From a Friend

This comes from a friend of mine - in italics to follow is his analysis of the recent letter from Kirkpatrick and Valentine:

In response to the Office of Theology and Worship's critique of NWAC I would have to say that it is disingenuous at best and disceitful at worse. However, within the document are the seeds of its own error. As a denomination we have long held that one of the signs of a true Church is that it exists where discipline is rightly administered.

To quote this document: "In addressing the questions NWAC raises, we must acknowledge that there is always a gap between any denomination's official positions and the views and practices of some ministers and members of that denomination."

The only way a group of people can work together, in any association is on the basis of mutual trust and common values. Within the church we also need a common and agreed upon understanding of scripture and theology. We not only do not have these in our denomination, but we have shown ourselves unvilling to discipline those who have departed from the "denomination's official position and views." Therefore, simply put, we are no longer a "true church".

Also, throughout the document there are quotes from the Book of Order and the Book of Confessions as the official positions of the church. The reminded me a little of Ken Lay CEO of ENRON saying something like: "Our Manual of Operations states that we will use the highest industry standard accounting practices as certified by an outside accounting firm." Of course it did not matter what their Manual of Operations said or what their outside accountin firm certified, what mattered was their actual practices. In the same manner it does not really matter what the BOO/BOC says if they are not reflected in reality and if we are unwilling to discipline those who do not practice what we say we believe. It is fine to say 'we believe in the Lordship of Jesus Christ', but the real examples of the"Reimagining Conference" and the "What's the Big Deal About Jesus" statement as well as many other public and private statements by leaders, pastors, and other throughout our denomination are denials of what we say we believe.

With regards to some of the specifics in this document, let me make a few comments. The fact that the report on the Trinity was "received" by the General Assembly is seen by many as the first step in our continuing decline from orthodoxy. Thirty years ago the denomination conducted a study of our position on homosexuality. The "Definitive Guidelines" clearly stated that homosexuality was sin and the practicing homosexuals were not to serve in the elected offices of the church. Yet here we are 30 yrs later departing from orthodoxy and opening the door to the practice of ordaining non-repentant homosexuals. The fear is the same process is at work with the issue of the Trinity and many of us wonder what the denomination will be saying 30yrs from now.

However, it is the statement about not abandoning ordination standards that is perhaps the most deceptive. Yes we've kept "fidelity" and "chastity" in the BOO but then the GA said if anyone has a "scruple" and can find a church or presbytery that will agree with them they can still be ordained. The reality is a person could declare a "scruple" about anything, including what was once considered the essentials of the faith and if their church/presbytery agreed they could be ordained. Therefore, we have allowed a loophole that has as its effect that we have no ordination standards that are the common standards of the church and we are no longer a connectional church ordain people on behalf of the whole church. We have in actual fact established "local option" even though everytime "local option" has been brought before the presbyteries it has been defeated. This was a backdoor method of trying to achieve a particular result that has been incredibly divisive thoughout our denomination.

In light of the deletions in chapter 14 mentioned in a previous blog these comments seem to be very questionable.