How does the church find a balance between safeguarding the tradition and speaking with a prophetic voice? This was the question posed to me and my fellow students in our church polity class. Using the very contentions, Report on Human Sexuality, submitted and adopted at the 120th General Assembly, I would like to suggest that speaking with a prophetic voice is akin to safeguarding the tradition and vice versa. And, it is our Presbyterian polity that facilitates both.
The Book of Forms states that the Bible is “the only infallible rule of faith and manners.” This, along with our subordinate standards, helps safeguard our tradition. The Report on Human Sexuality demonstrates this with numerous references to scripture and both our confessional statements. The report also echoes the Book of Forms indicating that while reason and experience are important in the discernment process, these are subordinate to scripture.
However, the report also concludes that the discernment of scriptural truth is done within the community of faith. Our polity lays out how we (“decently and in good order”) will discern together while being true to our roots. For example, only those who are members of the court are allowed to vote. Because of their ordination vows, those who discern the direction of the court share the same foundational belief system. Another rule limits the number of times that a member of the court can speak to a motion. Minority views are thus hindered from dominating discussion. I can only imagine that this rule allowed for order and prevented passionate people on both sides of the issue from skewing the debate over the 1994 report.
One complaint of our polity is that it takes too long. Since General Assembly meets once a year and has no permanent existence, it takes time to discern. The request for a report to be created on human sexuality was in 1987. The process was delayed by an overture in 1989 on a related matter. Even when the report was brought to the General Assembly in 1992, it was only accepted as an interim report. Seven years certainly is a long time to wait.
While there is merit to the above criticism, there are benefits to a deliberate process of discernment. Delaying the full acceptance of the report in 1992 allowed for input from presbyteries. Divisive issues need time to evaluate the various positions and their pastoral implications. If handled improperly, we would not be the first denomination to split. Amendments, appeals and committees take time but also safeguard our tradition by preventing or correcting a hasty decision.
Can our polity also be prophetic? First, our polity prevents any voice of the court from being marginalized. Any member has the right to speak to a motion. Even after the motion is passed, the minority voices can have their dissent and reasoning recorded. Thirty-nine commissioners registered their dissent when the report was adopted and seven pages of reasons were given by various commissioners for their dissent. In the event that the church should err, our polity allows for a prophetic voice to be heard and recorded for the encouragement of future generations. It is worth pointing out that it was the minority voices of the prophets that God used to speak to Israel which are recorded for the church today.
Our polity is a prophetic voice through the use of overtures. Overtures come from the grassroots. It was the Presbytery of Westminster who overtured General Assembly to produce a report on human sexuality. However, the importance of presbyteries is not just in submitting proposals. The original report in 1992 was sent out for presbytery input. Power in our denomination does not come from the moderator, the clerk or the national office but from the prophetic voice of congregations.
The church should not have to choose or balance between tradition and the prophetic. I will not deny that there is a tension between the two and there are differences in how we understand tradition and speaking prophetically. So to conclude, I would suggest two traditions that are key. The first is our reformed heritage, always reformed and always reforming. Being able to speak prophetically to a rapidly changing culture is our tradition. This is reflected in our polity. Even the sacred Book of Forms is subject to reform. The second is that when the church gathers to discern God’s will, it is embedded in worship. How can the church claim to hold to tradition or speak prophetically but by the will of God? When the church gathers together in worship, it surrenders its will to the will of Christ. Only then can the church speak prophetically rooted in tradition.
Related Articles
