Double Standard—A Legal Loophole?

Toby Brown’s blog was eye opening. Most of the strings holding me to the PCUSA were severed this week. Theology, Christology and biblical faithfulness have always been the areas I use to determine whether the PCUSA (or any church or denomination for that matter) is still a church of Jesus Christ and not just some “spiritual club.” I have always thought that the denominational leadership was out of touch with the people in the pews. I have always thought that the people in our leadership were good people—we just disagree on some foundational points of our faith. This week I found out that at least some of them are two-face hypocrites.

I don’t expect our leadership to be perfect, we all sin. I do expect them to be up front and honest. When they make mistakes they need to admit it. There is silence from Louisville.

Advisory Opinion #18 says: “This means that ordaining bodies should be given the “benefit of the doubt” [quotations in original document] in making individual judgments regarding fitness for office…,” and, “We remind the church that it is the duty of both individual Christians and Christian societies to exercise mutual forbearance toward each another (G-1.0305). We pray that all ordaining bodies will exercise restraint and Christian charity.” We are to trust ordaining bodies (sessions and presbyteries) in making decisions on ordaining gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender persons. We are to trust ordaining bodies as they decide that believing in the bodily resurrection of Jesus is not an essential part of the Reformed faith. We are to trust ordaining bodies with deciding whether to ordain women and minorities. We are to show restraint in filing charges against presbyteries in matters dealing with ordination. We are to show mutual forbearance with each other in matters of ordination.

Now comes the internal documents that show that these ideas of “trust” and “forbearance” applies to you and me when we disagree with a decision by an ordaining body (session or presbytery), but do not apply to denominational leaders when our sessions make decisions that they don’t like. This shows the greed of our leadership. They want us to accept decisions that aren’t biblical but they don’t want to accept session decisions that might hurt their pocketbook.

As churches leave the PUCSA (and they will leave), I hope that good lawyers present Advisory Opinion #18 in court on behalf of the churches that seek to leave with their property. I hope they call Clifton Kirkpatrick to the stand and have him read those sections I have quoted. I hope that they ask him how he can ask us to “trust” ordaining bodies in one area and then not trust them in another area. I hope that Advisory Opinion #18 becomes the main ammunition of departing congregations as they struggle to keep their property.