The Advisory Committee on the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA) has made two recommendations to the 2008 General Assembly that almost leave me speechless, they are so absurd. Almost:

Recommendation 1: that General Assembly issue the following interpretation of the Book of Order G-11.0103i and G-15.0203a and b as follows:

“Presbyteries may dismiss congregations to other ecclesiastical bodies of this denomination, and to denominations whose organization is conformed to the doctrines and order of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). No congregation may be dismissed to independent status, or to the status of a nondenominational congregation. It is the responsibility of the dismissing presbytery to determine whether the receiving body meets these standards, and this responsibility cannot be delegated to any other entity within the presbytery (such as an administrative commission). Thus the General Assembly may not determine in advance whether a particular denomination or its constituent bodies qualify under these standards.

This is not near as clear as it could be, especially given the suspicions that have been raised by the actions of certain judicatories in recent months. What I think this is saying, however, is that only presbyteries can make the final determination whether the EPC (or, for that matter, PCA, ARPC, OPC, or any other letters in the Presbyterian alphabet soup) fits the constitutional criteria (doctrine and order) for receiving a former PCUSA church. So the administrative commission that the Synod of the Sun just formed might be able to advise, but cannot require the presbytery to alter its judgment if, in its judgment, the EPC or others qualify.

“The provisions of G-15.0203 a and b do, however, require that the General Assembly, as the highest governing body of this denomination, advise its presbyteries in this matter.

So while presbyteries get to make the call, they have to take the advice of General Assembly into account. Check.

The 218th General Assembly therefore advises the presbyteries that they must satisfy themselves concerning the conformity with this denomination of a transitional presbytery of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC) in matters of doctrines and order. Presbyteries may facilitate the exploration of conformity by means of an administrative commission, although such commissions may not be empowered to approve the dismissal of the congregation.

So this isn’t just about a constitutional interpretation, but is about the real situation presented by the New Wineskins/EPC Transitional Presbytery. Again, presbyteries get the final say.

In exploring this matter, presbyteries should consider such questions as whether the receiving EPC presbytery is

•doctrinally consistent with the essentials of Reformed theology as understood by the presbytery;
•governed by a polity that is consistent in form and structure with that of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A);
•of sufficient permanence to offer reasonable assurance that the congregation is not being dismissed to de facto independence.

But here’s a snare that effectively renders the whole thing pointless. In practice, this still means that presbyteries can, arbitrarily and with no other reason than a dislike of the EPC’s theological conservatism, refuse to dismiss a church. Putting it this way means that every presbytery gets to decide what it considers to be the “essentials of Reformed theology,” and if one decides that belief in the unique role of Christ in salvation isn’t essential, but that supporting divestment from Israel is, there’s nothing anyone can do about it. And that last item is a way of dictating a congregation’s future action that is worthy of institutional control freaks. The fact is that once a PCUSA congregation is dismissed to another Reformed denomination, the former’s ability to dictate what the future affiliation of that congregation should be is at an end. These items are simply a slick way of telling presbyteries, “tell ’em to pound salt if you want to–and we really want you to.”

Failure on the part of the presbytery thoroughly to explore and adequately to document its satisfaction in these matters may thus violate, however unintentionally, the spirit of the polity of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)”

In other words, if you don’t come up with the results we want, we’re going to be vewy, vewy angwy.

Recommendation 2

“Presbyteries may dismiss minister members to transitional presbyteries of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC) under the provisions of G-15.0202, provided that they have determined that such transitional presbyteries properly have jurisdiction over the work to which the dismissed minister is called. In making this determination, presbyteries should consider the advice of the General Assembly concerning such transitional presbyteries found in response #1 above. In addition, presbyteries should honor their pastoral obligation to the minister requesting dismissal by informing him or her of the General Assembly’s grave concerns over the uncertainty and impermanence of the transitional presbyteries of the EPC, and of the consequences of the dismissal for any future relationship with the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A).”

And this is simply the follow-up that allows presbyteries to dismiss out of hand requests for transfer to the NWAC/EPC transitional presbytery, with the last sentence containing an implicit threat.

There’s a patent dishonesty about this that is positively breath-taking. The PCUSA is presuming to tell the EPC how to run its business, and to do so all the while acting as though it’s just dealing with internal housekeeping. “Uncertainty and impermanence” indeed! Like as if EPC doesn’t know what the transitional presbytery is supposed to lead to, and those who are entering don’t know what it is they are getting into. Oh, yeah, and it’s patronizing, too.

The ACC proceeds to a rationale for these recommendations, and it’s really too long for me to go into all of it here. But there are a couple of items that demand comment:

An ecclesiastical court is no more required than is a civil court ”to fail to know what the whole world knows.” It may take judicial notice of facts not a formal part of the record before it which lie within the common stock of knowledge. We know that this case arises out of the tragic dissidence that exists within some parts of the church. One of the tactics of the dissident elements is to seek to have churches in which they are members dismissed as entities. They perceive certain benefits in this which might not be realized by orderly individual withdrawals followed by reassociation in other ecclesiastical bodies. This judgment says that this course is not constitutionally possible under the procedures of this church. [Emphasis added.]

Don’t you just love the sleight-of-hand here? They use the word “dissident” (a word that the PCUSA normally loves) to imply that those seeking to take churches out of the PCUSA and into the EPC are minorities who are
using some kind of illicit machinations to get their way. Here’s the interesting thing: the clear implication of the highlighted sentences is that churches can’t be taken out of the PCUSA–only individual members can. The provision in the constitution that allows the dismissal of congregations as a whole (not to mention all the gibberish in the recommendations) goes right out the window. Incredible.

But this takes the cake:

Does the theology of the EPC “conform to the doctrines … of this denomination?” The EPC General Assembly action requires that

“All churches and pastors entering the EPC on a transitional basis must affirm “Essentials of our Faith” without any reservations.”

In both our polity and in the theology on which it is founded, we have long recognized that “reservations” and points of disagreement in some matters of faith are not only inevitable but ultimately nourishing for the health of the church. Moreover, we have resisted listing the “essential tenets of the Reformed faith” (W-4.4003c), precisely because such lists tend to confine the theology of the church within the narrow strictures of the historical moment in which the list was created, robbing it of its life and liveliness. For this reason, we have deemed it wise to have not one confessional statement but a Book of Confessions (Part I of this denomination’s constitution), in which are registered multiple statements of faith that stand in both mutual support and occasional tension. Can such theological suppleness be said to characterize the doctrines of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church?

In other words, unless a denomination’s theological standards are as vague, amorphous, and undisciplined as the PCUSA’s, they can’t dismiss congregations to them! Unless a denomination conforms to the “cafeteria” model of theological standards, they don’t meet the lofty standards by which the PCUSA judges “theological suppleness”! And on top of it all, this passage embodies the approach to the faith from which the fleeing congregations are trying to escape. The inanity of this passage rivals anything I’ve ever seen out of a mainline denomination.

There’s more, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to continue. Take a look at it if you are so inclined, and marvel at the chutzpah found therein.

(Hat tip: Pastor Steve Bryant.)