*Many thanks to those
who sent messages asking if I am alright following this long span between the
first and second installments of this exploration of ordination standards. I have been down with a bout of pneumonia for
a few weeks, but I am back on my feet and ready to stir the pot!
The first post of this series set the question before us
regarding ordination in the PC(USA).
That question is:
Under the current
constitution, does the PC(USA) have any standards of behavior for those seeking
or in ordained offices in the church?
The short answer demonstrated in the first post is that, yes
there are indeed standards for ordered ministry in the church. Whether those standards are “standards of
behavior” sought by some in the church is a different question. But the accusation that there are somehow no
standards is on its face a falsehood.
In this second installment I turn to the role of scripture
and confessions. All those ordained or
installed to office in the PC(USA) affirm that they acknowledge scripture “to
be, by the Holy Spirit, the unique and authoritative witness to Jesus Christ in
the Church universal and God’s Word to you” and “the essential tenants of the
Reformed faith as expressed in the confessions of our church as authentic and
reliable expositions of what Scripture leads us to believe and do.” Affirmative answers to these two questions
(the second and third ordination vows) are an absolute requirement for
ordination.
So what does it mean to hold these two vows concerning
scripture and confession?
Perhaps a good place to start is to observe what is not said
in these two vows. Scripture is not
referred to as infallible, inerrant or without error. In the
Reformed tradition, scripture is not a substitute for history or even an all-inclusive
“to-do” manual for virtuous living. It
is instead the “unique and authoritative witness to Jesus Christ” the true Word
in whom we find life, grace and the love of God. This second ordination vow binds the ordained
to understand the fullness of scripture as the exposition of God’s work in the
world in the person of Jesus Christ.
The third vow, concerning the confessions, is more difficult
to parse. Although it includes the
phrase “essential tenants” of the Reformed faith, the church has consistently
held over the last century that no such list may rightly be made. To take certain ideas as “essential” is to
lift those above all others as though the church in any age can know,
exhaustively, what belief is essential and what is nonessential. Keeping with the centuries old Reformed
tradition of allowing the Spirit to work as it will in each generation of the
church, the church has resisted the temptation to hash out a set list of
essentials. This has been a source of
anxiety for some in the church, but it is in keeping with our tradition. What is clear is that no essential list
exists and there is no implication in this vow that the ordained will subscribe
to any such list.
That these two vows do not express a rigid framework of
belief and practice is at the root of much of our current debate over
ordination and the perception of some that there are no standards any
longer.
In addition to resisting the making of such a list of
standards on a national level, the church has also indicated that the making a
list of essentials by presbyteries or congregations is contrary to the
constitution. Each individual must be
judged on a case by case basis. How,
then, might scripture and confession be tools for examining the suitability of
an individual for ordination if there is no structured framework clearly delineating
what behavior is in and what is outside the bounds?
Because the question of human sexuality is such a loaded
topic and one that causes many in the church to shut out any contrary argument,
I propose considering this question in light of another, albeit smaller, point of
disagreement among many in the church: corporal punishment. Although not as emotionally charged, it is
similar in three important ways. First,
it is a matter on which the church is, as evidenced by GA votes, mostly evenly
divided. Second, it is a matter of
conflict in biblical interpretation. And
third, it is a matter on which the church has taken a stand, but has not
included as a matter of constitutional mandate.
At GA this summer, commissioners were asked to consider a
piece of business concerning a position for the PC(USA) on the issue of
corporal punishment of children. The
assembly voted 334-306-9 in favor of the resolution opposing spanking and
paddling children. The vote and the lengthy floor debate showed
deeply rooted feelings on both sides of the issue. Those feelings were rooted in faithful
interpretations of scripture. For some,
scripture is clear in its allowance for parent’s to responsibly punish their
children including by spanking (Prov. 13:24)
For others, spanking or paddling a child is offensive to scripture based
on Jesus’ preferential treatment of children and his charge that we care for
them. How, this reasoning goes, can you
simultaneously care for and strike a child?
Both sides of this argument found purchase for their position in
scripture and both argued from the perspective of faithfulness and a sense of
the witness of scripture.
In the end, the GA voted to issue a statement condemning, on
biblical and theological grounds, the practice of corporal punishment. What then is to be done with a candidate for
ministry who will not unequivocally state that s/he will not ever spank their
child? How is that person to be judged?
The GA has made a position known, but has not made adherence to a set practice
mandatory for ordination or installation.
What is to be done with this candidate in this circumstance?
The answer is found, I believe, in the very nuance that so
frequently frustrates many on the issue of human sexuality. If that candidate says, “if my child
misbehaves and I believe it is the right action, yes, I would spank my child,”
that person has articulated a position that is counter to a statement of the
church. Is that disqualifying? Certainly not. A candidate’s claiming of a position that is
counter to an “official” position of the church but not contrary to his or her
vows of ordination is not disqualifying. What if that same person claimed that it is
morally acceptable to beat their children to ensure their good behavior? There is no specific provision of the
constitution that prohibits child-beaters from being ordained. I cannot imagine that there is a presbytery
or congregation in the PC(USA) that would even entertain the idea of ordaining
that person.
The behavior speaks to its underlying virtue or, in the
latter case, lack thereof. The behavioral
standard is not to do or refrain from doing a particular thing, but whether or
not that action points toward a life of faithful virtue lived in response to
the word of God.
In the end, the question of what behavior is and is not
acceptable is not something that can be easily articulated or codified. Virtuous living is slippery and resists easy
definition. Still, to paraphrase Justice
Potter Stewart, we know it when we see it.[i]
I believe that a parent striking a child
is counter to Jesus’ command to care for children. But that does not mean that I can discount
the fullness of the life of a person who disagrees with that position. My reading of scripture and the confessions
leads me to one conclusion while someone else may be led to another one. That the two can exist together is not a sign
of weak biblical interpretation but a sign that none of us can lay claim to the
fullness of the witness of scripture or declare once and for all that there is
but one interpretation valid for the church.
The vows concerning scripture and confessions lead us to
consider how we live in light of expansive witness to Jesus Christ. The shape and form of what may rightly be
called a virtuous life or a life in which behavior is consistent with the
witness of scripture and confessions may take many forms. The challenge for the church is to recognize
that there may be more than one way show, in our living, love for and obedience
to God.
[i]
Stewart famously said of pornography, “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I
understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core
pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so.
But I know it when I see it…” Jacobellis vs. Ohio 378 U.S. 104 (1964)
No comments:
Post a Comment