Of the 10 proposed amendments to the Book of Order, none is terribly controversial. There is some question about whether a few are really necessary, but in the end their impact will be negligible and will do no harm to the church. One, proposed amendment 12-B, does raise some questions, however.
12-B proposes an addition to G-2.0104a "Gifts and Qualifications for Ordered Ministry." The proposed language would add a sentence to the text:
“This includes repentance of sin and diligent use of the means of grace.”
"This" is in reference to the previous sentence which calls on those who would be ordained and installed to ordered ministry in the church to live in a manner that exhibits "a demonstration of the Christian gospel in the church and the world."
It is a nice elaboration on the church's understanding of what it means to live a life that demonstrates the gospel and it is difficult to argue that it is somehow inappropriate as a qualification for ministry. On those points, 12-B is on solid ground. But those are not the only questions at stake when we amend our Book of Order.
After spending many years and vast sums of money to revamp our polity, we must proceed with any amending language carefully and with an eye toward preserving the advances made when our polity was simplified and streamlined.
The first question we need to ask is whether or not this provision, in its enforcement, can stand as a principle of Reformed theology. Although the notion that those in ordered ministry will repent of sin and diligently use the means of grace is a solidly Reformed principle, it presents a troubling issue for the church.
Embedding such language in our constitution imposes a requirement on councils of the church to enforce the standard. Unlike other areas in which councils enjoy latitude in interpretation (suitability for office, sufficiency of theological knowledge, etc.) this standard requires councils to determine concretely what are and are not means of grace. By what standard shall those decisions be made? Are the means of grace limited to the sacraments? Does personal devotion count as a means of grace?
Someone or some group will have to determine what are and are not means of grace. If that power is invested in an individual, such a provision would violate the very principle of Presbyterian governance and the rejection of spiritual hierarchy vested in any individual. If that power is invested in a council below the General Assembly, such a provision would violate the principle that higher councils guide lower councils. This would also lead to inevitable conflicts not only in application of the constitution but is very meaning from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Presbytery A may define the "means of grace" as the sacraments while presbytery B may define the "means of grace" as prayer and study.
Either of these solutions would violate fundamental principles of our polity and our theology of the priesthood of all believers.
The GAPJC has ruled repeatedly in recent years that presbyteries may not impose standards on candidates for ordination and/or installation that go beyond those adopted by the entire church. (I.e. a presbytery may not require a sixth ordination exam.) Proposed amendment 12-B does exactly that. It requires a council to determine, beyond the text of the constitution, what is and what is not a "means of grace."
That councils are required to go beyond the text of the constitution in violation of our current guiding polity raises the second question that must be answered: does this provision uplift or undermine the peace, unity and purity of the church?
That a governing document may contradict or limit itself is not necessarily dis-positive to its validity. Governing documents can and often do include provisions that are facially contradictory. Such contradictions are inevitably worked out through some process of discernment. In the case of the church, such a contradiction would have to be decided by either judicial process or an authoritative interpretation issued by a GA. Either solution would plunge the church into another season of judicial complaint and counter-complaint.
Why, if it is not necessary, would we impose another season of litigation on the church? What purpose is served by inserting well meaning but ill defined language into our just revised constitution?
In the end, 12-B is a solution in search of a problem. There is no evidence that there is an epidemic of unrepentant behavior among those in ordered ministry. (At least no more epidemic than it is among any population of sinful people.) There is no evidence that its inclusion in the Book of Order will clarify or enhance our polity. In truth, it may serve to confuse and undermine it.
That those in ordered ministry should be ever mindful of our sinfulness and repentant of our sins is a worthy reminder for the church. If Teaching and Ruling Elders and Deacons are to serve Christ and the church with faithfulness, we must indeed repent and encourage in one another diligent use of the means of grace. That it is wise advice is clear. That it is constitutionally necessary is not.
12-B should be defeated by the presbyteries.
Note: Edited at 12:20 pm 1/25/13 to correct a spelling mistake in the third paragraph and to finish a word that was truncated in the first paragraph when edited.
Note: Edited at 12:20 pm 1/25/13 to correct a spelling mistake in the third paragraph and to finish a word that was truncated in the first paragraph when edited.
No comments:
Post a Comment