Can a Word Definition Become a Prohibition?

This is the fifth installment in a series of blogs responding to the concurrences and dissents attached to the recent GAPJC decision Spahr v. Redwoods Presbytery (Case 220-08). While the decision itself upheld the Presbytery’s rebuke of the Rev. Jane Spahr, HR, for conducting sixteen same-sex weddings, the comments attached to it mapped out arguments for changing the definition of marriage to allow the practice. Today’s topic is the following claim:

4. A definition of marriage as between a man and a woman does not, by its presence in our Directory for Worship, prohibit marriage of same-sex couples. It was wrong for a previous PJC (in Benton) to expand a mere definition of marriage into an actual prohibition of gay marriage.

The point whittles down to the question of whether a specific definition contained in the Book of Order declares a reality that necessarily translates into an action or prohibits another. This is fundamentally a question addressed by philosophy (where I am out of my depth) and logic (where I try to stay afloat). The semantics of postmodernism enter into play, too, as definitions take on a fluid character. In this new world, it would seem that one can use a word any way one wishes and shape its meaning at will. “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is,” as President Clinton so famously nitpicked under oath.

But we are Christians and we are Presbyterians. We are also exegetes of the Scriptures, which means that we derive our understanding of concepts based on their use and development in the Bible with attention to their context. Throughout the Scriptures, any mention of marriage comes with a strong male-female prerequisite (often assumed but also often explicitly stated, as e.g. in “a man taking a woman’s hand in marriage”). In addition, there exists throughout the biblical narrative a universal condemnation of homosexual practice (always proscribed, never assumed) whether casual, cult-based, or committed. Thus, the Scriptures give us our starting point for understanding the idea that “marriage” exists only between a man and a woman; every other arrangement is out of bounds.

We can say with confidence, then, that our constitution has rightly defined the term marriage within the male-female parameter given in the Bible. The church must not change its definition of the bounds of marriage (the male-female prerequisite), or it will depart from Scripture’s teaching on the matter. As disappointed as the Spahr GAPJC was in the Benton decision, it followed Benton’s lead to honor and heed the definition of marriage found in the Book of Order.

Going further, the GAPJC in Benton was also correct to say that the parameters of God-ordained marriage forbid a homosexual equivalent. The commission did not commit biblical or theological error by extrapolating from the Book of Order definition an actual prohibition of gay marriage. That ban is a legitimate derivative of the definition of marriage and confirmed with scriptural teaching directly. And even though progressives seek a change of wording (replacing “man and woman” with “two people”), they cannot by fiat change the definition. They may seek to change the practice of the church, but such a shift does not in and of itself change the reality that God designed marriage for man and woman.

The church must be warned at this point that changing our practice would sever our ties with the anchor, the Word of God. The inevitable and tragic consequence of this freedom without limits is a drift into the postmodern sea of meaningless terminology.  

 

The Right to Marry “in the Church”?

The third major area of concern for folks desiring to see the PCUSA allow its pastors to perform same-sex weddings is a mixed bag, but I will tackle it as I originally summarized it:

3.  The definition of marriage found at W-4.9001 denies homosexuals their rights as full members of the PCUSA. Judicial precedent barring gays from marriage injures individuals and interferes with the church’s dialogue about how to celebrate the lives of homosexual people.

The first question that arises is this one: with “full membership” in the PCUSA, does one secure the right to be married by a Presbyterian pastor? No, church membership and the expectation that one would be married by a teaching elder are not connected by anything official in the Book of Order. Pastors like me have married countless couples that are not members of the congregation. It is possible that a session might create such a rule, if they enjoy a high demand for ceremonies; but there is nothing in the Book of Order that confers the rite as a right automatically upon membership.

Even couples who are members of the local congregation are not guaranteed by right to be married in their home church. The pastor always retains the discretion, after pre-marital screening and/or counseling, to respectfully decline to conduct a wedding for pastoral reasons. I have been in this awkward position only twice in 25 years of ministry, but when faced with too many red flags, the best thing I could do was decline to do the wedding and urge the couple to get in-depth counseling in order to sort out the difficult issues that emerged.

The claim that a heterosexual prerequisite to marriage injures homosexual people is more a symptom of spontaneous contusion than it is the moral failure of the church to provide pastoral care. It is part of the vocabulary of same-sex marriage proponents to attribute violence to those who would deny them marriage. Nothing of the sort is intended or inflicted by me or any person I know who is opposed to gay marriage. Ah, but you might say injury is in the eye of the beholder, to which I would reply: then it must be self-inflicted injury, because by holding to a biblical view of sexual relationships I am not hitting you. Just this afternoon, walking down the cluttered aisle of a craft store, my arm hit some shelving jutting out from the wall. Nobody did that to me; I hardly did it to myself (certainly not consciously); but it happened as a natural consequence of not walking within the safe parameters of that aisle. Homosexual people should be far more concerned about the injuries they inflict upon themselves and partners due to unnatural physical contact that damages body tissue, promiscuity even when in a declared “monogamous” relationship, not to mention the hardening of heart that occurs when one habitually disobeys God and teaches others to do the same. One must be very careful which aisle one walks down.

The prophetic ministry of the church that calls all people to godliness, obedience, and sexual purity arises out of concern for the spiritual welfare of people who must face God at judgment. I know it is not a welcome comment to make, but it was not my idea. Jesus himself out of love for those to whom he ministered warned them of the judgment to come and gave them the opportunity to repent. If uttering such a message is injurious to my gay readers, then their issue is with God directly. Presbyterian ministers are called to minister the grace and truth of the gospel to all people and have agreed on the basics of how to do this, as described in part by W-4.9000.

The grace of the gospel is expressed in tender care in times of illness, a willingness to hang out and talk at teachable moments, the practical aid all people need at one time or another, in short, sharing humanity and aspiring to godliness as it is contoured for us in the Scriptures. The truth of the gospel outlined in previous paragraphs does not diminish the love with which it is shared. Pain and heartache that result from godly decisions is a special kind of suffering that goes with dying to self. Jesus took our injuries upon himself, and many a saint since has counted it a privilege to share in his sufferings. We offer pastoral care to one another when we weep with those who weep, rejoice with those who rejoice, sigh in perplexity, and gasp at the mystery of God’s sovereignty. We celebrate together when our Christ-likeness becomes visible and tangible in everyday life. This is pastoral care at its best. May we receive it in the spirit in which it is given.

Second Class Citizenship?

 

The second argument appearing in the Spahr decision comments:

 2.  By refusing to marry homosexual pairs, the church is declaring them second-class citizens contrary to the affirmations in the Book of Order where full equality of all people in the church’s life is affirmed (citing F-1.0403, F-1.0404, G-1.0302).

Citizenship in the Kingdom of God is granted by God under certain conditions, among them 1) faith in Jesus Christ, as in John 1:12: “But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God”; 2) repentance, as in Acts 2:38: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven”; and Luke 13:3, “Unless you repent, you will all perish”; and 3) forsaking practices and prevailing sins which cannot exist in the Kingdom of God, as in 1 Cor 6:9: “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.” All people, regardless of their previous condition, habits, lifestyles, nationalities, political affiliations, gender, or socio-economic status, come into the Kingdom of God the same way: by repenting, denying themselves, taking up the Cross, and following Jesus. It is not our sinful condition that qualifies us, but our turning away from who we are (denying ourselves) to become what God always meant us to be (his children). This we believe is accomplished by faith when we put our full trust on the meritorious work of Christ for our salvation. Period.

Is the full equality of all people in the church’s life affirmed? In the Book of Order, statements appear that would seem to do this:

F-1.0403: “God unites persons through baptism regardless of race, ethnicity, age, sex, disability, geography, or theological conviction. There is therefore no place in the life of the Church for discrimination against any person. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) shall guarantee full participation and representation in its worship, governance, and emerging life to all persons or groups within its membership.”

Problematic here, of course, is the reference to “theological conviction,” which would seem to say, “You can believe anything you want and still be counted among us,” which defies any sort of faith standard, including the essentials of Reformed faith. Further, it is not clear what a “group” is within PCUSA membership, but LGBT people are using this term to secure guarantees for “full participation and representation” within the church’s life. If we were to take their preferred meaning, then who is to say “adulterous clergy” is not a “group” deserving full “rights.” Our definition of terms must synchronize with other restrictions given by the “Scriptures, our only rule of faith and manners” (F-3.0107).

F-1.0404 affirms openness to the sovereign work of God in the world, “becoming in fact as well as in faith a community of women and men of all ages, races, ethnicities, and worldly conditions, made one in Christ by the power of the Spirit”

I say Amen to that, recognizing that while the world is changing, God and God’s message is not. Being open to fellow Presbyterians is not to be equated, however, with submitting to the errant teaching of folks who will not repent of prevailing sin. Do not be so open-minded that your brains fall out.

G-1.0302, “No person shall be denied membership for any reason not related to profession of faith.”

Jesus defined this for us: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.” One’s profession of faith is demonstrated by obedience to God’s will. That commitment to obedience (which is preceded by repentance and trust in Christ as Savior and Lord) is related to profession of faith and therefore a very relevant condition for inclusion in Presbyterian membership.

Do these affirmation mean that the homosexually committed among us must be included in the life of the church? [We ask the question also of the committed adulterer, the committed defrauder, the committed gossiper.] Such a guarantee is not offered for those who promote their sinful practice as a condition for church membership. The unrepentant one is a “second-class citizen” to the degree that he or she refuses the full effect of the “ticket” God has offered in Christ, which is nothing short of a complete transformation empowered by his Spirit. To unite a homosexual couple, under marriage vows, is putting the church in the position of making permanent what God cannot bless. In such a case, how can the church mediate the grace of God? In Christ, we are promised new life and the power of the Spirit to live it. This is at the very heart of the gospel, and the faith it embodies is the faith we profess in order to become members of the PCUSA.

 

 

 

The Difference between Same-Sex Blessings and Marriages

Yesterday I outlined the various arguments found in the GAPJC decision that came down this week. While the “Decision and Order” itself upheld the constitutional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, several commissioners filed comments in support of gay marriage. These arguments have no force of law, but they do map out the strategy to secure a change in the definition of marriage at the upcoming General Assembly. Since that change appears to be the liberal goal this year, it is worth looking at each argument individually, examining assumptions, checking references, and answering them from a conservative/evangelical perspective.

The first argument:

Higher judicatories do not have the right to “micromanage” the liturgies taking place in local congregations. In other words, it is unrealistic to expect judicial review to make a distinction between same-sex blessings (which are currently acceptable) and same-sex weddings (which are not).

The theme of micromanaging has come up in recent discussions of the GAPJC, most recently in the case of Parnell v. San Francisco in which I have served as counsel for the Appellants/Complainants. A few commissioners have stated, when asked to make a ruling based on biblical and theological arguments, that they “are not theologians; this is above our pay grade.” I don’t know if this comes from weariness of the heavy burden they bear as judicial commissioners, inadequacies in their theological education, or misunderstanding about what their role actually is. But since the Rule of Discipline states that the role of the judicial process is to censure any act or omission that is contrary to the Scriptures or the Constitution of the PCUSA, judicial commissioners should be prepared to get involved in theological and biblical discourse. It is their job.

To do so is not micromanaging but upholding what the church has agreed are its rules, which are consistent with Scripture and well-established in practice.

The argument against “micromanaging the liturgies taking place in local congregations” is actually a pretty silly shell to hide under. It characterizes the GAPJC’s task unfairly and diminishes the importance of a Directory for Worship, which guides all such matters. The suggestion that same-sex blessing ceremonies might be indistinguishable from weddings makes the point by itself: some ministers in the guise of blessings are actually officiating at the weddings of two people who cannot be joined thusly within the church. What causes the real confusion and begs for judicial review is the intention to join two people in what constitutes a marriage (commitment, supposed monogamy, legal standing) without calling it that in order to stay within the rules. If the actions of a ceremony are that close in character to a wedding, then those actions constitute a violation of our agreed-upon rule.

Regarding review of worship and liturgies, memories of the Sophia worship services at the Re-Imagining Conference of 1993 come to mind: practices, vocabulary, and ceremonies foreign to Christian liturgy—even heretical— were used with Presbyterian blessing. The outcry that emerged out of that experience moved the 1994 GA in Wichita to reaffirm the denomination’s commitment to orthodoxy in worship. Was that micromanaging liturgy? No, it was a necessary, prophetic statement that helped the church get back on track. How about the attempts for decades to require “inclusive names for God” in worship? Those attempts failed, because the Body evaluated the scriptural rationale for such mandatory name-calling, and the arguments for it were found wanting. Frankly, liberal Presbyterians have been trying to micromanage worship for a long time to their ends. So I find it rather odd that in this case, they want to stay out of the business of enforcing the distinction between what is and is not acceptable liturgy.

But let me also be clear about one other aspect of this argument, the idea that blessing same-sex couples is actually acceptable, even if marriage is not. Why would a minister of the transforming gospel of Jesus Christ want to bless something God’s Word has said cannot be blessed? The gospel does not promote a blessing over sin but the transforming work of Jesus Christ by the power of his Spirit to forsake sin and undergo the radical life-change we all need. This need for change is concrete, real-life, down to the core of who we are and what we do. God’s blessing is found in a true, personal reformation.

When we get to argument number 3, I will address the appropriate forms of pastoral care all our members, including gay and lesbian people, need and should expect. But performing weddings, or even same-sex blessings, is not one of them.

Spahr Decision Contains Arguments for Change of Marriage’s Definition

The Spahr Decision came out early Tuesday this week, and if one took only the Decision & Order itself, a conservative/evangelical like myself could be encouraged. The GAPJC upheld the Constitution and the decisions of the lower judicial commissions to declare that teaching elders may not officiate at same-sex weddings even when legal in a particular state. The basis for this ruling comes from the “definition of marriage,” found in our Directory for Worship:

Marriage is a gift God has given to all humankind for the well-being of the entire human family. Marriage is a civil contract between a woman and a man. For Christians marriage is a covenant through which a man and a woman are called to live out together before God their lives of discipleship. In a service of Christian marriage a lifelong commitment is made by a woman and a man to each other, publicly witnessed and acknowledged by the community of faith. (W-4.9001)

While a majority of GAPJC commissioners voted to sustain the ruling of the Synod PJC, a majority of the members also decided to add comments in the form of concurrences and dissents. In each case, regardless of the rationale they used, seven commissioners advised the church to change the definition of marriage to include same-gendered couples.[1]

Great. The GAPJC uses its platform and long-awaited airtime to decide one thing (because they have to) and counsel another (because they want to). In other words, it is as if they were saying, “Here’s what the Book of Order says, but change the Book because the Book is wrong.” In its assessment of what is right, just, or wrong, never once does the Commission use the Scriptures or the Confessions even as guides. Rather, they frame the case in a way—I guarantee—that will be heard all around GA next summer, urging the Assembly to change the definition of marriage. I outline their claims here, taken straight from the Spahr concurrences and dissents:

1.  Higher judicatories do not have the right to “micromanage” the liturgies taking place in local congregations. In other words, it is unrealistic to expect judicial review to make a distinction between same-sex blessings (which are currently acceptable) and same-sex weddings (which are not).

2.  By refusing to marry homosexual pairs, the church is declaring them second-class citizens contrary to the affirmations in the Book of Order where full equality of all people in the church’s life is affirmed (citing F-1.0403, F-1.0404, G-1.0302).

3.  The definition of marriage found at W-4.9001 denies homosexuals their rights as full members of the PCUSA. Judicial precedent barring gays from marriage injures individuals and interferes with the church’s dialogue about how to celebrate the lives of homosexual people.

4. A definition of marriage as between a man and a woman does not, by its presence in our Directory for Worship, prohibit marriage of same-sex couples. It was wrong for a previous PJC (in Benton) to expand a mere definition of marriage into an actual prohibition of gay marriage.

5. It is wrong for the church to perpetuate the idea that LGBT couples are “children of a lesser God.” They are the “ethical and spiritual equals of heterosexual couples” in God’s eyes. By emphasizing the traditions of heterosexual marriage, the church has done a great injustice to the LGBT community.

6.  The right to marry is afforded to all persons, regardless of their sexual orientation. It is a matter of justice and pastoral care that the church must redefine marriage to reflect this basic right and end the discrimination directed at homosexual people.

To those who care about God’s Word—which teaches the male-female prerequisite for marriage—and the faithful exercise of ministry in the PCUSA, take note of what you will hear and prepare your counter arguments. These assertions must not go unanswered. Much is at stake to get this right at the 2012 General Assembly. The definition of marriage must not change, or we will see a mass exodus of members and the dismissal of dozens of congregations within a matter of months. We should fear far more the judgment of God if we discard his design for humanity and teach people to do what he has forbidden.

In coming blogs, I will provide answers to these six claims and others as they come to light.

---

            [1] It should be noted, with appreciation, that three other commissioners filing a concurrence state (but do not advise) that the proper way to change the church’s practice in this matter is by constitutional amendment, not by defiance or individual interpretation.

 

Let the Pruning Begin

Today is “fat Tuesday,” the day before Lent begins, and time to ponder spiritual realities, discipleship goals, and what it means to be “Reformed and always in need of Reform according to the Word of God.”

Our back yard garden is home to fourteen bearing fruit trees, two walnut trees that are past bearing age and dying off gradually, and numerous other decorative trees. My pet project every year is our fig tree, and I have already applied the shears to it for its annual severe pruning. Every year, my husband says, “You’ve killed it for sure!” but the leaf buds pop out in March and by August we have a lush, fruity tree to remind us of Eden.

On a windy day last week, our stately birch trees took a beating, necessitating their removal. Turns out, they were dead, decimated by a bark beetle from the inside out. One of our lemon trees also sustained damage in the wind: a particularly laden branch bearing perhaps forty lemons has started peeling from the main trunk. It’s only a matter of time before that branch must be lopped off, but sap is still running and the fruit is still ripening, so I will wait another week or two and see what happens. We call it our miracle lemon tree, as this has happened before and my hopes are high for harvest.

The image is ripe for interpretation for the church, and Jesus helped us along in this direction with his parable of the Vine and the Branches (John 15:1-17). A portion of it here:

 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinegrower.  He removes every branch in me that bears no fruit. Every branch that bears fruit he prunes to make it bear more fruit.”

The first idea of note here is that pruning is a necessary exercise whether the tree is dead or alive. If it bears fruit, it gets creamed. If it doesn’t bear fruit, it gets creamed. Pruning is in our future, perhaps even our present. If the tree is dead, like our birch trees, it must be taken down to make room for plants that are still alive. If the tree is fertile and full of potential, it must be pruned to coax fruit-bearing. For whatever purpose, pruning is necessary but painful.

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is undergoing a pruning, a spiritual discipline with which we must cooperate in order for God’s purposes to be accomplished. It is a necessary, painful process we must endure as a prerequisite for God’s blessing, for vitality, and for fruitfulness. If we do not go along with what God is doing, we will end up either a dead, dead shell of a church that will fall over in a wind storm or a forever fruitless vine of undisciplined foliage that looks good in a dead-end sort of way.

If the PCUSA is dying, it is because individual members have died spiritually and only the structure of dead wood (an institutional organization) is holding them together. Tree-tending takes the form of Christian discipleship and disciple-making, getting people in touch with Jesus so that they can stay connected to the Source of life. To the degree the church has failed in this basic vine-tending, we are seeing the result in diminishing membership, fewer congregations, and a paralyzed ministry.

If the PCUSA is fully alive and well, it is because individual members have abided in the Vine, stayed connected to Jesus, stayed connected to one another “remaining in love,” stayed connected to God’s will “remaining in obedience,” and stayed connected to their calling “bearing fruit.”

The reality of the present moment is something between dying and vital, but trending toward dying as an institution. [Alternatively, some believe that the PCUSA is now two trees, one flourishing and the other dying.] If as God’s people we want to reverse this trend, we must submit to pruning. However we interpret the reality, being Reformed and always needing Reform points to our perpetual need of this shearing, to contain this tree, curtail its free but fruitless growth, and discipline it into fruit bearing. Pruning restores the shape of a tree just as God’s discipline of his children shapes lives in the image of his Son. We are always called back to our roots. During this Lenten season, may we submit to God’s discipline, cut back our ecclesiastical excesses, lop off our errant and fruitless beliefs and practices, and undergo the shaping that will produce a tree of life that exists for Christ’s sake and the nourishment of our neighbor.

One Confession, or Many?

As we compare the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC) and the emerging Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians (ECO), the most important consideration seems to be the doctrinal foundations of each. The EPC rests on the Westminster standards (the Confession, Larger, and Smaller Catechisms); the ECO retains all nine Confessions currently in the PCUSA Constitution. In addition, the EPC has listed “essentials” to which every member subscribes. The ECO has launched a Theology Project to identify the essential beliefs of Presbyterians in that fellowship. In the meantime, the ECO statement addresses the great themes of the Reformed Tradition found in F-2.05 as prime identifiers of our stream of the Christian church.

The PCUSA embraced the nine confessional statements in the late 1960s, celebrating this milestone with the addition of the Confession of 1967 (C67). Conservative/evangelical churches were greatly concerned about the implications of many rather than one confession and split off in 1973 to form the Presbyterian Church of America. They, too, as the EPC would do later, reaffirmed Westminster alone and, as a key part of that choice, they re-emphasized the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures.

In my conversation with many long-time Presbyterians in the PCUSA, this shift to a more diffuse elaboration of the faith is still troublesome. The proof that the move disturbed the peace, purity, and unity of the church is before us now, in our inability to identify and enforce essentials especially among our clergy and church officers. So far, it has not been demonstrated in actual practice that a candidate who holds heretical views can be barred from ordination. In my personal experience, judicial commissioners plead “It’s not my job; I’m not a theologian” when asked to adjudicate controversies that have bad theology at their root. In the present case, Parnell et al v. San Francisco Presbytery, the Synod decision we are appealing actually stated Because there is a “vast diversity” of views and biblical interpretations regarding sexuality, we cannot pick one as “essential,” and therefore cannot interfere with a council’s ordination decision.

Those who welcome the nine confessional statements view them in one of the following ways:
1. Emphasis on the historical setting in which each was written, underscoring the possibility that they are culturally bound and maybe not applicable today.
2. Emphasis on an emerging, evolving (‘always Reforming’) movement toward a superior understanding more likely to be found in the later confessional statements.
3. Emphasis on the inadequacy of any one statement to cover all the pertinent topics, instead focusing on the (new) topics the church must address as history unfolds.
4. Emphasis on the overwhelming consistency of some statements at the core of our faith.

Those who regret the adoption of nine instead of the one confession hold views such as these:
1. The more confessional statements we have, the less important or definitive any one of them is. The whole Book of Confessions loses its impact as its contents are watered down by additions.
2. There are now contradictions within the Book of Confessions that befuddle doctrinal clarity and undermine believers’ confidence in them and in “essential tenets of the Reformed faith.”

One might jokingly say, this is enough to make one want to become a Baptist (who espouses no creeds, “only the Bible”). But those in the Reformed Tradition have experienced over centuries the positive benefits of doctrinal statements. They have been used as teaching aids, devotional guides, and liturgical elements. Children and adults have found in them encouragement for their faith and a guide to the development of their consciences.

The question now is whether we are best served by our nine confessions and/or the 17th century Westminster confession; or would we find it a fruitful exercise to develop a new, comprehensive Confession (with accompanying catechisms, like Westminster) that can reliably and thoroughly explain what the Scriptures teach us to believe and do? The idea fascinates me; as a teacher, I am deciding “What is essential for these people to learn” all the time. If I were to write a full-scale Christian standard, what would I include? How would I state it? Would I address current issues such as Postmodernism? Technology? Sexuality? Globalization? I have, in fact, written a statement of faith for a Presbyterian preschool, an exercise that was edifying and clarifying for me as I considered, “What do little children and their teachers need to know?” I recommend the exercise to all, as a starting point to a comprehensive statement of faith you can share with your session, your family, or your classmates. It is, in fact, the Theology Project undertaken by the ECO.

 

Is There a Problem with EPC’s Doctrinal “Essentials”?

 My readers continue to bless and amaze me, and I am grateful for the corrective comments to my blog post of earlier this week, comparing ECO and EPC.  I will not repeat them here, but want to continue the discussion, because, clearly, folks are thinking about “Where do I go?”

It reminds me of the encounter in John’s gospel (6:66-69):

Because of this many of [Jesus’] disciples turned back and no longer went about with him.  So Jesus asked the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?”  Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life.  We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.”

To be clear, the PCUSA is not to be equated with Jesus himself, so the question for Presbyterians “Where else can we go?” does not lead us to the conclusion that the PCUSA is the only Body that “has the words of eternal life.” That humility is embedded in our Historic Principles of Church Order (F-3.0102, 0107), and, therefore, the question of dismissal to some other body is legitimate.

Since the EPC is one of the destinations of departing congregations, and ECO is rising as another alternative, I have been comparing the two and asking a few questions. My friends in the EPC have corrected a couple of mischaracterizations on my part regarding women’s ordination and organizational “red-tape.” On the latter topic, it seems to me, from the literature provided by the ECO, that the ECO aspires to be a looser association of churches than the EPC is. As is practiced in the EPC, ECO accountability will emphasize relational rather than regulatory form, although I suppose in some egregious situation even ECO could muster formal church discipline.

It would seem, then, that the greatest difference between the EPC and the ECO is in its doctrinal platform: Westminster-only (EPC) compared to the Book of Confessions (ECO). In my last post, I listed the EPC essentials. Would a person who accepts the Book of Confessions as containing the essentials have trouble with any of EPC’s list? The fact is that some liberals do; it was stated in a meeting of our presbytery the shocking news that the EPC believed in the personal, bodily return of Jesus Christ! My conservative colleagues and I looked at each other as if to ask, “And the problem is . . .?” So it might be worth the effort to cull our confessions for a sample of references that support the EPC list of tenets:

1. Scripture infallible, inspired, authoritative: Scots, BOC, 3.18, 3.19; 2nd Helvetic, 5.001–.003; Westminster, 6.001–.010.

2. God’s sovereignty, Trinity: Scots, 3.01; Heidelberg, 4.026; Westminster, 6.011–013.

3. Jesus Christ, Incarnation, virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, resurrection.: Scots, 3.06 & 3.07, 3.09, 3.10; Heidelberg, 4.016-4.049; Westminster, 6.043–.050; C67, 9.08–.11.

4. Holy Spirit: Scots 3.12; Heidelberg 4.053; Westminster, 6.051–.054

5. The human condition, sin, grace, faith, salvation: Scots, 3.02; Heidelberg, 4.003-4.015, 2nd 2nd Helvetic, 5.036–.037, 5.106–.110; Westminster, 6.031–.036, 6.043­.047; C67, 9.12–.13

6. Marks of the True Church (Word, Sacraments, Discipline): Scots, 3.18; 2nd Helvetic, 5.134–135; Westminster, 6.143.

7. Jesus’ return: Westminster Larger Catechism, 7:166; Barmen, 8:17; C67, 9.32, 9:52.

8. The Great Commission: Westminster, 6.046, 6.058, 6.190; Brief Statement, 10.4 (68)

It is safe to say, that everything the EPC holds up as essential is found in the Confessions of the PCUSA. One notices that all of these tenets appear in one form or another in the Westminster standards, but they also appear in  other creeds and confessions of the Book of Confessions.

For some people in my presbytery, the problem with the EPC is that it lists some doctrines (among many) it considers “essential.” It is as if the existence of such a list of non-negotiables is offensive and wrong. But when we PCUSAers refer to the essentials of the Reformed faith and polity that are contained in the Book of Confessions, what do we mean? Here are the choices:

• That there are some essentials (a subset of the whole) that all agree are basic and indispensable to one’s faith (basically the EPC position); OR
• That there are essentials contained in the Book of Confessions, but there can be no list because what is essential to one person (or presbytery) is not perhaps essential to another; OR
• The entire Book of Confessions constitutes essential doctrine.

 A pickle, is it not? In my next post, I’d like to explore the implications of having more than one PCUSA confession and why, for some, this is problematic.

Crazy Week: Redefinition of “Tomorrow”

Since writing the post comparing ECO and EPC the other day, I have had a flood of comments and over 800 hits, so apparently this subject is of interest! Meanwhile, my “day job” has been intensely demanding this week.

I am working on a post that compares the essential tenets of the EPC and the Book of Confessions and hope to have it done tomorrow. For now, though, the brain is spent and it’s time to call it quits for the day. Since I addressed the topic of  Sabbath last Sunday, I kinda feel like I should practice what I preached.

Hey, if my readers want to make this an interactive exercise, I invite you to collect all the references in the BOC to one of the EPC tenets, like Christ’s second coming or the Great Commission mandate. Or, alternatively, thumb through one of the creeds or confessions and note where it addresses any of the nine beliefs on the EPC list. I’ve been through Scots and Heidelberg already. Just send your input to me at mary@presbycoalition.org and I’ll give you credit in my post!

A Brief Comparison of EPC and ECO

As conservative/evangelical Presbyterian congregations and sessions discuss their options for responding to the liberal trends in the PCUSA, a question is voiced about the “leaving” option. Why do we need a new denomination (the future ECO) when we have the EPC in place now? What is the difference between transferring membership to the Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians (ECO) and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (the EPC)? I understand that the folks at Fellowship of Presbyterians are working on a comparison chart that goes into some detail about the various elements to consider, and it is going to take them awhile to make this public (probably months). This suggests to me that the matter is complicated and detail-ridden, so I am humble in my offering some general ideas in this post. Yes, that was a disclaimer.

The Evangelical Presbyterian Church affirms the Westminster Confession of Faith and its catechisms as its only system of doctrine.  In general, it subscribes to a list of essential tenets, but offers each other liberty on matters it does not deem essential, such as the ordination of women and the exercise of charismatic gifts. The essentials, however, are listed as these:

1. All Scripture is the true, infallible Word of God, uniquely and fully inspired by the Holy Spirit and the supreme and final authority on all matters on which it speaks. Sola Scriptura.
2. God is sovereign Creator and Sustainer of all things, existing in three Persons. Soli Dei gloria.
3. Jesus Christ, fully God and fully man, was incarnated by miraculous conception and virgin birth, died on the cross a sacrifice for human sins and rose bodily from the dead to ascend into heaven where his reigns. Solo Christo.
4. The Holy Spirit glorifies Christ and applies the saving work to human hearts, convicting of sin, indwelling, empowering, instructing, gifting for service, and sealing believers for the day of redemption.
5. Human beings in their natural state are estranged from God and rely solely upon the work of God’s free grace for salvation, justification by faith, and the regeneration by the Holy Spirit. Sola fide, sola gratia.
6. The true Church is found in congregations where the Word is preached in its purity, the sacraments are administered in their integrity, and scriptural discipline is practiced in loving fellowship.
7. Jesus will come again personally, visibly, and bodily, to judge the living and the dead, to consummate history and God’s eternal plan.
8. The Great Commission requires all believers to proclaim the gospel and make disciples.

According to the EPC website the denomination is small, with approximately 115,000 members in approximately 300 congregations, organized into eight presbyteries plus the PCUSA transitional presbytery. However, doing the math, an EPC church has an average of 383 members, compared to the PCUSA average of 191. The median size of congregations in the PCUSA is now 95 according to denominational reports.  (A similar statistic is not available from the EPC).

The ECO embraces the witness of the entire Book of Confessions now held by the PCUSA, which includes Westminster standards but ranges from the Apostles’ Creed to the Brief Statement of Faith adopted shortly after the 1983 reunion. Its Theology Project enumerates essentials in perhaps more nuanced language than the EPC list (more on that tomorrow). While the EPC is inconsistent on the matter of accepting women’s ordination (it is “local option” by presbytery), the ECO makes it a hallmark. Further, the EPC has a more developed structure than the ECO, which seeks to stay “lean and mean” for missional movement and flexibility.

If you are interested in a very similar governing style, are flexible on the matter of women’s ordination, are more at ease with a single doctrinal confession, and want to join a body that is already up and running, it would seem that the EPC is ready to receive you. If you do not want to be shackled with a lot of governing red-tape and perceive yourself to be more missional in spirit than perhaps the EPC can accommodate, the ECO may be for you. The ECO retains the Book of Confessions in its entirety, which to some is problematic, but if you want continuity with the PCUSA, ECO will retain the spirit without as much regulation.