Many of you have asked, “why not just let folks in John Knox Presbytery (JKP) ordain who they want to ordain? Why not just leave them alone? Their decisions don’t affect us.” Wrong.
G-14.0480 says, “Ordination for the officer of minister of the Word and Sacrament is an act of the whole church carried out by the presbytery, setting apart a person to the ministry of the Word and Sacrament.” That means that when JKP acts to ordain Scott Anderson, they are acting on behalf of all of us. And once ordained, he is ordained throughout the system, not just in JKP.
The actual “departure” from our ordination standards is almost irrelevant. In this case, it happens to be sexual practice, but it could theoretically be any number of things. The point is that he openly and honestly departs from our mutually agreed upon constitutional standards for ordination.
Those standards are spelled out in G-6.0106(a) and (b).
“a. To those called to exercise special functions in the church – deacons, elders, and ministers of the Word and Sacrament – God gives suitable gifts for their various duties. In addition to possessing the necessary gifts and abilities, natural and acquired, those who undertake particular ministries should be persons of strong faith, dedicated discipleship, and love of Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. Their manner of life should be a demonstration of the Christian gospel in the church and in the world. They must have the approval of God’s people and the concurring judgment of a governing body of the church.
“b. Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament.”
Further, when one becomes a candidate or officer in the PCUSA, our constitution recognizes that “one chooses to exercise freedom of conscience within certain bounds. His or her conscience is captive to the Word of God as interpreted in the standards of the church so long as he or she continues to seek or hold office in that body. The decision as to whether a person has departed from 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. (G-1.0301; G-1.0302).” – from G-6.0108
The issue that now confronts us has a human face, Scott Anderson. But at risk is our entire constitutional system of governance. This is ultimately a debate about whether or not we are going to continue to be Presbyterian in the way we’ve always thought of that. The PCUSA, through many rounds of successive voting on the matter, has determined the qualifications for its ministers. This candidate does not qualify and yet, his ordination has been approved by a presbytery acting on behalf of the entire denomination.
I find it ironic that the “peace, unity and purity” of the church is often appealed to in this particular conversation. This horribly disrupts the peace of the body, threatens its functional unity and makes any discussion of purity laughable.
Yes, complaints can be filed, the action of the JKP can be challenged in the church courts and the GAPJC’s resolve can be tested again. In the meantime, an entire generation of Presbyterians is being distracted once again from the core calling of Christ to go and make disciples, teaching people to obey his commands and demonstrating the Kingdom of God to a world literally dying of thirst for the Living Water.
Look, either the constitution that we’ve all agreed to actually has some authority, or it is does not. And if it does not hold on this point, it does not hold. If JKP’s action in relationship to Scott Anderson and San Francisco presbytery in relationship to Lisa Larges, and Twin Cities presbytery action in relationship to Paul Capetz, are allowed to stand, I expect other candidates to openly scruple things like the assertion of trust clause in Chapter 8, the Confession of 1967 from the Book of Confessions, and on and on. Which of these is essential and which is not? Find a presbytery that agrees with you and you’re good to go! Local option run amuck.
In getting what “you” want you just may find that you get more than you bargained for: The death of any sense of connectionalism in the part of the body known as the PCUSA.