Of
Constitutions and Institutions
by Malcolm King, III
The purpose of
this article is to stimulate conversation within the Presbyterian
Church (U.S.A.) about the nature of the crisis in which we currently
find ourselves. Response is invited.
The
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is in a state of crisis. It is a
crisis of three separate yet inseparable matters. It is a crisis
of biblical interpretation, a crisis of theology, and a crisis of
constitutional understanding and compliance. Whether we define this
crisis as a loss of members and churches, or a loss of financial
resources, or a loss of mission personnel and commitment, or a loss
of a common understanding of theology and polity, or simply a lack
of connectedness and cohesiveness, the reality is that this crisis
exists and we need to talk about it.
But how do we
talk about it? Most of the talking that we have had, over the past
few years, has been either frustrated or angry in nature, and, like
two ships passing in the night, the conversations have passed each
other by without successfully communicating.
The one ship
is filled with persons who blindly follow the lead of the
denominational hierarchy without question or concern, trusting
completely in those who have taken vows to defend and support the
constitution of the PC(USA). These defenders of the institution
will follow both elected and appointed leaders of the Church
wherever they lead, even when the course they plot seems to be
taking our ship into dangerously shallow waters.
The other ship
is filled with persons who recognize the danger of blindly following
leaders who chart courses that are not constitutionally sound, or
that even reject sound principles of the Church that have guided the
Church for centuries. These persons recognize that our complete
trust, faith, and belief is never to be given to institutions, or
even to persons elected and appointed to lead institutions, but that
our whole faith, trust, and belief belong only to the One who stands
behind the constitution that provides the foundation for the PC(USA).
The crew and
passengers of both these ships realize that we are in hostile and
dangerous waters. But they have differing ideas of how we got here,
and they have differing courses charted for how we should escape
from our current situation. And if we don’t come up with a common
solution soon, if we don’t find a way to talk to one another, both
ships may find themselves washed ashore and no longer able to carry
the important cargo entrusted to us to take to market around the
world. Because you see, the persons who are sailing on these two
ships realize that we are really on one ship, and someone has to
take the tiller and chart a safe course for all of us.
So where do we
start our conversation? What will be our “rules for engagement”?
I would like
to suggest the following first principle as a guide to understanding
where we are and how we got here. Think of it as an ecclesiastical
axiom that provides a foundation for our discussion, as we try to
uncover the root cause of our PC(USA) crisis; a crisis that could
have long term effects both to our constitution and to the
institution we serve. Not everyone will agree with this statement,
but it seems crucial to me that any discussion of the PC(USA) crisis
begins by understanding that,
"Constitutions
give birth to institutions. Institutions do not give birth to
constitutions.”
You wouldn't
think it would be necessary to make such a "which comes first"
statement; but to keep us from getting caught up in the whole
"chicken versus egg" debate, this clearly stated assumption is
critical for understanding the nature of the relationship between
constitutions and institutions, generally, and especially, in the
crisis in which we find ourselves in the Presbyterian Church.
Constitutions
provide the foundational principles and basic philosophies by which
institutions are to function. Institutions exist only to put these
principles and philosophies into action; they cannot ignore their
constitutional connections without seriously damaging their ability
to function or their right to exist, nor do they have the authority
to rewrite their constitutions to enable them to become something
they were not designed to be. Institutions certainly do have the
authority and the responsibility to make amendments to the
constitution that has called them into being, so that the intent of
that constitution is better understood, and more easily followed.
But when an institution attempts a wholesale re-writing of its
constitution, it is actually most likely creating a new institution
altogether.
Why should
this matter? Why shouldn’t institutions, or leaders of
institutions, be able to re-create themselves and re-define their
objectives?
It matters
because neither institutions nor constitutions are born in a
vacuum. Behind both stand a people; a people united in a common
purpose, a people serving a common cause. Constitutions, and the
institutions birthed from them, are meant as a means to an end, with
that end being to support the common good. Whether we are speaking
of a nation or a denomination, the constitution and the institution
exist only to serve the people, by guiding them and supporting them
as they seek to be who, and what, they have been created to be.
When the leaders of an institution attempt to create a new identity
that is in conflict with the constitution upon which it is founded,
they are not simply engaged in an abstract debate with theoretical
principles, they are in fact engaged in a war with the people they
are expected to serve.
And yet, while
it is dangerous for institutions to unilaterally change their
mission statements, constitutions can be amended, usually by
following constitutionally provided means for such amendments. But
whatever amendments are made are generally intended only to clarify
how the institution should implement the basic intentions and
provisions of the constitution for its constituents. Any attempts
by the institutional guardians of a constitution to manipulate the
amendment process, to bring about a “situation” that is contrary to
its constitutional principles, is a violation of the constitutional
and institutional relationship.
Constitutions
provide us with guidelines for human relationships, guidelines that
provide great potential for our life together when we discipline
ourselves to follow them. Institutions give shape and form to what
is constitutionally possible, and practical, and intended for a
given time and season. When institutions try to give shape and form
to ideas and possibilities that violate the principles and
philosophies of their constitutions, they damage or destroy both
what exists and what is potential and possible for human
relationships.
When the
constitution in question is easily understood (in its “plain
meaning” or in its intentions), it is easy to hold the institution
accountable. But when there is much debate regarding the meaning
and/or the intention of the constitution, accountability is often
hard to find, and it is much more difficult to enforce.
In the case of
the Constitution of the United States there is much continuing
debate over what may (or may not) have been meant by the writers and
adopters of our nation’s foundational document. And yet, though
constitutional scholars and lawyers may wrestle over our
implementation of constitutional intentions, they can always return
to the original text and at least agree as to the specifics about
which we can argue. Whether the arguments about our nation’s
constitution are being put forward by a strict constructionist or a
radical revisionist, both parties use the original text to make
their points.
But our debate
over the constitution of the PC(USA) is not so easy to pin down.
According to
the Book of Order of the PC(USA) (G-1.0500), The Constitution of the
PC(USA) is made up of two documents that are more easily amended
than the Constitution of the United States. The first document is
The Book of Confessions, and the second is the Book of Order. But,
having our Presbyterian constitution clearly defined has not
actually facilitated our debates about it. You would think that
having clearly defined what is to be considered as the constitution
that provides the foundation for our institution (denomination) that
is the PC(USA) should make the task of debating the constitution
easier, but it doesn’t.
This is
because neither the Book of Order nor The Book of Confessions are
primary documents. Both texts, in their original and revised forms,
are secondary documents that point back to the true constitution of
every denominational representation of the Church of Jesus Christ.
This true constitution is the Word of God written, the Holy
Scriptures, which themselves point to the Living Word, whom we
worship as God incarnate. But in every age, there has been much
debate about the meaning of this ecclesiastical constitution,
debates that have often heralded the birth, the demise, and the
re-birth of ecclesiastical institutions.
Ironically,
the popularly accepted Constitution of the PC(USA) was never
intended to be understood as the final foundational word with regard
to our life together, or to our life in Christ. The documents that
compose our constitution are, by their very nature, time-bound and
provisional. The Book of Confessions provides us with theological
and doctrinal definitions that are often culturally biased, and
which reflect the world view in which they were written. The Book
of Order is meant to provide us with practical ways in which we can
live in peace, unity, and purity within this denomination, and still
remain faithful to the demands placed upon us (individually and
institutionally) by our Creator. But neither of these two books,
while important, perhaps even necessary for our life together, were
ever intended to be the “last word” in any of our debates. Both
books point beyond themselves to that sacred collection of documents
that we understand to be God’s word to His people in every age.
Every creed,
every catechism, and every confession found in The Book of
Confessions, and every paragraph of the Book of Order, is meant to
have its foundation in the words of Scripture. If the word of God
in the Scriptures is not the ultimate foundation for these words of
human construction, then that creed, that catechism, that
confession, that standard, or that Book of Order, must fall. No
standard for faithful living that is lifted up by our denominational
polity can stand simply because we want it to, or because social
witness or cultural change demands that it be institutionalized in
our life together.
We claim that
we are called, within the framework of our constitution, to peace,
unity, and purity, but these ideals have all clearly eluded us. Our
constitutional crisis, that is biblical, theological, and
constitutional in nature, will not be resolved by institutional
edicts. Our debates about faithful living in Christ will not find
solutions made by committee consensus, nor by General Assembly
votes. Nor will we find the peace, unity, or purity, to which
Christ calls his body, by creating institutionally protected task
forces that avoid dealing with the real constitution of our
denomination. Even worse, when a segment of the denomination
rejects the clear meaning of our true constitution, in order to
bring about an institutional interpretation that contradicts the
Word’s intentions for us, then we are in danger of being removed
from the vine and tossed into the fire.
In any debate,
the arguments being presented often make use of an historical
example that provides insight into the current discussion though it
has no obvious connection. The following short discussion regarding
Malcolm X and his critique of the political institutions of our
nation and their failure to uphold the Constitution of the United
States speaks volumes to our ecclesiastical institution’s failure to
be true to our religious constitution.
Malcolm X,
during a turbulent age in our nation’s history, offered us this
warning,
"You are not
supposed to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face
reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who says it."
Malcolm X was
speaking to a nation that he believed to be in trouble. America's
inner cities were burning, her young men were being sent to fight
and die in an unpopular and little understood war, and the tired
masses coming to her shores were no longer melting into one nation
indivisible, under the guidance and care of almighty God. This
nation, created to be "of the people, by the people, and for the
people," was no longer providing for all her people. And the
Constitutional promise of freedom for everyone and justice for all
did not seem to be a reality any longer. He believed that America
had forgotten her constitutionally established, essential tenet that
"all men are created equal" whether in the eyes of God or in
the courts of the land.
Though we were
a nation in turmoil, those called to lead from our capital city hid
behind institutional excuses that claimed that this war was
necessary for our national defense, and that immigration laws were
necessary to protect our national economy, and that our election
laws were necessary to protect people of education and learning from
those who knew very little. It was recognized by many that
inequality was real, but no one wanted to be the first person to say
that we were a nation in crisis, much less, that our nation was not
living up to her constitutional duties.
But Malcolm X
stood up, and he demanded that America quit hiding behind her
institutional excuses and live up to her constitutional duties. To
close ones eyes to America's problems while repeating the popular
phrase, "America, right or wrong, love her or leave her,"
really didn't help. So many radicals like Malcolm X stood up and
demanded that Americans and American institutions (both federal and
state) live up to the promise of our past, so the future might be
assured for all of our children regardless of race or creed.
Well, the
radicals are gone and while many things in this nation have changed
drastically over the last half-century, some things have not changed
very much at all. And one thing that has not changed is his basic
premise; institutional loyalty without constitutional integrity is
simply wrong and not just wrong, but dangerous to all of us.
Without
question, institutions that constitutions create are necessary for
human civilization. We need institutions to carry out the basic
mission of social structure whether that social structure is a
nation, a business, or a Church. Additionally, institutions require
loyalty in order to be able to function competently, though this
loyalty must not be blind to the imperfections of the
institution. Constitutions, in establishing institutions, set out
first principles, or the essential tenets by which we order our life
together. But constitutions in their essence are ideals, dreams,
and hopes for the future. For a constitution to become meaningful
and purposeful we need institutions to bring it to life; we need
institutions to put bones and flesh upon the whispers of our souls.
And yet, when
institutions become ends in themselves, when institutions become so
powerful that they no longer believe in, much less adhere to, the
founding principles laid out in our constitutions, then we face a
crisis of faith and practice. And when we are asked to give our
allegiance to the institution instead of to the constitution upon
which it stands, we are being asked to become idol worshipers, and
we are being tempted to depart from the faith which we have
inherited.
Those who
blindly defend the institution even when it is wrong are
institutionalists, and those who question the institution's failure
to abide by its own constitution are, by their very nature,
constitutionalists. The former are concerned with power and all its
trappings, and how the institution can be used to foster right and
defeat the wrong (as defined by the institution); while the latter
are less concerned with the structure and power of the institution
and more concerned with questions of right and wrong as they impact
our life together, especially with right and wrong as defined by the
constitution. Quite often, an institutionalist is tempted to find
ways to obfuscate the plain meaning of the constitution in her/his
pursuit of noble goals, perhaps even putting into practice many
things which the constitution prohibits; while the constitutionalist
will balk at anything that is not supported by the clear words or
intentions of that same constitution.
Not
surprisingly then, institutionalists will argue for a progressive
understanding of the constitution, especially if it means doing away
with large portions of the constitution, which seem to the
institutionalists to be outdated and too traditional. At the same
time, constitutionalists will continue to argue for interpretations
of the constitution that are more faithful to the original context
of the constitution, hoping that our life in the present and the
future will remain faithful to these sacred words we have inherited
and promised to pass on to future generations. In the end, it is
difficult for institutionalists and constitutionalists to
communicate on any level, because their essential tenets are no
longer compatible.
Like Malcolm
X, I am concerned when I note that institutionalists, while in
control of our nation's institutions, often seem to deliberately
seek ways to undermine the rights of constitutionalists. Whether an
institution is politically red or blue, economically bullish or
bearish, philosophically liberal or conservative, or theologically
traditional or progressive doesn’t really matter. The reality is
that there will always be a tension between institutionalists and
constitutionalists. And that tension can often become a wall that
permanently divides those who are meant to stand together.
This is
especially true of the current situation within the Presbyterian
Church (U.S.A.)
The PC(USA) is
in a state of crisis, and this crisis doesn't show signs of going
away anytime soon. Our membership is declining rapidly, our
financial losses have tempted the denomination to cut back on its
commitment to mission, our discipline has become almost
non-existent, and most attempts to find theological and
institutional common ground have ended up creating even more
division within the body.
And the
greatest division within the body is the division between
institutionalists and constitutionalists. The institutionalists
tend to place great emphasis on unity and peace, while the
constitutionalists emphasize more the ethical and moral question of
truth, as lifted up by our constitution. While both groups
recognize the importance of having a constitution, the
institutionalists use the constitution as a defense of their
treasured positions, while the constitutionalists receive the
constitution as a critique of their treasured positions.
Institutionalists lay the blame for this crisis on fear-mongers and
schismatics who question the work of the denominational leadership,
and who do not give proper allegiance to the work of institutional
bodies. Their plan to reform the PC(USA) is to bring the standards
and essentials of the faith more in tune with the social mores of
the 21st century, and for every congregation to be more
supportive with its per-capita payments. Every edict of the Stated
Clerk, every suggestion of the Assembly Committee for Social Witness
Policy, every claim of the Washington Office, and every politically
correct initiative of the Women's Unit is to be accepted without
question. Those who dare question the policies, and plans, and
public words of the institutional elite are challenged and, if
possible, quieted.
Constitutionalists lay the blame, for this crisis, on those whom
they believe have abandoned the constitution and its call to a
disciplined faith. It is their understanding that the
constitutional faith which has been entrusted to the denomination by
the past has been seriously compromised by leaders who have tuned
their ears to “other” voices of other religious “systems” (whether
they are overtly religious or secular), and allowed the essentials
of the Reformed faith to be demeaned and ignored.
But, because
constitutionalists are less likely to be a part of the institutional
structure, their outcries are often ignored by both the institution
and those who blindly pledge their allegiance to its leadership.
Constitutionalists find it hard (perhaps untenable?) to accept the
mantra offered to them, “The PC(USA), right or wrong, is an
institution of God’s making; love her, or leave her!”
In the face of
such divergent views regarding the constitution of the denomination
and of the institution that has been created to protect it, it is no
wonder that the PC(USA) is in such crisis... and in need of
listening once again to old “prophets” like Malcolm X.
Like a ship
tossed about on the seas of a perfect storm, the PC(USA) is
foundering, and is in imminent danger of sinking. Some have
recognized the danger and already have jumped ship. Some ignore the
danger, arguing that God will never let the ship go down. And some
of our most influential leaders even dare to proclaim that the
PC(USA) has already weathered the worst of the storm and that a new
day is dawning. But in the midst of all this, some recognize the
danger, and have offered their best efforts in attempts to save her,
even if it means the loss of all they have to do so.
Ironically
enough, those who want to save the PC(USA) and who seek a new
reformation for this denomination, according to the Word of God, are
finding it difficult to get anyone to listen. Almost every attempt
to deal with this crisis realistically and faithfully is challenged,
even condemned, as an attempt to scuttle the ship before the waves
tear her apart. And many of those challenged and criticized wonder
why they should keep on fighting to save a denomination that doesn't
seem to care about its impending demise.
Is there any
point to continue fighting the storm (without and within)?
If we continue
to fight, what would faithful fighting look like?
The first
question requires that we first understand clearly why we should
fight (if we should at all) and who or what we are
fighting for (if we choose to enter the fray). If we understand
clearly the why and the who that stands behind this fight, then the
second question concerning faithful fighting will almost define
itself.
The why of our
fight (should we choose to accept our mission) cannot be some well
intentioned idea that we can save the institution and/or the
constitution of the PC(USA) from those who would destroy both
(whether intentionally or not). It is not within our power to save;
salvation is solely in the hands of God. If we are to continue to
fight to keep this ship afloat, our goal cannot be to save it just
so that we can wrest its helm from the hands of those who have
placed her in great danger.
Nor should we
believe that we are fighting faithfully so that we might simply ride
out this ecclesiastical storm. If the end result of this fight is
not to get this sinking ship completely free of the storm that
surrounds her, and back on her course of sailing around the world to
spread the gospel, then we should not even begin to fight. We are
not called to have a spirit of fear or anxiety. Nor are we called
to steer the course of this ship to safe harbor where we can ride
out the storms of life while others continue to drown around us.
Nor should we
accept some false understanding that the reasons behind our
willingness to fight are pure, while the opposition’s position is
impure. While this viewpoint may be true (in both an objective and
subjective sense) the great commission does not call us to go into
the world and fight others for the right to be called the “true”
Church. We are to be teachers, and preachers, and disciple makers.
To the extent that our fighting enables us to fulfill these
essential purposes of the Church, our fight will be within the
institutional and constitutional parameters set forth at the
beginning by Him who has called us to this “fight”.
The only good
reason to continue to fight is to give honor and glory to Him who
has called us to battle the storm. The only good reason to continue
fighting both the storm, and those on the ship who are putting the
ship at risk, is because we have been commanded to fight by our
Lord. Our Lord never promised us that life in the Church would be
peaceful or calm; in fact, he seems downright surprised whenever he
finds His disciples concerned over the storms that we are afraid
will sink our ship. Jesus told us clearly that He did not come to
bring peace, but a sword, and that true disciples prepare themselves
to follow God into the storms of life even if they have to go there
without mother or father, or sisters and brothers.
We should
continue to fight because we are called to be shepherds of His flock
and stewards of His Church. We are to put ourselves at risk not
only on our Lord’s behalf, but on behalf of those who are called
into His family. And, as Paul reminds us, this fight is not against
flesh and blood, but against the powers and principalities of
darkness in whatever guise they appear; even if they show up as
institutionalists who claim to want peace, unity, and purity within
the family of God.
So how should
we fight? As Christ fought; with grace, with love, with mercy, and
with a willingness to sacrifice ourselves for those who cannot (and
will not) fight. As imitators of Jesus, we are to fight with all
our strength against those who distort the truth and castigate the
constitution and we are to do our best to rescue as many as we can
from the storm tossed waves that seek to drown us; all the while
praying that God will forgive those with whom we fight, for they
don’t know what they are doing.
When past
Moderators distort the truth and make false claims about those who
have opposing theological positions, we should quickly respond with
truth and evidence, but without rancor.
When officers
of the Church at every level, Session to General Assembly, ignore
the standards and essentials of our faith commitments to Christ and
to one another, we must stay true to those standards and essentials
and seek to censure those who have gone astray within the Rules of
Discipline. And if the PJC’s and ACC make decisions that defy all
reason, we must hold fast without resorting to the same distortions
of the constitution which they have enacted.
When the
national press quotes theological experts who claim that Jesus
himself ignored the Scriptures of his day and thus invites us to
ignore the constitutional demands of the Scriptures today, we must
speak up and speak out, and speak the truth of scripture.
The fight will
be difficult and tiring and at times we may simply want to give in
to the storm and let the waters cover us and those with whom we
battle. But we must remember who has called us to the fight, and we
must remember those who need us to fight for them, and we must stand
strong.
And if, in the
midst of the fight, the institutional ship on which we find
ourselves becomes too waterlogged to be saved, let us fight to get
as many of her passengers to safety as we can; even if it costs us
our careers and our lives.
As God
reminded Jeremiah and Elijah long ago, the battle will be difficult
and we may reach a point where we simply want to give up and let go;
but God is in charge, and He has already seen to it that a remnant
will survive. For there is nothing in heaven or in earth that can
keep His will from becoming reality. Our mission, should we choose
to accept it, is to fight faithfully and protect this constitution
we have been given, even if it means rejecting the present
institution that has been created to enforce it.
M. King III
Pastor, FPC
Presbytery of East Tennessee
With helpful editing by Rev. Steve Moss, and
Rev. Jim Goodloe
Click here to return to the Articles page
|
