The history of the Presbyterian Church (USA) has been a confessional one. Based on the action of the commissioners of the 220th GA, the future will not be. Just as the body cannot survive long severed from its head, it is impossible for a denomination to bear a unified witness having cut itself loose from the confessional standards which bound it together. 

The Book of Confessions and the Book of Order together form the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA). Each ordained officer in the PCUSA has vowed that they “sincerely receive and adopt the essential tenets of the Reformed faith as expressed in the confessions of our church as authentic and reliable expositions of what Scripture leads us to believe and to do,” and that they will be “instructed and led by those confessions as (they) lead the people of God.” However, on July 6, the stated clerk advised, the moderator ruled, and 70 percent of the General Assembly voted to do the opposite.

The larger debate was the definition of marriage, but the specific question on the floor was posed by a commissioner who asked the moderator to rule the proposed redefinition out of order because it so clearly conflicts with the Book of Confessions. Specifically, the issue is that Robert’s Rules of Order (section 10, p. 111, lines 4-6) indicates that motions that conflict with a body’s constitution are out of order, and Part I of the constitution, The Book of Confessions, clearly and repeatedly defines marriage as including one man and one woman, (including, but not limited to the Second Helvetic Confession, 5.246; Westminster Confession of Faith, 6.131 and 6.133; and Confession of 1967, 9.47).

Related to this question, the moderator deferred to the stated clerk who deferred to the Advisory Committee on the Constitution (ACC). Paul Hooker addressed the question saying that the Book of Confessions is a “collection of statements spans a vast selection of theological perspectives, and there is no small amount of difference and conflict within the constitution itself.” He then functionally bifurcated the constitution: “But more specifically, it is important to understand that because it is a large sweep of history, and a fairly broad representation of theology, it ought not to be treated as though it were a rule book. It is, in fact, a document from which we draw our basic theological views.”

Hooker elevated the Book of Order, asserting, “It contains the standards by which we operate. We have been asked occasionally if it is necessary to amend the Book of Confessions in order to amend a similar provision in the Book of Order. The answer is no.” He echoed the language of the GA Permanent Judicial Commission that Presbyterians listen not to one voice but many, asserting, “The confessions are deliberately broad, and allow us to draw different ecclesiological conclusions on the basis of our theology.” He finally issued the ruling, “It would be the Advisory Committee on the Constitution’s opinion that a statement in the Book of Confessions might not post a conflict with a proposal to amend the constitution.”

The stated clerk Gradye Parsons concurred, as did the moderator, ruling the business of the proposed redefinition of marriage by amendment to the Book of Order was in order. However, commissioners challenged that ruling, calling for a vote. The GA could have overturned the moderator’s ruling by a simple majority, but in the end 70 percent of commissioners voted that a functional bifurcation of the two parts of the denomination’s core documents was in order.

Although the PCUSA ordination vows say that our creeds, catechisms and confessions are “reliable expositions of what Scripture leads us to believe and do,” it is now evident and is part of the record of the last General Assembly that Part I of our constitution, the Book of Confessions, is not binding related to governance of our church. The Book of Order, on the other hand, has now apparently been elevated to “our only infallible rule of faith and practice.”

Confession is a tricky thing. It is a coin with two sides. On the one hand we have the confession of sin and on the other the confession of faith in Jesus Christ. You cannot separate the two sides of the confessional coin and still have a form of faith recognizable as Christian. The same can be said of seeking to separate what it means to be Presbyterian from the confessions that define the meaning of that word.

Presbyterianism is an expression of the Reformed faith. The Book of Order describes how we live out the faith as a particular expression of the larger Reformed family of believers, but the Book of Confessions tell us who we are as a part of that family. The Reformed faith has content and substance. The confessions express the truth of the faith once delivered to the saints, interpreted over generations of faithful witnesses. In the confessions, we find the measure for distinguishing truth from error and the standard against which we test orthodoxy in every generation. It is not, as one theological student advisory delegate to the assembly proclaimed, “marked by the reality of always being Reformed;” seemingly unaware that he had severed from the quote the condition, “according to the Word of God.”

Indeed, the history of the Presbyterian Church has been a confessional one. Based on the action of the commissioners of the 220th GA, the future will not be. Just as the body cannot survive long severed from its head, it is impossible for a denomination to bear a unified witness having cut itself loose from the confessional standards which bound it together.

The rules of the Book of Order may be sufficient for many things, but they are insufficient laminin for the body of Christ.

Source [Editor’s note: the original URL (link) referenced in this article is no longer valid, so the link has been removed.]