Decision in Sebastian case: a serious distortion
By Winfield Casey Jones

"...this decision, if sustained, is a judicial overreaching that could easily lead us into uncharted waters which will threaten the peace, unity, and purity of the PCUSA more than any other event or movement ever could..."

The apparent decision of the Permanent Judicial Commission of Central Florida Presbytery to require First Presbyterian Church of Sebastian Florida to withdraw certain statements it adopted when joining the movement of confessing churches seems on its face to be an unprecedented, over-reaching and radical limitation on the powers of sessions both to bear witness to the truth as they see it and to examine officers as provided for in G-14.0205. I think this decision, if sustained, is a judicial overreaching that could easily lead us into uncharted waters which will threaten the peace, unity, and purity of the PCUSA more than any other event or movement ever could. (I will not address here the other erroneous assertion made by complainants that a church in the US, with all the First Amendment protections of the "free exercise of religion" by our Constitution, cannot set whatever doctrinal standards it wishes for those it employs.)

The presbytery PJC is reported to have said that "ordination and/or installation as officers requires affirmative answers to only the nine questions set forth in G-14.0207." The PJC is also reported to have ordered that this statement along with the ordination/installation/commissioning questions be printed in the congregation’s newsletter.

Of course the flaw in the commission’s statement is that there are more requirements for ordination/installation than simply responding affirmatively to questions asked in the ordination/installation vows. First of all elders, deacons and ministers of Word and Sacraments must be trained and then examined. (I am on the examinations committee of our presbytery. We often take an hour to examine each minister or commissioned lay pastor who comes before us. We do not simply ask those who come before us if they are willing to answer affirmatively the ordination/installation vows. If that were all there was to it, our committee would have no reason to exist.)

In the case of elders and deacons, unlike ministers who are trained by a seminary but examined by a presbytery, the Book of Order requires both that their training be assured by the session and that they then be examined by the session. Specifically they are to be examined, among other things, in "doctrine." (G-14.0205) Inasmuch as the third ordination vow requires that those being examined will soon promise to "receive and adopt the essential tenets of the Reformed faith as expressed in the confessions of our church...." it seems---in the absence of a declaration by the General Assembly or some higher governing body as to what these essential tenets are-- that the examining body’s opinion as to what the essentials are is extremely important, even determinative.

In past correspondence with the office of the stated clerk (under both Jim Andrews and Cliff Kirkpatrick) about essential tenets, that office has cited a 1986 statement, 198th G.A. Minutes, 29.207 (c): "The confessions are serious statements and are ‘not to be taken lightly.’ While neither General Assembly nor any presbytery or session should demand adherence to any specific list of beliefs or doctrinal statements as if the content of the faith could be reduced to a few selected and precisely worded statements of doctrine, General Assemblies, synods, presbyteries and sessions have the responsibility for determining on a case by case basis whether candidates for ordination adhere to the standards of doctrine as set out in the confessions."

There are several things to note about this statement, so often cited by those who are opposed to a listing by any governing body of what it considers to be essentials. First of all it is not a part of our Constitution, but rather it is the opinion of a particular General Assembly. (I will come back to this in points 2 and 5)

1. The 1986 General Assembly statement says no governing body "should" demand adherence to a list. It does not say governing bodies "shall" not do this. This is very important.

2. Even if the 1986 General Assembly had said that no governing body "shall" have a list of essential doctrines, arguably such a statement would not be binding unless it were in our Constitution. (In other words, such a "shall" would need to be in our Book of Order.)

3. General Assemblies have made statements since 1986 which seem to move away from the statement of that year’s Assembly. In 1993 in response to Overture 92-38 from the Presbytery of Elizabeth proposing a list of essential tenets to be adopted by the Assembly and put in the Form of Government, the Assembly did express concern that "stipulating an official list of ‘essential tenets’ as does this overture, could be misunderstood as substituting the list for the process of continuous engagement" with the confessions. (38.098 3)

However this later GA action does not repeat the assertion that sessions and presbyteries should not make a list of tenets, and the Assembly reaffirmed importantly, "Judgments as to whether a candidate for ordination is prepared to respond credibly to all the ordination vows... are the responsibility of the particular governing body charged with that candidate’s preparation and examination." (emphasis added)

4. In response to Overture 96-32 from the Presbytery of New Covenant, which would have made the beliefs in chapter II of the Form of Government essential tenets, the Assembly, by a 2 to 1 vote, rejected the overture. However this overture envisioned agreement on a denomination-wide list of essentials taken from the Form of Government - a part of the Plan of Reunion adopted in 1983. The issue was never over the right of sessions or presbyteries to come up with their own sense of what the essential tenets are! In fact those same 208th General Assembly Minutes also contain a statement from the Advisory Committee on the Constitution, which said something fascinating. Their statement said that the contents of Chapter 2 of the Form of Government, which Overture 96-32 would have designated as essential tenets, were too broad. The ACC report adopted by the Assembly did not quarrel with the idea of a list of essentials, but it said that such a list would need to be more succinct! "The doctrines of G-2.0300-.0500 are expressed in broad, general language which does not lend itself to the concept of essential tenets. " 208th G.A. Minutes, 21.010. And again, the issue has always been whether the Assembly should adopt a list of essentials. To my knowledge the Central Florida PJC decision is the first time in recent memory that someone is saying a session can’t adopt such a list!

5. Of course, as stated in number 2 above, what our Constitution says is more authoritative than what General Assembly says. G-6.0108 a and b say: "it is necessary to the health and integrity of the church that the persons who serve in it as officers shall adhere to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity as expressed in the The Book of Confessions and the Form of Government... The decision as to whether a person has departed from the essentials of Reformed faith and polity is made initially by the individual concerned but ultimately becomes the responsibility of the governing body in which he or she serves."

This clearly means that governing bodies must set certain theological boundaries, based on our confessions. In refusing to define even one of the essential tenets referred to in the third ordination vow, successive General Assemblies have declined to set these boundaries, and so sessions and presbyteries must set them if the third ordination vow is to have any integrity at all. Moreover, to say, as the Central Florida PJC seems to have said, that these boundaries can never be explicit but must be implicit, or to say that they can only be identified "after the fact" is both fanciful and unrealistic. Functional families tell you where the boundaries are before you over-step them. Only in dysfunctional family systems do you not know where the boundaries are until you have stepped over them! Sessions have the responsibility to see that those elected to office have completed " a period of study and preparation" and after that period, sessions "shall examine them as to their personal faith, knowledge of the doctrine, government and discipline contained in the Constitution....." ( G-14.0205) It is clear that a session’s examination on doctrine will reflect the session’s own understanding of what the confessions teach and of what it means to promise in th third vow "to receive and adopt the essential tenets of the Reformed faith....as expressed in the confessions of our church...."

When one hears about the decision of the Central Florida presbytery PJC, one gets the feeling that that particular commission imagines that we have a Constitution where officers take vows, but are neither trained in doctrine nor examined in doctrine by sessions. This is a serious distortion of Presbyterian theory, practice, and history. G-9.0102 b says of governing bodies, of which the session is the first listed (G-9.0101), "They may frame symbols of faith, bear testimony against error in doctrine or immorality in life, resolve questions of doctrine and discipline, give counsel in matters of conscience, and decide issues properly brought before them under the provisions of the Book of Order... They have responsibility for the leadership, guidance, and government of that portion of the church which is under their jurisdiction." And to reiterate, G-6.0108a says that "it is necessary to the health and integrity of the church that officers adhere to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity as expressed in the Book of Confessions and the Form of Government." I personally believe that when General Assemblies refuse to tell us what even one of those essentials is, as they have in the past, the church’s health and integrity begin to be threatened. But if this new decision stands--that in the absence of any Assembly declaration on the meaning of the third ordination vow, sessions too shall be prohibited from declaring by their best lights what they believe these essentials to be so that officers under their supervision shall not depart from them--then the health and integrity of the church will be even more threatened than they have been up until now because sessions will no longer be able to do what they are called to do in G-6.0108b, in G-14.0205, in G-9.0102b and with regard to determining whether officers are "prepared to respond credibly to all the ordination vows" which are specified in G-14.0207.

Winfield Casey Jones is pastor of the First Presbyterian Church in Pearland, Texas