Dear Editor,

I observed the trial of the case of Norman Blessing vs. the Session of First Presbyterian Church in Sebastian, Florida in person. I attended for several reasons. The case deals with issues at the heart of the conflict within our denomination. I had never witnessed an ecclesiastical trial. It appears that the disagreement between the session and Mr. Blessing was the beginning of a proxy fight. And, I believe that this case is the beginning of the transition of the struggle from legislation to litigation. Here are some of my observations.

It was clear that the complainant, his wife, and the pastor of the Sebastian Church were passionate about the issues raised. Mr. Blessing, together with his wife, had worked hard to gather backing among the session and congregation of the church to have the session rescind the session’s statement but resoundingly failed. In Mrs. Blessing’s testimony her strong feelings about the issues were clear both in her testimony and changing her membership from the Sebastian church to another local Presbyterian church. It was readily apparent that this issue was painful to her.

Rev. Lea clearly has a pastor’s heart. In the nervous minutes before the trial I observed her writing cards to members of the congregation. The complainant’s witnesses testified that despite the conflict Rev. Lea remained a friend and a pastor to them and they never doubted her love for them. As moderator of the session Rev. Lea allowed Mr. Blessing to state his case repeatedly and at length. She clearly strives to walk the sometimes-difficult line of striving for the peace, unity, and purity of the church.

As the press has already reported the complainant’s counsel was impressive with some coming from out-of-state to argue this case. As they assembled at the complainant’s table there was a shuffling as they attempted to find room for Mr. Blessing and his large contingent of counsel. It certainly appears that this complaint was being supported by something far larger than a single elder.

I am often frustrated when I listen to attorneys and politicians argue their cases and this was no exception. Mr. Blessing testified and it was argued by his counsel several times that it is ok for sessions to adopt statements of faith, mission statements, and goals but that a session had no authority to adopt a confession. Then, throughout the trial, Mr. Blessing’s counsel continued to equate any confession a session might make to a confession that is part of our constitution. This is clearly not true! A confession is a statement-of-faith, a statement-of-faith is a confession. There are many statements of faith that are titled confessions and are never confused with
the confessions (statements of faith) in our constitution. It did not matter that the three affirmations adopted by the Sebastian session were those about which the moderator of GA said, “Every Presbyterian believes those things” or that they were documentably based upon scripture, the Book of Confessions, and the Book of Order. Mr. Blessing and his wife insisted that was improper unless they were nothing more than the exact words used in the Book of Confessions. Much to my disbelief, they insisted that paraphrases and other statements that are in complete accord with the constitutional and adopted statements of the church would not be acceptable.

I also struggled with the argument that the nine ordination questions of G-14.0207 are the “universal standards” for ordination as argued by Mr. Blessings counsel. These ordination vows are important, vital and significant questions. They are, however, by no means the only standards for ordination. The session is also responsible for examining with those elected to office “as to their personal faith, knowledge of the doctrine, government, and discipline contained in the constitution of the church; and the duties of the office (G-14.205).” The Book of Order also contains many other qualifications for ordination that are not part of the nine ordination questions including the notable G-6.0106b.

I cannot comprehend how a session adopting a confession that is consistent with scripture, our constitutional documents, and adopted denominational statements can be in conflict with provisions for amending the Book of Confessions. They are two unrelated issues! I am deeply troubled that a session’s confession (whose theological contents are consistent with scripture and our constitution) is in anyway construed as being related to amending the Book of Order. Unfortunately, I believe the word confession” has clouded the issue.

Regarding ordination standards, perhaps the Sebastian session is guilty of putting on paper the standards by which they will fulfill their constitutional duty to examine elected elders and deacons on issues that include personal faith. In recent history our denomination has been reluctant to adopt such standards while at the same time affirming that “essential tenets of the reformed faith” exist. These tenets are to be used by sessions when examining church officers and presbyteries in examining candidates for ordination. Whether the theological and faith standards for ordination are written and adopted in advance or left unwritten, governing bodies including sessions are responsible for determining if a person’s Christian faith and views in theology are appropriate for the office that they are to hold. This required examination is a serious and solemn duty to be approached in humility.

The argument that could have been made would be that the requirement for elders, deacons, and those employed in ministry positions to “affirm” the three affirmations of the Confessing Church Movement is a violation of “freedom of conscience.” While the freedom of conscience of those who are ordained is bound and limited, and while they might not affirm the details of the affirmations, might agree to “uphold” them actively or passively. However, it still remains the responsibility of the ordaining body to determine if the personal faith and theological views of those seeking ordination are within the boundaries of the faith affirmed by our denomination.

I am deeply troubled by this decision and I have no doubt that I am not alone. Acknowledging that I do not have all the information the PJC had available to them, I will seek to learn and to listen. However, as one who was there and having read the letter written to the Sebastian church I strongly disagree with their findings. I also believe that most people who simply read the letter to the Sebastian church will have difficulty understanding how a session's confession (whose theology is not questioned in the PJC’s response) can in anyway be in violation of the Book of Order’s requirements for amending the Book of Confessions.