This means that no session or presbytery may adopt additional requirements other than those stated in the Book of Order that apply to all candidates, or to all candidates in a particular category or class.”

The conversation took place in the restroom of the Louisville convention center during the meeting of the General Assembly debate about whether or not Jesus is the only way to salvation.

The attendant was cleaning the facilities and she paused and asked me, “Are they really voting on what it sounds like they’re voting on? Do they really think they can vote Jesus off the throne? Don’t they know that Jesus is seated at the right hand of God whether they believe it or not? Who do they think they are? By what authority are they doing this?”

I didn’t even try to answer her questions other than to say, “Yes, they are debating the Lordship of Jesus.” I acknowledged that I shared her dismay. All we could think to do was to pray together and we did. It was the highlight of the assembly for me that year.

Her question remains a provocative one today. By what authority does the Presbyterian Church (USA) do what it does? Historically the church submitted herself to the apostles’ teachings, then to the record of those teachings in the Bible, then to the Pope, then to the Confessions, and now?

As but one branch of the vine, by what authority do you depart from the express revelation of God in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments?

As but one branch of the vine, by what authority do you depart from the historic Reformed Confessions?

As but one branch of the vine, by what authority do you create internal contradictions in the body’s constitution?

As but one branch of the vine, by what authority do you use grace as a license for sin?

As but one branch of the vine, by what authority do you sever the laminen of your own connectionalism?

The only authority in view is a counterfeit one: that of post-modern relativistic group-think. The Old Testament prophets called it “doing what is right in their own eyes.” It is a stiff-necked, obstinate refusal to be conformed to the revealed will of God. It is an attempt to usurp God’s authority by the assertion of the human will and it is an old as sin itself.

The PC(USA) branch of the vine is not the first to so sever itself from the authority of the Word or the world communion of confessing Christians. She simply follows in the steps of other liberal formerly mainline (now sideline) groups like the United Church of Canada, the United Church of Christ (US), the Episcopal Church, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. The fact that all are hemorrhaging members, congregations and entire judicatories should be sufficient witness to the folly of such a scheme, but alas, the PC(USA) has followed witlessly along.

The resources available for reading and review are sufficient to inform and equip church leaders and members of the history, issues, background and current status of the breakdown of our common life. If you’d like to get up to speed, I commend to you Carol Shanholtzer’s paper “Authority, Biblical Sexuality and Ordination Standards.”

For a more thorough historical understanding of just how we got to this place in our common life, read Parker T. Williamson’s book, Broken Covenant(2007)and Bradley Longfield’s book, The Presbyterian Controversy(1991).

The one paragraph version of the story goes like this: since 1925 Presbyterians in the United States have been pursuing two divergent theological paths.

One path is paved on a more “preservationist” understanding of the faith, submits to the Bible as the revealed Word of the only true God, proclaims Jesus as the only way to salvation, and believes in the proclamation of the Gospel as including a call to individual repentance from sin (as defined by the Bible), extending God’s offer of a redeemed life transformed by the active work of the Holy Spirit moment-by-moment.

The other path is paved on a more “progressive” understanding of the faith, submits to the Bible as one reference point to the Word of God while subjecting the Bible to methods of criticism and interpretation that strip it of its divine authorship and ultimate authority. Many on the progressive path embrace pluralism and see Christianity as only one truth among many. Sin is seen as a corporate failure to do justice, love kindness and walk humbly with God, not an individual reality into which every human being is born and from which Christ alone offers redemption through substitutionary atonement by His death on the cross. The proclamation of the gospel for those on the progressive path is about the transformation of the systems of society that produce injustice, not chiefly the transformation of the individual sinner into a disciple of Jesus Christ, who through the process of sanctification becomes an agent of grace and truth in the world that God so loves.

One path sees history as belonging to a perfectly sovereign God who is working out His will in, among and through His people. He calls out for Himself a people to bear witness to Him in the midst of a world that chooses more often to exercise the God-given freedom of the will to serve itself than to humble itself in service to God. This path sees the future as revealed in the Scriptures: a reality that passes away and is only fully redeemed through the second coming of Jesus Christ in glory to establish a new heaven on a new earth.

The other path sees history as a progressive unfolding human tale that still holds the possibility of producing heaven on earth through the production of man-made peace and progress. God is one of many influencers but the decisions are made by people who are enlightened, educated and highly evolved.

These two paths have been diverging for a long time. The latest debate around human sexuality and ordination is not new and it is but a surface issue of a much deeper division within the body. Robert Dooling has done extraordinary work in producing an annotated list of the actions of the General Assemblies of the Presbyterian Church regarding human sexuality and ordination standards (from 1970 to 2006). That list would now include actions taken by the 2008 and 2010 assemblies. Most notably, in 2008, the GA made of “no further force or effect” earlier authoritative interpretations regarding human sexuality, including the 1978-79 “Definitive Guidance.”

Some people seem to believe that in an environment where everyone is free to do what is right in their own eyes, sessions and presbyteries will be free to say that “even though they may be adopting a more inclusive or liberal standard of ordination, we’re not going to.”

The challenge to that is that hierarchical thinking which holds that a lower judicatory cannot create a supra-standard that goes beyond what the body corporate has decided. So, a session or a presbytery cannot create a “policy” that binds the conscience of the next session or meeting of presbytery in matters where they are guaranteed a freedom of conscience by the constitution.

Paul Hooker is one of several presbytery executives that have sent letters to PCUSA churches and pastors attempting to frame the conversation, answer questions and anticipate what a post 10A future might look like. On the subject of a session making a “they might but we won’t” kind of policy, Hooker says,

“Some have asked whether a session or presbytery may adopt the current language of G-6.0106b as an additional standard for ordained service within that congregation or presbytery. The answer is no. Our polity has maintained that “no lower governing body can constitutionally define, diminish, augment, or modify standards for ordination and installation of church officers.”[1] This means that no session or presbytery may adopt additional requirements other than those stated in the Book of Order that apply to all candidates, or to all candidates in a particular category or class.”

That means that we’re back to where we were in 1977 when two presbyteries asked the GA for definitive guidance concerning the eligibility for ordination person who openly acknowledge sexual practice outside the bounds of marriage between one man and one woman. For the full story on the “need” for the explicit language of G-6.0106b in the constitution, I encourage you to read “What G-6.0106b Means,” a white paper posted on the Presbyterian Coalition website. That language is now gone. It has been replaced with language that is beautifully aspirational but does not serve to the answer the question that was originally asked nor does it serve the needs of a church rent asunder by truth decay.

It is now clear that individuals in the PCUSA want to do what is right in their own eyes, as if ordination is a right that should be guaranteed to all. Neither the Bible nor the confessions conceive of such an understanding. However, the Bible and the confessions are not the basis upon which this decision has been made. What remains unclear is the ultimate effect this decision will have on our common life and our public witness.

By what authority is this being done? The authority we have granted to ourselves over the past 80 years on a journey down a progressive path that has led us far away from the faith once delivered to the saints.

[1] See Barlow J. Buescher v. Presbytery of Olympia, Remedial Case 218-09 and Bush, et. al. v. Presbytery of Pittsburgh, Remedial Case 218-10.

Carmen Fowler LaBerge is a Minister in the PCSUA who serves as the President of the Presbyterian Lay Committee and executive editor of The Layman, the agencies magazine. This commentary first appeared on The Layman Online and is used with permission.

[Editor’s note: One or more original URLs (links) referenced in this article are no longer valid; those links have been removed.]