The Church of Christ Uniting (COCU): An Analysis of the Polity Issues

In 1993, the 205th General Assembly voted to join the ecumenical group, The Church of Christ Uniting (COCU, also known as the Churches in Covenant Communion). However, full participation is not possible until changes are made to the Presbyterian Church (USA) Constitution; specifically the Book of Order. The 1996 General Assembly has proposed major changes to the Book of Order that would alter our polity and allow the Presbyterian Church (USA) to fully participate as a member denomination in COCU. These changes must now be approved or rejected by the 172 presbyteries.

If a simple majority of the presbyteries votes to approve the amendment, the Presbyterian Church (USA) will become a fully-participatory member of COCU. If, however, the amendment fails to receive affirmative votes by at least 87 presbyteries, the changes will not be made to our Constitution. This would make the Presbyterian Church (USA) a member of COCU, but unable to participate in it. Such a situation could be resolved by a subsequent General Assembly either voting to withdraw from COCU or sending a new amendment to the presbyteries. A new amendment could address some of the serious concerns that currently remain unresolved.

The proposed COCU amendment to section G-15 of the Book of Order needs careful consideration before presbyteries vote to accept or reject its provisions. If the amendment is approved, it will take effect when a plenary meeting is held by all the denominations that have joined COCU. Even then, the changes would be optional until local, regional and national covenanting councils are formed. If approved this year, the changes would become optional in 1998 and mandatory when the councils are in place.

The defining documents for COCU are The COCU Consensus: In Quest of a Church of Christ Uniting, 1985, 1991 and Churches in Covenant Communion: The Church of Christ Uniting, 1989. Both of these are available from the Consultation on Church Union, Research Park, 258 Wall Street, Princeton, New Jersey 08540, (609) 921-7866.

PCUSA Polity and COCU Councils

The COCU documents call for member denominations to “live as one in the most basic things—in faith, sacrament, ministry, and mission.”1 This involves mutual recognition of members and churches, recognition and reconciliation of ordained ministry, and a common Eucharist. Recognition would be made certain by the implementation of a hierarchical bureaucracy consisting of local, regional and national covenanting councils made up of representatives of member denominations.

As provided in the COCU documents, the representatives to the covenanting councils are bishops. In an attempt to reconcile Presbyterian polity to the requirement of denominational representatives, the amendment sent to presbyteries stipulates that the PCUSA will be represented by commissions, not bishops.

COCU challenges the Presbyterian Church (USA) to expand its ecumenical horizons. COCU has existed in various forms for over thirty years. The COCU proposal is lengthy and nuanced. This year’s General Assembly Commissioners’ Committee spent many long hours reworking it and trying to eliminate some of the objectionable sections before it was sent to the entire General Assembly for a vote.

As a result of the effort to make COCU acceptable to the General Assembly, several problems were left unresolved. First, the term, scope and authority of “covenanting councils” remained undefined. COCU creates “covenanting councils” at all governing body levels. For example, a local covenanting council would be formed from the various participating congregations in a local area. Representatives from sessions would constitute a “commission” which would in turn participate in the local council. Similarly, presbyteries, synods and the General Assembly would designate “commissions” to represent the PCUSA at the regional, and national levels.

The “covenanting councils” are given the power to “make Christian unity more visible” [G-15.0401f]. However, there are no provisions in the COCU documents or the amendment sent to the presbyteries that specify or limit the powers of the councils. The Presbyterian tradition of checks and balances is missing: there are no provisions to review or check the decisions of the councils. The COCU proposal and amendment allow for a subtle shift of power to an unfettered governing body, i.e., the covenanting council. Further, there are no provisions defining the staffing, funding requirements, or financial responsibilities for the councils. Participation in all aspects of the work of all councils, including at the local level, would be mandatory based upon the General Assembly’s commitment to participate in COCU.

Another unanswered question involves the make-up of the membership of commissions to the council. When regional councils overlap presbyteries, it is undetermined which presbytery will send a commission. Further, it is uncertain to which presbytery such a commission would report or which presbytery would determine the scope and extent of the powers of the commission. Further still, there are unanswered questions about the financial support that will be mandated, the authority of the decisions of the covenanting councils, and how the balance of various members of the participating denominations will be effected. For example, when a council will be comprised of bishops, who have oversight of congregations and pastors, and commissions of elders and clergy who have no oversight authority, how will the various member denominations be balanced? Presbyterians would have greater numbers on councils but would have no oversight authority. In some sense, they would be observers rather than full participants, because they would have minimal and very specific delegated authority.

Ordinarily, when presbyteries establish a commission it is for a limited specific purpose. Is it practical to suggest a Presbyterian commission with limited, specific powers can function as part of an ongoing covenanting council with an unlimited mandate and unlimited powers?

As an example, the COCU document says, “A covenant communion of churches is, by definition, committed to become truly inclusive. Each partner is enriched by sharing in the gifts that God has given to the other. Each partner works to take down walls of alienation that exist between the churches, and to overcome attitudes which tend to marginalize persons in regard to race, class, age, gender, disabilities, marital status, sexual orientation, and positions of power and powerlessness, and to live toward a church in which all participate in the wholeness of Christ.” (Churches in Covenant Communion, p.10)

If the “Fidelity and Chastity” Amendment, which is currently before the Presbyterian Church (USA), is approved, ordination will be denied to anyone who is not faithful in marriage and chaste outside of marriage. How can a commission representing the Presbyterian Church (USA) participate in a covenanting council whose charge is to “overcome attitudes which tend to marginalize persons [because of] sexual orientation?” What powers would the councils have, up through their national level, to seek compliance?

PCUSA Constitution and COCU Documents

The second basic question left unanswered is closely related to the issues already raised. The COCU proposal is based upon two documents, The COCU Consensus and Churches in Covenant Communion. These were approved in principle by the 1993 General Assembly, but have never been sent to the presbyteries for approval. The two documents set out the specifics of what the new church will be. There are four functions that will be shared by all parts of the new church: (1) faith, (2) sacraments, (3) ministry, and (4) mission. The primary question is the status of these documents if the COCU amendment passes. Will they be on the same level as the Presbyterian Constitution—the Book of Confessions and the Book of Order? Is the theology of the COCU documents, which equates Scripture with tradition, now to govern the PCUSA? What happens to the standards of the PCUSA’s Constitution regarding membership given the different standard in the documents? Are we prepared to do mission work in accordance with The COCU Consensus? Do we even understand these documents?

PCUSA Clergy Requirements and COCU Intentions

A third area of concern left unanswered by the current amendment is the status of clergy. Questions involving transfer of Ministers of Word and Sacrament between member denominations of COCU remain unanswered. What are the procedures for transferring clergy from a COCU denomination? Will clergy persons be treated like clergy from other denominations and have to take the Presbyterian standard ordinations exams as they do today? Or will they be treated as if transferring from a sister presbytery? What level of theological examination will be permitted by presbyteries when a COCU clergy person seeks membership in a presbytery? Will such examination be limited to agreement with the COCU documents or can it include the Presbyterian Book of Confessions? After the 1994 Assembly, which declared “Reformed Theology Matters,” do the presbyteries want to move to a broad diversity of theological views in our clergy? Is the PCUSA prepared to accept ministers from other COCU denominations without regard to how much they hold to our polity? Do the congregations of the PCUSA want pastors who do not recognize the historical Confessions of the PCUSA as having weight?

The Presbyterian Church (USA) is a partner denomination in the COCU dialogue. Each partner is expected to approve the proposal (the two documents) and make adjustments to its own polity for COCU to move forward. Many of the partners have already approved COCU. The Episcopalians continue to debate the merits. Their discussion emphasizes some of the same concerns many Presbyterians have voiced.

Episcopal General Convention Response

The Episcopal Church is one of the nine denominations that is a part of COCU discussions. The Episcopal Church meets once every three years at the national level in its “General Convention.” In 1988 the Convention found that the COCU Consensus was “not yet a sufficient theology” for entering a formal covenant. This stance was reaffirmed at the 1991 Convention. In 1994 a report was issued to the House of Bishops giving a detailed analysis of The COCU Consensus and Churches in Covenant Communion from an Episcopalian viewpoint. The following is a condensed version of that report, which has close application for the Presbyterian Church (USA).

There are eight elements identified in The COCU Consensus and Churches in Covenant Communion that establish the basis for the new covenant Church. Each element is important to the total picture.

Element 1: Unity in Faith

The first step toward covenant unity is to recognize theological agreement among the denominations. The Episcopalians have not found the COCU documents sufficient. The presbyteries need to decide if the documents are acceptable as theological statements. According to the Book of Order section G-15.0302, the COCU documents should have been sent to the presbyteries for their vote. Since this was not done, the only mechanism available for debate on their content is the present amendment which makes the necessary polity changes to implement COCU.

Element 2: Unity with Wholeness

While human wholeness is endorsed by all Presbyterians, there are different ideas of how wholeness is achieved. The COCU documents identify sin as almost entirely social injustice and disunity. The Episcopalians voice the concern that “A deeper view of sin touching on our revolt from God’s holiness, is missing.” Further, the spiritual role of the Church, proclaiming the Gospel and calling for holy living, is under-emphasized in favor of the Church’s ‘this-worldly’ social justice role.

Element 3: Mutual Recognition of Members in One Baptism

Considering other people who have been baptized in the name of the Trinity as members of the Body of Christ is the easy part. Yet, the United Church of Christ, a member of COCU, will not agree to baptize exclusively in “the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” The UCC response to COCU states, “…the United Church of Christ will continue to honor the traditional biblical expression of the Trinity in baptism while being open to further theological exploration by the leading of the Spirit.”

There are concerns about what happens at the level of membership when these documents are implemented. Will PCUSA congregations still be able to examine people for membership? Will there be any requirement that potential members accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior?

Element 4: Mutual Recognition of Each Other as Churches

Mutual recognition flows from mutual understanding. The COCU process, the Episcopalians observe, provides for “getting to know” each other after union rather than before. The presbyteries need to weigh whether or not the PCUSA is willing to enter this type of “arranged marriage” that COCU has brokered.

Element 5: Mutual Recognition and Reconciliation of Ordained Ministry

This element is essential to the recognition of the covenant union. The documents try to rule out any hint of “re-ordination” by COCU councils. Yet, they still use the traditional symbol of ordination, the laying on of hands, in the reconciliation services. Reformed theology and historic Church practice view the laying on of hands as an act representing the setting apart for a specific purpose that is not to be repeated because the Holy Spirit seals that act. The presbyteries need to evaluate if the ancient symbol of ordination is being used to re-ordain PCUSA officers or if it is being used only as a quasi-sacramental sign of non-ordination. If it is used only as a sign, then is this appropriate?

Element 6: Celebrating the Eucharist Together

The documents recognize that the Eucharist is a powerful centering reality for the Church’s mission. The ecumenical documents (“Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry”[BEM]), which are widely used by World Council of Churches’ members, include many aspects of celebrating the Eucharist such as proclamation of the Word, the presence of Christ, and the invocation of the Holy Spirit. The Episcopalians observe, “All these elements of the Christian tradition have been superficially treated or passed over entirely in the COCU documents.”

Element 7: Engaging Together in Christ’s Mission

COCU is strong in this area, reminding us that mission is essential to the life of the whole Church. The COCU documents state that “uniformity in structure is not essential to covenant communion.” Left unsaid, however, is what parts are essential, how such factors are to be identified, and what mechanism will be put in place to monitor compliance? The realities of social categorizations, congregational histories, and cultural expectations are not taken into account in these documents.

Element 8: Formation of Covenanting Councils

The primary purpose of these councils is to enable sharing of communion between the member denominations. The Episcopal Bishops see these councils as weak and tending too much to a congregational form of governance. As formulated, the councils are actually stronger than the average Session. In the amendment before the PCUSA presbyteries, these councils, in addition to taking formal votes on issues, have powers that are undefined. With unlimited powers, it would be wise to require councils to meet together for common reflection and dialogue. We in the PCUSA have strong theological reasons for requiring our governing bodies to meet in order to render a decision. The COCU amendment gives too much power to the councils without the theological or polity constraints we in the Reformed faith value.

Conclusion

Presbyterians should ask whether it is wise or even feasible to establish an entirely new hierarchy of local, regional and national bodies at a time when ecumenical bodies, like the National Council of Churches and World Council of Churches, as well as most mainline denominations, are struggling with declining revenues.

Presbyterians should also ask what COCU will establish for the Presbyterian Church (USA) that is not already in place. For example, most local ministerial associations are already engaged in vital and effective ministries in their areas. What will COCU provide that is not currently being provided for by these kinds of informal liaisons. Missions beyond the local level are provided by national and international ecumenical bodies like the National Council and World Council of Churches that coordinate between member denominations.

Presbyterians already have an open communion table where all those who are baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior are welcomed as one family at one table.

Presbyterians already recognize other ordained ministers. They are welcomed in Presbyterian pulpits with the approval of the session. They are welcomed into presbyteries after evidencing their knowledge and acceptance of Reformed faith.

The amendment before our presbyteries proposes changes that will be far-ranging for the Presbyterian Church (USA). COCU may take the Presbyterian Church (USA) closer to ecumenical involvement with some denominations. It may facilitate sharing communion and much more with the partner denominations. Yet, the possible polity shifts of membership, clergy, and theology would be departures from historic Reformed polity. The over-riding question remains: is this where God is leading us? The answer will be found by each presbytery as the amendment is discussed and voted upon. It is hoped that these will take place in an atmosphere bathed in prayer and founded on Scripture.

This article first appeared in Theology Matters, Vol. 2, No. 6 (Nov/Dec 1996).