We’ve been meeting all day, and dealing with a wide variety of mundane and internal issues, as well as doing a lot of praying and beginning with an inspiring service of Communion. This afternoon, we took the first action that the rest of the world would be interested in, and that’s to go on the record as opposed to the so-called “preventive care mandate,” i.e., the contraception mandate, in Obamacare.
Yours truly had the opportunity in the discussion to make the same point I’ve been making here for months, which is that this has nothing to do with contraception, but rather is about religious liberty. “It will not stop with contraception,” I said in my best rabble-rousing voice. “The EPC, as a self-insuring agency, will eventually be required to pay for abortion. We dare not let things get to that point.” Though one person spoke against it, it was nevertheless passed unanimously. The EPC now stands with our Catholic brethren in defying Leviathan.
Since Steve Salyards of GA Junkie mentioned them, I’ll also cover three other items. One is that we wrapped up the work of our two five-year transitional presbyteries. In the course of their work, well over 100 former PCUSA were given a safe haven while they sought the Lord’s will for their congregational future. The vast majority of them went on to join the EPC. The presbyteries have now been formally dissolved, and from this point forward all churches that desire to come into the EPC will be asked to seek to be received directly into a geographical presbytery.
A second has to do with confidentiality in ministerial salaries. We agreed with the proposed approach, which while it would continue the practice of having terms of call (including salary) a matter of presbyterial record, would bring some privacy to future changes in salaries, at least at the presbyterial level. A third has to do with possible changes in presbyterial boundaries and/or creation of a new presbytery. A new policy regarding the formation of presbyteries was adopted, but no new presbyteries are being formed at this time.
June 23, 2012 at 3:18 pm
Has the EPC amended WCF 31.4?
June 23, 2012 at 5:11 pm
No, why would it?
June 23, 2012 at 10:35 pm
I am always intrigued when General Assemblies depart from the ecclesiastical and stray into civil affairs.
June 24, 2012 at 6:41 am
What’s WCF 31.4?
June 24, 2012 at 9:39 am
Synods and councils are to handle, or conclude nothing, but that which is ecclesiastical: and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth, unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary; or, by way of advice, for satisfaction of conscience, if they be thereunto required by the civil magistrate.
June 24, 2012 at 2:10 pm
Several years ago, when the gay marriage movement was just beginning to see success, the EPC General Assembly debated an overture supporting the Defense of Marriage Act. I was the only person there to speak against it, not because I support gay marriage, of course, but because I believe that the purpose of ecclesiastical bodies is to speak biblical truth and let the secular power deal with ways and means. The church is competent, based on its biblical and theological patrimony, to speak to the nature of marriage. It is not competent to determine how (DOMA? constitutional amendment? state-by-state amendments?) biblical standards are to be upheld by society. I was one of only a handful of commissioners to vote against the overture. That’s how much I agree with the principle espoused by gendek that is embodied in the Westminster Confession of Faith, paragraph 31, section 4.
That being said, the current situation with the so-called “contraception mandate” is not one of those situations. Please note that the EPC has, properly, taken no position on the Affordable Care Act as a whole, nor has it lobbied or otherwise sought its repeal. The position that it took this week (as a matter of “humble petition in cases extraordinary”) has to do with a situation in which the civil power is seeking to infringe on the liberties of religious entities by mandating that they act in a way that is directly contrary to religious conscience and perceived divine command. While the matter of contraception–an issue for individual judgment in the EPC–does not effect us directly, there can be no question that if the government is allowed to force one church to go against its teachings, it can force others to do so. In our case, that would mean, for instance, being required as a self-insuring entity to include funding for abortion as part of our insurance plans. That being so, this is not simply a matter of meddling in politics. This is much more of an Acts 5:29, “we must obey God rather than man” situation.
June 24, 2012 at 5:35 pm
Thank you David – I didn’t know what WCF stood for. I gather it occupies the same place in your church that the 39 Articles of Religion do in mine?
June 24, 2012 at 6:44 pm
So, the possibility that future laws may pass, possibly compelling the church to fund health insurance for their employees that would provide coverage for those employees to preform a procedure that they (the employees) would presumably have a moral objection to and would never actually take advantage of the coverage is a case extraordinary?
Don’t get me wrong If you felt obligated to join with your Catholic brothers by all means that is your right, but one man’s extraordinary mar appear to be a drift into the civil sphere of sovereignty to another.
June 27, 2012 at 7:05 pm
gundek, I still think you are missing the point. This is not about standing with our RCC brothers and sisters, but rather asserting our constitutionally-protected right for free expression of faith.
The EPC holds official positions against abortion (http://www.epc.org/about-the-epc/position-papers/abortion/) and for the value and respect of life (http://www.epc.org/about-the-epc/position-papers/value-of-and-respect-for-human-life/). With the HHS mandate so narrowly defining what a religious institution is, along with the constant changes going on with the implementation of ObamaCare, we are concerned that we will be mandated to go directly against our stated beliefs. That is what we are speaking to.
June 27, 2012 at 11:06 pm
I think gundek is talking about WCF 31.4 more than our standing with RCC brothers, though he did mention that. The question has to do whether this is an extraordinary case. I think his point in his last post is that If nobody is going to take advantage of the option to get abortion services paid for on our church staff, then we aren’t actually paying for abortion service. Therefore the point is actually moot. Gundek is suggesting, I think, that unless the government is forcing abortion, this is not an extraordinary case, and we should not meddle in these civil affairs. I can understand the concern in addressing the issue though. I have a copy of the EPC statement which I haven’t read yet, so I need to read it more before I can comment more. However, in addressing any civil issue in General Assembly, or Presbytery, we probably need to address specifically WCF 31.4 in order to properly address the issue and be in conformity to the WCF.