Kruse Kronicle

Koster Presbyterian Outlook Article

—

by

mwkruse
in

How It Is That the General Assembly Did Not Authorize "Local Option" is an interesting article in the Presbyterian Outlook about the PUP report implications by presbytery stated clerk Edward Koster.

Koster notes that the line about review by governing bodies was altered to read:

Whether the examination and ordination and installation decision comply with the constitution of the PCUSA, and whether the ordaining/installing body has conducted its examination reasonably, responsibly, prayerfully, and deliberately in deciding to ordain a candidate for church office is subject to review by higher governing bodies.

The underlined portion is the part that was changed on the floor. It made clear that the higher governing denominational courts could review the process and the content of the decision. Koster believes this closes the "loophole" that allows presbyteries to ordain anyone they see fit. I agree that the additions to the statement were positive and helpful, but I am unpersuaded that they accomplish what Koster has concluded.

We have said to the presbyteries/sessions that they may discern what is essential and grant scruples accordingly. If a presbytery/session using sound procedures opts to ordain someone who has a scruple contrary to the Constitution, then there is no basis on which to reverse their decision. Compliance may be reviewed, but a simple lack of compliance cannot be a basis for reversal; otherwise, why have the scruple process in the first place? Nothing in the Constitution is essential unless a presbytery/session says it is; otherwise, we would not allow them to "scrupple" any and all parts of the Constitution. With no denominational statement on what is essential, on what basis would a higher judicatory challenge a presbytery's or congregation's decision?

Effectively, the higher judicatories may only review constitutional compliance for questions related to some unarticulated scruple that did not receive approval. As I read it, declared scruples accepted by a presbytery/session are untouchable by the higher governing body about constitutional compliance. The higher judicatories have abdicated their authority to contradict what a presbytery/session says is essential. Consequently, we have established the prospect of 173 versions of the essential tenets of the reformed faith for ministers of the word and sacrament and 11,000 for elders and deacons. With these changes' confusion and chaos, the PUP report needs to be relabeled as the "Presbyterian Lawyers Full Employment Act."

 

Comments

7 responses to “Koster Presbyterian Outlook Article”

  1. gruntled Avatar
    gruntled

    Michael, I think you are being too pessimistic here. The amendment above (which was actually added in committee, rather than on the Assembly floor) does make clearer that judicial review includes the substance as well as the process of the decision. However, the representative of the Advisory Committee on the Constitution was pressed on this question repeatedly. He said that the language that the Task Force used came from judicial decisions. On the basis of this language (the Task force added only “prayerfully”) the various PJCs have several times ruled on the substance of examinations, as well as the process.
    For example, if a session approved an elder who acknowledged being an atheist (which is not very far from what happened in Austin), the PJC could — and surely would — rule that that violated an essential tenet of the Reformed faith. No matter what the session might allow.

    Reply
  2. Michael Kruse Avatar
    Michael Kruse

    Thanks for the correction about the amendment. As I reflect, you are right about the “compliance with constitution” clause being added in committee although I think the words “ordination and installation” were added on the floor.
    As you noted in your book, the creation of the Book of Confessions effectively demoted any confessional statement as the governing document in the life of the church. That has shifted the focus to the Book of Order as the governing authority. Now the Book of Order may be scrupled, thus demoting the Book of Order from a position of governing authority and placing something called “essential tenets” as the governing authority. What are these essential tenets? You wrote:
    “For example, if a session approved an elder who acknowledged being an atheist (which is not very far from what happened in Austin), the PJC could — and surely would — rule that that violated an essential tenet of the Reformed faith.”
    On what basis? Where is there an essential tenet articulated that says someone has to believe in God to be a Christian? We have statements about this all through our Confessions and we ask new members to affirm that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior, but where is the document that says this is essential?
    If, as you say, the GAPJC can overule a lower governing body’s determiniation as to what is essential, then have they not become a de facto oligarchy that determines what is essential for the PCUSA? Since there is no list of tenets, the tenets become whatever is in the mind of the PJC at the time they make a ruling. This is a devolution from Lex Rex (The Law is King) to Rex Lex (The King, or oligarchy in this case, is Law).
    If confessions are not to be our determinitve guide, and the Book of Order is not to be our determinitve guide, and the “essential tenets” are to be the one true authority, then those essential tents must be stated up front. Otherwise the the GAPJC merely becomes a small college of bishops deciding what is doctrine for the church.
    “Essential tenets” are really nothing more than a type of confession. We are telling the church to be guided by a non-existent confession! A confession does not exist until it is confessed. The “essential tenets” do not exist until they are confessed. Once confessed, each individual can clearly see where the boundaries are and self select themselves in to, our out of, the community. It makes a for considerable harmony and unity because everyone who has opted in has clear vision about what is expected of them. Only the occasional case at the margins of the boundaries becomes an issue.
    It is not a good thing to have each session and presbytery wrestling with where the boundaries are. Ill defined boundaries ALWAYS leads to choas and power struggles! If there is any role that the GA serves, in concurence with the ratification provisions by presbyteries, it is as a boundary setting and maintainig entity. The GA is the place where the boundaries are set and maintained, precisely to free lowering governing bodies and individuals from wrangling about the boundaries, thus empowering them to dive headlong into mission. The GA has abdicated this role either to lower governing bodies as I have described or to an oligarchy which I think is the net effect of the scenario you describe.

    Reply
  3. Dave Van Dyke Avatar
    Dave Van Dyke

    I’ve appreciated your insights, Michael.
    Given our denomination’s track record with wacky judicial case rulings lately, I don’t expect our constitution to be fairly applied by some of our courts no matter how this is worded!
    My question: suppose a person is successfully ordained by declaring a scruple concerning the fidelity/chastity standard. Does that person get a free pass in that scruple area for the rest of his/her ministry OR will that person be subject to charges/disciplinary proceedings for violating the fidelity/chastity standard despite their declared scruple at ordination???
    Never a dull moment to be a Presbyterian…
    For the Kingdom,
    Dave Van Dyke

    Reply
  4. Michael Kruse Avatar
    Michael Kruse

    I have not read a good description of exactly how this process works. If you are out there Beau, you may know more about the history of how this stuff works. I seem to recall that the scrupple is kept in an offcial record. I think the presbytery/session then acknowledges the existence of that scrupple annually. My memory on this is really foggy so don’t use me as a source. Anyone else know more?

    Reply
  5. will spotts Avatar
    will spotts

    Mike,
    I concur that this was an unwise choice. The commissioners knew going in that they lacked the support of a large portion of the church, yet they approved this anyway, with a clear, but by no means overwhelming majority.
    I agree that this can only lead to greater constitutional chaos — if, contrary to the view of some members of the PUP task force, we have a constitution at all.
    I personally feel that, even given attempts to amend the more disputed portions, an awareness of the media coverage should have been on commissioners’ minds, but apparently was not.
    I’m not convinced in practical terms we’ll be in a very different positions.
    But a more pressing question to me is what to do about the situation we find ourselves in. The reaction I’m seeing seems out of keeping with the situation. I found this GA, admittedly measured by the low standard of recent GA’s, to be considerably more independent, and to possibly signal a (granted tiny) change in direction. It strikes me almost as if there has been so much pent up frustration that people are determined to react now. (I don’t know if I’m misperceiving this or not . . . but its the sense I’m getting.)
    So – I guess what I’m asking is: what do you think the chances are of a reversal of this decision?

    Reply
  6. Michael Kruse Avatar
    Michael Kruse

    “what do you think the chances are of a reversal of this decision?”
    Excellent question but I am going to hold off on giving my take just yet. (Maybe next week.) I will say that I think this action is a symptom of a larger problem, not the problem itself. I am just to swamped at the moment to address this the way I want to but I think it all comes back vision. I don’t believe that left, right, or loyalists offer us healthy visions of being the church.
    What do you (or others) think?

    Reply
  7. will spotts Avatar
    will spotts

    I’m inclined to agree with you on this. But I suspect I need to give the topic a whole lot more thought. (Personally I can see ways around this logjam that won’t involved committing constitutional hari kari. But I’m also a little concerned that we also may be dealing with radically opposing perspectives. I’d like for everyone to be patient and actually see how great the “gulf” is. Honestly, I don’t think the GA intended or thought it was making a bad decision — and to me, I’m not sure the acutal language doesn’t signal that they meant to head off local option — apparently without success.)

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Kruse Kronicle

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading