One Last Time: It’s the Essentials, Stupid!

There are a lot of issues to distract Presbyterians right now. The white noise comes from all quarters, as various subgroups of the denomination try to get the attention of people in the pew. Interpretations of past events and actions fly, as in a Louisville staffer commenting in a webinar about the Mexican church’s alienation from the PCUSA: “Amendment 10-A did not really have to do with sexuality, it was about a person submitting in all aspects of his life to the Lordship of Christ!”[1] The smoke and mirrors, the denial, even the incredulity some of my presbytery colleagues show are signs that people with power do not want the people in the pew to dwell too much on what happened in Minneapolis (late August), what the GAPJC in Parnell v San Francisco meant (late July), and what Amendment 10-A accomplished (mid July).

As Bill Clinton tried to wrest attention away from the Gulf War, a cause for George H. W. Bush’s popularity in 1992’s election year, he capitalized on underlying issues with the slogan, “It’s the economy, stupid!” Well, in this season of the PCUSA, it is time to say, “It’s the Essentials, stupid!”

What is getting lost in the shuffle here is the import of the GAPJC’s August 2 rulings in Parnell and Caledonia, the Synod PJC’s rewritten decision on Parnell, and the imminent ordination of Scott Anderson in John Knox Presbytery and perhaps later of Lisa Larges in San Francisco Presbytery. This perfect storm of events has robbed the church of any true meaning to the term “essential tenets of the Reformed faith.” Specifically, implications of the Parnell ruling for San Francisco Presbytery follow this line of reasoning:

1. The GAPJC decided that micromanaging presbyteries in the ordination process was not its job. That is, it was not their place to declare a decision by a lower council (in this case both the Presbytery and the Synod) unbiblical or inconsistent with the Reformed tradition. It was the Synod’s job to make that ruling, and the GAPJC remanded the case to the Synod of the Pacific so they could take another run at it.

2. The Synod PJC decided this month that it was not its place to choose one side or another of a theological debate: since Presbyterian scholars disagree with each other about what the Bible and the confessions say about homosexual practice, that area is not part of “the essentials of Reformed faith and practice,” and therefore, out of reach for correction or rebuke.

3. The Synod’s position is predicated on the belief, articulated in its decision, that “thoughtful disagreement among reasonable and faithful Presbyterians is itself an important and faithful part of the Reformed tradition. . . . Disagreements over particular passages of scripture and confessions, . . .preclude designating such passages as somehow uniquely central to determining the fitness and faithfulness of a candidate for office.” In other words, it is part of the Reformed tradition that we disagree on doctrinal matters, and since we do, those doctrinal matters cannot be considered essentials of Reformed faith and polity.

4. This point of view, then, calls into question whether any pillar of Christian doctrine can be considered an essential of Reformed faith and polity. Since scholars disagree on Christology, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the atonement, and a host of other topics, is nothing to be considered sacred? If nothing falls into the category of decided—that is, beyond idle speculation, or binding—then we have no essentials of the Reformed faith. And then, in practice, no one can be held accountable for heresy or false teaching, because there is no standard for what is true.

5. This point of view ignores a unique feature of the Reformed tradition, that we are a biblical and  confessional people. It isn’t biblical scholars who have authority to interpret the Word for us. By our vows and by our practice through the centuries, we have agreed that the Confessions are our authority for interpreting the Word especially when we disagree! Who said seminary professors have an edge on knowing what is and is not the teaching of the church? Who said their disagreements could trump the doctrinal agreements recorded in our confessions? This assertion itself is false teaching and reveals the confusion of the twenty-first century post-modern.

6.  The “essential tenet of the Reformed faith” that keeps popping up on the relevance scale these days is our doctrine of Scripture. By it, we understand that if the Scripture, properly understood, says it, we are bound by it.  Our job, and that of every judicatory, is to align ourselves with the standard of God’s Word. Our spiritual authority carries any weight at all only when we proclaim and put into practice what the Scriptures teach. Period. If we back away from what the Scriptures teach, as is happening in the matter of ordination in the present moment, then we lose all moral authority and credibility in the world. This is why the Mexican church wants nothing to do with us (see a report here).

7.  We lose our credibility as people called to demonstrate the Kingdom of God to the world when we seem unwilling to fully represent God’s heavenly will on earth (Matthew 16:19, 6:10). This point creates the link between obedience to Christ and missional effectiveness:  without obedience, we can have no lasting impact in the world. If we want to be missional, we must be true disciples of Jesus Christ, hearing the Word and doing what it says.  The new Form of Government will not accomplish this for us; we will become truly missional only as we agree to behave ourselves and to teach and represent the will of God rather than our own fabrications of the truth.

8. The fact that we have supposedly “thoughtful disagreement” on matters of great import theologically is not to be seen as a strength but a weakness: in fact, let us call it what it is, dissension, which is not a sign of the Holy Spirit at work but of the flesh (Gal 5:20). God will not bless us or our work if we insist on ministering on our own terms, by our own definitions, or in merely human power.

The background noise of this disagreement, dissension, confusion, and idle speculation is drowning out our witness in the world. It is time for the church to recommit itself to the essentials of Reformed faith and practice. If that means naming those essentials for the purpose of regaining our focus, then naming them we must. But saying, “because we disagree on a doctrine indicates— by definition— that doctrine is not an essential” is just ludicrous. We can do much better than that, and for the sake of fulfilling the Great Commission, we must: “. . . teaching them to obey everything that [Christ] has told us” (Matthew 28:20).