALL”
might actually mean “MAY” on any given day when a session
or presbytery decides that a particular SHALL is non-essential.
Here’s
how the game is played. It starts with the reason this AI is written
– to change the SHALL in G-6.0106b in order to allow sessions
or presbyteries to ordain those who do not (and do not intend to)
in actuality abstain from sexual relations outside of the marriage
of a man and a woman. But this is a game that does not end there.
Let me
ask that we consider other SHALLs that can be scrupled. In fact, let’s
have a contest for the most creative and realistic “scrupling”
ideas that can be played. I’ll make the suggestion that comes
to my mind. Others could add their proposals over the days and weeks
ahead. Then we’ll have a vote for the best “scrupling.”
The winner could get the Book of Order archives from the whole history
of the PCUSA because they will not be worth the space it takes to
store useless material.
Here’s
my “scrupling” proposal: G-14.0506b(2) provides that “a
call shall provide for payment … for the Benefits Plan of the
PC (USA), including both pension and medical coverage …”
I can conceive of a Session approving for ordination elders who have
scruples about participation in the medical plan. The ordination standard
that has heretofore required obedience is the one in which officers
promise to be governed by the church’s polity and abide by its
discipline. It is, after all, Sessions who are given by the constitution
responsibility for church budgets and, therefore, Pension Dues payments.
I can conceive of such a session “reasonably, responsibly, prayerfully,
and deliberately”—as the Task Force report requires--examining
new elders-elect and coming to the “reasonable, responsible,
prayerful and deliberate” (in their best judgment) conclusion
that G-14.0506b(2) is not an essential of reformed polity. In others
words, non-participation in the medical benefits plan is an acceptable
scruple. And when that session has a majority of elders who share
that scruple, I can conceive that that particular church ceases to
remit medical dues for their pastor.
Of course,
that might (or might not, depending on the presbytery) occasion a
presbytery challenge to the essential-ness of that provision of the
BOO. However, the only thing challengeable would be whether the decision
to ordain elders with that conscientious scruple had been made “reasonably,
responsibly, prayerfully, and deliberately.” The outcome of
such a reasonable, responsible, prayerful and deliberate process is
not subject to further review according to this PUP-proposed AI. So
in the higher courts, the conscience of that particular session would
have to be left inviolable on this particular SHALL.
What
then about the unity of the PC (USA) medical plan?
And my
guess is that this is only the beginning of the “scrupling”
game that can be played if the next General Assembly chooses to follow
the advice of the PUP TF. Who will make the next suggestion? We’ll
keep a tally and take a vote, let’s say by Reformation Sunday?
Get your scruples ready!
James R. Tony
