Trojan Horses

This last pre-assembly post on issues deals with "Trojan horse" items of business. A “Trojan horse” issue is a seemingly innocuous (or non-controversial) item that carries a big threat that might not otherwise be recognized. The Trojan horses are sometimes intentional, sometimes inadvertent, and sometimes just due to unforeseen consequences. Here are some business items with the potential to be Trojan horses. I apologize for the more technical analysis contained in this post, but spotting Trojan horses requires a forensic approach.

New Directory for Worship (Item 13-02). This is not up for adoption this year (it is being submitted for circulation to the church for study and comment in anticipation of a 2016 action), but it is not too early to point out a Trojan horse lurking inside this draft, which I hope can be remedied before its circulation. This proposed new Directory has been touted as a redaction, not a revision, that merely consolidates existing material. But there are interpretive (and therefore substantive) choices in any redaction, as any first year seminarian can tell you. The most egregious change, in my opinion, is the removal of the constitutional questions for office from the Constitution. Proposed W-4.0403 (“Order of Worship” for “Ordination, Installation, and Commissioning”) no longer lists the text of the questions, but merely states that the moderator shall ask the constitutional questions “using the forms provided in the Book of Order.” But the forms appended to the Book of Order are not part of the Constitution; they can be amended by action of the Assembly (or even by OGA staff) without the concurrence of the presbyteries. I'm not saying this would happen, only that matters this significant should be ensconced in the Constitution, not relegated to a non-constitutional appendix.

"Obedience to Scripture" and "Identifying Essential Tenets" (Items 06-01, 06-09). These items, independently submitted, seek to provide greater theological constraints on the examination of candidates for ordered ministry. 06-01 seeks to change the language of G-2.0104b ("Amendment 10-A") to say that councils shall be "obedient to Scripture" in their examinations.  06-09 would ask the Assembly to approve a proposed constitutional amendment to identify what constitutes “essential tenets” for the purpose of examining candidates for ordered ministry. While undoubtedly born of a frustration with the lack of direction in the current constitution, these propose a major change in the foundational polity of the church. Since 1729, with brief exception (most notably 1910-1925 and 1997-2011) the determination of what constitutes a scriptural mandate or an essential tenet has been left exclusively to the examining body and on a case-by-case basis.  To do otherwise would not only subordinate the Confessions to the Book of Order, but would undermine the balance between national standards and local examination that is part of the genius of our polity. In my opinion, every elder (teaching and ruling) as part of their training for office should be required to read the reports of the Special Commission of 1925 (the “Swearingen Commission”) which articulate these principles quite eloquently.

Constitutional Interpretation of G-3.0403c (Item 06-14). Inexplicably, this item - which proposes an amendment of the Constitution through authoritative interpretation (the cardinal sin of any General Assembly) - was proposed by the Advisory Committee on the Constitution. The proposal really has two separate elements, and the problem is in the first, which would permit racial-ethnic congregations to be transferred to non-geographic presbyteries in an adjoining synod should their synod of jurisdiction lack such a presbytery. Evidently, it is intended to be an interpretation of the provision which gives synods the power to take “other such actions as may be deemed necessary in order to meet the mission needs of racial ethnic or immigrant congregations.” However, such a transfer would violate the final sentence of G-3.0403c, which requires that such a non-geographic presbytery conform to G-3.0301 – which, among other things, notes that a presbytery has a “certain district” (in this case, the district is the synod). Such transfers were rejected by the 2012 Assembly as a matter of polity, but then late in the Assembly, the body nevertheless granted permission for two racial-ethnic congregations to join a non-geographic presbytery in a different synod. That was an irregular action, and the action of the dismissing and receiving presbyteries might have been challenged on grounds of constitutionality despite the Assembly’s approval. 

The Interreligious Stance of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) (Item 07-02). The ordinarily placid Standing Committee on Ecumenical and Interfaith Relations may find a surprising push-back to this item which promotes a dialogical approach to our interaction with other religions. Let me be clear that I favor this document, and the approach described. However, it is only fair to note that there is a large segment of the church which holds to persuasive evangelism as the preferred, if not only, model for interaction with other faiths. “Dialog” to many gives a legitimacy to other religions that promotes theological relativism and diminishes the urgency of salvation. I have not seen any push-back from the Evangelical wing of the church on this document – another illustration of their disengagement leading up to this assembly.