Amendment A: Where Are We Headed?

The current issues being faced by the Presbyterian Church (USA) deal with the very foundation of our faith. The action of last June’s General Assembly which recommends altering the recently passed Book of Order G-6.0106b (Amendment “B”) raises far greater questions than those dealing with sexual morality. The heart of the debate currently taking place in the PCUSA is not about the ordination of self affirming gay/lesbian persons or whether sexual intimacy belongs in marriage alone, as important as those topics are. The true issue is now nothing less than what it means to be a confessional church in the Reformed tradition.

Two contradictory themes have emerged from the supporters of proposed Amendment “A.” The first is that this new amendment actually brings us closer to the historic Reformed understanding of authority in the church. Second, we are also told that our confessionals standards, as they currently exist, are defective. In fact, as was reported by Dr. Laird J. Stuart, chairperson of the General Assembly committee which proposed Amendment “A,” our standards “need grace to temper them and keep them from becoming too severe.” The supporters of Amendment “A” have challenged the validity of Book of Order G-6.0106b’s call to “obedience to Scripture … in conformity to the historical confessional standards of the church.” They have claimed that the standards of Scripture and the confessions are subservient to the supreme standard of Jesus Christ. They have affirmed that there is a ranked hierarchy of authority in the Reformed tradition.

The Stated Clerk of the General Assembly, the Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick, has agreed with this claim stating that “our standards of authority are in descending order beginning with Jesus Christ, then turning to the scriptures, then to the confessions.” To reinforce this statement supporters of Amendment “A” claim that its language which speaks of “a life in obedience to Jesus Christ under the authority of Scripture and instructed by the historical confessional standards of the church” is taken from the ordination vows which presently are affirmed by all church officers. Obedience in the church properly is given to Jesus Christ rather than to the Scriptures, we are told.

So which is it? Is it the case that the proposed new amendment “A” is more in conformity with “the historic Reformed understanding” or is it that our confessional standards as they now exist are deficient since they apparently “need grace?” Answers to these assertions are far more vital than the continuing discussion about particular standards for ordination in the PCUSA.

We are being called to find “common ground,” to pursue unity in the church. Our sole basis for any common ground or unity as a church denomination can only be found in our constitution. Certainly “God alone is Lord of the conscience.” It is also true in the words of the “Preliminary Principles” that “there are truths and forms with respect to which men (sic) of good character and principles may differ.” Yet none of these statements can have any force or validity if we are not in agreement on the fundamental character of our constitution. The issue before the Presbyterian Church (USA) at this moment is nothing less than the spiritual life and death question of whether we are prepared to live according to our foundational beliefs as stated in The Book of Confessions (Part I of our Constitution) or whether we have in effect abandoned these documents as offering the fundamental definition of our faith as Reformed and Presbyterian Christians.

Attempt to Separate Christ from His Word

The first assertion is that Amendment “A” is more in conformity with “the historic Reformed understanding” of a ranked hierarchy in which one begins with Jesus Christ and then turns in descending order to the Scriptures and then to the confessions. This is truly an astonishing assertion, all the more so because it has been made by no less a figure than the Stated Clerk of our denomination. Nonetheless, it is a statement that is wrong both historically and theologically. To say that Jesus Christ apart from Scripture is the authority for the church is to say something that is outside the entire Reformed church tradition. To claim that we begin with Jesus Christ as our authority and then we turn in descending order to the Scriptures is to take a position that is not only contrary to Reformed theology and confession from the sixteenth century to the present but one that would also be completely unintelligible to Reformed theologians from John Calvin to Karl Barth. Who is this Jesus who can be known and obeyed apart from Scripture?

It is certainly correct to maintain that Jesus Christ is, in the words of the Barmen Declaration, “the one Word of God which we have to hear and which we have to trust and obey in life and in death.” Holy Scripture is the “Word of God written” (Book of Confessions 6.002, 9.27). Jesus Christ is the sum total of the Scriptures. They bear witness to him. This is as true of the Old Testament as it is of the New (Calvin, Institutes Bk. II, IX/1; Book of Confessions 3.04, 6.041). What, however, is incorrect is to assert that Jesus Christ is the authority for the church distinct from and superior to the authority of Scripture and that, somehow, the Scriptures exist as an authority in a secondary, descending order.

In the Reformed tradition authority begins with the Scriptures. Through the Scriptures as the Word of God written we come to see Jesus Christ. Scripture is the source of all true knowledge of Jesus Christ, this especially refers to saving knowledge by which we know that Jesus Christ died for our sins and rose again “according to the Scriptures” (I Cor. 15:3-4). It is in his recourse to the witness of the Scriptures that the apostle Paul is able to counter the claim of “another Jesus” who was the product of a “different gospel” (II Cor. 11:4; cf. II Cor. 4:13-14). The order here is unmistakable. We come first to Scripture, the Word of God in written form. As we study the Scriptures we find their central message is the gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ (John 5:29; Luke 24:44-47). Scripture is the sole source of saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. Any knowledge of Christ outside of Scripture is not that found in saving faith. The Westminster Confession summarizes this eloquently in Chapter 14 “On Saving Faith” (Book of Confessions 6.079):

By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God himself speaking therein… . But the principal acts of saving faith are, accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.

In other words, it is only as we come to recognize Scripture as true, as having the authority of God speaking in it, that we can have any faithful understanding of Jesus Christ. So, rather than turning to Scripture as a secondary source in some descending order after we affirm Christ, we begin with Scripture and only then do we come to Christ as Savior and Lord. The Second Helvetic Confession can speak of preaching as the Word of God only because true preaching is the proclamation of the message of the Scriptures (Book of Confessions 5.003-5.004). This is the thrust of the historic Reformed understanding of authority in the church. John Calvin in his Institutes of the Christian Religion begins with Scripture as the source of knowledge in faith, a knowledge which leads to Christ the Redeemer (Institutes Bk. I chapts. VI-IX). Calvin goes so far as to say that those who seek some other way of reaching God than by following Scripture are “not so much gripped by error as carried away with frenzy” (Institutes I/IX/1). When we turn to our Book of Confessions we find that they continually affirm the need to begin with Scripture. This is the clear statement of the Scots, Second Helvetic and Westminster Confessions (Book of Confessions 3.18-3.19, 5.001-5.003, 6.001-6.010). The Barmen Declaration contains the sober warning, “If you find that we are speaking contrary to Scripture, then do not listen to us!” (Book of Confessions 8.05). The Confession of 1967 states:

The one sufficient revelation of God is Jesus Christ, the Word of God incarnate, to whom the Holy Spirit bears unique and authoritative witness through the Holy Scriptures, which are received and obeyed as the word of God written (italics mine) (Book of Confessions 9.27).

The Brief Statement of Faith summarizes, “The same Spirit who inspired the prophets and apostles rules our faith and life in Christ through Scripture” (italics mine) (Book of Confessions 10.4, lines 58-60). The center of our faith is our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ but it is Jesus Christ “as he is attested for us in Holy Scripture.” This is the consensus of the Reformed faith as stated again and again in the historic creeds of the Reformed Church, not only those included in our Book of Confessions but in others such as the First Helvetic Confession, the Genevan Confession, the French Confession and the Belgic Confession among others.

Over against these historic affirmations, the claim that “the historic Reformed understanding” of authority is in descending order Jesus Christ and then the Scriptures and then the confessions is not only wrong but is an outright distortion. The historic Reformed understanding begins with Scripture as the true and fully authoritative Word of God in written form and then finds Jesus Christ as the message of the Scriptures. The role of the confessions is to interpret the Scriptures. While Scripture, Christ and confessions of faith can, and must be, distinguished from each other, they can never be separated. The test of faith is always, “Does it conform to Scripture?” To suggest that there is some hierarchy of order in faith in which Jesus Christ can be separated from Scripture (since we turn to Scripture presumably after beginning with Jesus Christ) and then we turn to the confessions after turning to the Scriptures is not Reformed theology at all.

The Scriptures are our sole authority for knowing about Jesus Christ, his gospel and his will for us. The confessions aid us in our understanding of the Scriptures. We do not turn to the confessions after we have consulted the Scriptures. Rather we use the confessions as we study the Scriptures. And if the confessions are found to be contrary to Scripture we amend the confessions. Jesus Christ, however, can never be set over against the Scriptures since the Scriptures bear witness to him uniquely and authoritatively. We may correct an interpretation of Scripture but to suggest that Jesus Christ stands over against or separate from the Scriptures is to depart seriously from a Reformed and Presbyterian understanding of Christian faith.

Attempt to Clear Way for Ordination of those Practicing Homosexuality

The issue before the church in Amendment “A,” as it is being presented, is nothing less than an ersatz understanding of Christianity. This becomes more evident as one looks at the accompanying arguments on behalf of Amendment “A” from another angle. Having been told that Amendment “A” is closer to “the historic Reformed understanding”(which it is not) we are then told that some change in our historic understanding is necessary since the standards of the church, presumably the confessions, “lack grace.” One of the more grace oriented themes of Amendment “A,” apparently, is that by replacing G-6.0106b it would remove the “basis for a continuing ban on the ordination of self-affirming and practicing gay and lesbian people.” This assertion was made in a sermon given by Dr. Stuart, chair of the GA Commissioners Committee that passed proposed Amendment A, shortly after the Assembly.1 This assertion is particularly revealing in the light of his committee’s insistence that it was not seeking to overturn the General Assembly’s position of definitive guidance, later reaffirmed as authoritative interpretation, in forbidding the ordination of self-affirming and practicing gay and lesbian persons. In addition to this concern the statement is made that the confessions, as they now stand, cannot provide clear ethical guidance since they contain a catalogue of some 670 sins which are defined as “cumbersome and confusing.” So while we are told on one hand that Amendment “A” is necessary to restore the historic Reformed understanding in the church, we are told, on the other, that this same historic Reformed understanding lacks grace, and is confusing and cumbersome.

Our Reformed forebears would have been shocked to be told that their definitions of the faith lacked grace! One could argue that the hallmark of the Reformed church is its radical view of God’s sovereign grace, that no matter how sinful we are, God’s grace in Jesus Christ is all sufficient to pardon, forgive and restore us. To say that this theme is stressed in the Book of Confessions would be a tremendous understatement. It is in fact the understanding of grace which lies behind the much debated doctrine of election or predestination. God saves us utterly apart from anything we have done or might attempt to do. The doctrine of sin in the Reformed tradition not only strips away any pretense we might have of justifying ourselves, it is also a good lesson in democracy. None of us is ultimately any better (or any worse) than anyone else. We all stand indicted under God’s law, powerless to help ourselves. This we have seen to be the meaning of the statement that we are dead in trespasses and sin (Eph. 2:1). Contrary to all attempts in the history of the church to minimize the reality of sin and the sovereign power of God’s grace, from Pelagius who opposed Augustine on this point, to Medieval attempts to forge some cooperative view of humanity and God working together in salvation, to later Methodist and Holiness understandings of some residue of human spiritual ability, to the contemporary redefinition of sin as essentially a need for therapy, the Reformed view has maintained the priority of salvation being received solely by grace through faith. In the words of the Scots Confession:

For by nature we are so dead, blind, and perverse, that neither can we feel when we are pricked, see the light when it shines, nor assent to the will of God when it is revealed, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus quicken that which is dead, remove the darkness from our minds, and bow our stubborn hearts to the obedience of his blessed will. And so, as we confess that God the Father created us when we were not, as his Son our Lord Jesus redeemed us when we were enemies to him, so also do we confess that the Holy Ghost does sanctify and regenerate us, without respect to any merit proceeding from us, be it before or be it after our regeneration. To put this even more plainly; as we willingly disclaim any honor and glory for our own creation and redemption, so do we willingly also for our regeneration and sanctification, for by ourselves we are not capable of thinking one good thought, but he who has begun the work in us alone continues us in it, to the praise and glory of his undeserved grace. (Book of Confessions 3.12).

To say that our confessions lack grace is like saying Notre Dame lacks a football team. The claim is not so much wrong as simply incomprehensible.

Still, how can grace be reconciled with those 670 sins which G-6.0106b now confronts us with since its inclusion in the Book of Order? This complaint against the wording of G-6.0106b has focused on the last sentence which states, “Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament.” There has been a sustained effort to misconstrue this sentence ever since it was presented at the 1996 General Assembly. Nothing is said here about complying with a list of aggregate sins. The focus is on what the confessions (plural) call sin. The appeal is to the confessions as a holistic source. Individual confessional documents occasionally define particular sins in different ways. For example, the Westminster Confession prohibits “works, words and thoughts” about “worldly employments and recreations on the Sabbath.” However the accompanying Larger Catechism adds the qualifying word “needless” in reference to “words, works and thoughts about our worldly employments and recreations.” The Shorter Catechism uses the adjective “unnecessary” in a parallel sentence. The point is the confessions confront us with a set of criteria which guide us in matters over which there will clearly be differences of opinion

As another example, while the confessions specifically condemn all marital infidelity, they only offer criteria for evaluation in other sexual areas. Therefore dancing itself is not prohibited but, rather, “lascivious songs, books, pictures, dancing… ”(italics mine). What constitutes “lascivious” invites a matter of opinion which obviously will change not only from one historical period to another but from one person to another (cf. Rom. 14, I Cor. 8). The issue is repentance not legalistic observance. To comb through the Book of Confessions citing historical examples, general criteria and specific prohibitions all on the same level is to engage in ridiculous caricature rather than serious discussion.

Finally, the point has been stressed that Amendment “A” is in conformity with the ordination vows which all church officers must take. This is not the case. For example, the wording of Amendment “A” states, “Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Jesus Christ, under the authority of Scripture and instructed by the historic confessional standards of the church.” Actually the ordination vows call officers to be “instructed and led” (italics mine) by the confessions. The point has already be made by others that being instructed and led is far more than simply being instructed. I may be instructed by an editorial I read in the morning newspaper but that may be very different from my being led or guided by what I read. Those who want to separate G-6.0106b’s call to obedience to Scripture from Amendment “A”’s reference to obedience to Jesus Christ under the authority of Scripture may well need a remedial course in Reformed theology. The ordination vows themselves make clear the call to obedience to Scripture by referring to it as “God’s Word to you.” The confessions are cited as “authentic and reliable expositions of what Scripture leads us to believe and do… .” These questions precede the reference to serving “in obedience to Jesus Christ, under the authority of Scripture and be continually guided (as opposed to only ‘instructed’) by our confessions.” The confessions make clear that Scripture is to be obeyed (Book of Confessions 6.004, 8.04, 9.27). This is a hallmark of Reformed belief going back to Calvin (Institutes I/VI/2).

The Reformed insistence on the unique authority of Scripture distinguishes it from the Roman Catholic understanding of authority which includes tradition and papal pronouncements. It is also to be distinguished from the quadrilateral Methodist view which includes reason, tradition and experience alongside Scripture. The Reformed view is sola scriptura, “Scripture alone,” one of the key concepts of the Protestant Reformation (Book of Order G-2.0400). This view also clearly marks off the Reformed view from modern and indeed post-modern views of authority centered in some understanding of the autonomous individual. The Reformed view of Scripture in no way diminishes the focus on Jesus Christ the Word incarnate who is the sum total of the message of Scripture. Any attempt to separate Christ from Scripture is a violation of the essential belief of the Reformed tradition. There are and will remain differences in the church. There is however a profound distinction between views which are based on the authority of Scripture and those which seek to bypass Scripture or relegate it to a secondary position behind some pious but vague reference to Jesus Christ. The Jesus Christ who is encountered outside Scripture is the “different Jesus” against which the apostle Paul warned the Corinthians. The real issue at stake in the debate over Amendment “A” in the Presbyterian Church (USA) is whether or not we are a church seeking to be obedient to Holy Scripture. In the words of Karl Barth:

It is therefore true that Holy Scripture is the Word of God for the Church, that it is Jesus Christ for us, as He Himself was for the prophets and apostles during the forty days (after the Resurrection) … if Scripture is not the Word of God for the Church, then the revelation of God is only a memory, and there is no Church of Jesus Christ.” (Church Dogmatics 1/2 p. 544).

This article first appeared in Theology Matters, Vol. 3, No. 5 (Sep/Oct 1997).