Click here to return to the Articles page

Replies to Jack Harberer's Editorial of 10/16
 

Editor's Note: You may read Jack Harberer's 10/16 editorial entitled "Government or Grace" here. You will need to register at the Outlook in order to read the whole article. Registration is free.

From James Goodloe, Pastor, Grace Covenant Presbyterian Church
Richmond, VA

The overtures from sessions to presbyteries which you mention do not “miss the real spirit of the work of the Theological Task Force.” They understand it perfectly well, and they reject it wholesale.

It is a typical liberal arrogance that if people were simply intellectually capable of understanding what liberals hold, they would necessarily agree with it and support it. But that is not the case. These sessions and presbyteries understand exactly what the Theological Task Force intends for the church, and they want no part of it.

From Stephen Moss, H. R., Constitutional Presbyterians
Salisbury, NC

Jack Haberer claims that Presbyteries who have proposed or passed policy statements to preserve well-established ordination standards may be well-intended, but that they miss the real spirit of the work of the theological Task Force (on the Peace unity and Purity of the church).  Not at all!  They “got” the spirit, which is precisely why they are responding as they are.

The “spirit” of the work of the task force was to slip a constitutional change past the denomination in the harmless guise of an authoritative interpretation, so that ordinations that are presently precluded by our constitution might in selected cases be permitted to take place.  Such a result would be tantamount to ignoring clear passages of scripture about sexual activity, and thus make a farce of the ordination questions that ministers, elders and deacons must answer. But, when one examines closely the words of the authoritative interpretation, and the various “explanatory documents that have since come out from denominational offices in Louisville , what we have is a situation that is not what it appears to be.

The plain words of the authoritative interpretation, augmented by Advisory Opinion 18, , Constitutional Musing 11, and answers to FAQ’s (frequently asked questions), published by the Office of the General Assembly give us the following result:  The clear and printed words of all of these documents are absolutely to the effect that no examining and ordaining body may approve  ordination (and presumably installation) of anybody who is not willing to comply fully with mandatory provisions of the constitution.  Period.  No exceptions!

But the common perception is that, in fact, the General Assembly did, through their approval of the amended PUP report,  open the door a crack, so that, in selected situations, examining and ordaining bodies might approve ordination and installation of someone who is not in compliance with the constitution, if they determined that the non-compliance was not “essential”. 

The real question thus becomes  whether the facts or the perception are going to determine our practice.  We can’t have it both ways.   The Editor of the OUTLOOK, who had a hand in the PUP report, wants us to all follow the way of “perception”.   Further, even though the PUP Task Force called for discussion and discernment across the church, he seems not willing to like it if such discussion and discernment leads to Presbyteries (and Sessions also, one might hope) decide to stick with the constitution as printed, and with the words of scripture, rather than with the fuzzy language of the amended PUP report. 

What is happening across the church is that Presbyteries are rejecting the flawed work of the General Assembly, not because they miss the real spirit of the work of the Theological Task Force, but because they understand the real spirit of scripture, when it comes to sexual behaviour.  And, unlike the General Assembly, they are speaking with clarity and resolve.  May their tribe increase!

Stephen A. Moss H.R.

Salisbury , North Carolina

Click here to return to the Articles page

We are members of the PC (USA) taking action to be in a church where leaders, councils and institutions govern according to the rule of law under the authority of Scripture and a constitution. With the light of Scripture and our church confessions, we understand the recent Authoritative Interpretation of G-6.0108b to be a serious and grave subversion of our church's constitution and one of many recent signs that theological progressives and conservatives are not existing together in peace, unity and purity under the same confessional and institutional boundaries.