Adopted by195th General Assembly (1983)Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)

Published byThe Office of the General Assembly

Louisville, KY 40202

Additional copies available at $1.00 each from Presbyterian DistributionManagement Services (OMS), 100 Witherspoon Street,

Room lA 1425, Louisville, KY 40202-1396, or by calling 1-800-524-2612outside of Louisville; 502-569-5618 in Louisville.

Please specify OMS order OGA-88-O59.

REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ONHISTORIC PRINCIPLES,

CONSCIENCE, AND CHURCH GOVERNMENT

The 194th General Assembly (1982) of The UnitedPresbyterian Church in the United States of Americaconcurred with O~rture 78 (1982) from the Presbyteryof Chicago, which requested "a solemn interpretation...of the Preliminary Principles. ..Form ofGovernment, Chapter 1, Sections 1-8 (31.01-.08), andof [the Radical Principles, Form of Government,]Chapter V, Section 1 (35.01), and of their relationshipto each other, and of their relationship to the processof amending our Constitution." (Minutes, 1982, Part I,p.518.)

The Assembly instructed its Moderator to appoint aspecial committee to recommend the interpretationwhich the presbytery requested. The Moderator subse-quently appointed this special committee composed ofthe following persons: Howard L. Rice, San Anselmo,California, Chairperson, John T. Ames, Anchorage,Kentucky, Alfred T. Goodwin, Portland, Oregon,James McClure, Oak Park, Illinois, Patricia McClurg,Atlanta, Georgia, Leroy Patrick, Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania, Annette L. Phinazee, Durham, NorthCarolina, John J. Spangler, Atlanta, Georgia, andMarianne L. Wolfe, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

The committee has met on three occasions and sub-mits the following report.

Introduction

actions and forbade others on the part of church offi-cers and governing bodies. Both the PresbyterianChurch in the United States and The United Presbyte-rian Church in the United States of America anteced-ent denominations from which our church was formedmade many affirmations and took positions on manymatters with which some members and officers ingood conscience could not agree. It is perhaps fair tosay that no knowledgeable member or officer of thechurch can agree with every requirement or prohibi-tion of the "Form of Government" and with every po-sition which the church takes on every issue. This has,not surprisingly, led to tension in the church; yet it hasalso contributed to a healthy diversity of opinion, togrowth and change in many areas, and to the search forcreative solutions to areas of conflict.

The committee would call attention to the report ofthe Committee on Pluralism which was received bythe 190th General Assembly, UnitedPresbyterianChurch in the U.S.A., in 1978 and the report of theTask Force on Polity and Reconciliation appointed as aresult of the action and received by the 19 I st GeneralAssembly, United Presbyterian Church, U.S.A., in1979. Here the General Assembly affirmed both theexistence and the desirability of diversity in thechurch; recognizing that controversy, and the tensioninevitably produced by diversity, may be the arenawhere-in the struggle and grappling with ideas-theSpirit is most likely to speak to the church.

The polity of Presbyterianism-with its strong insis-tence on the rule of the majority and the rights of theminority-is indeed the way in which Presbyteriansaffirm their unity amid their diversity. This polity notonly organizes dissent and diversity, it is itself a prod-uct of dissent, diversity, compromise, and the creativeresolution of bitter conflict.

We are very inclined to the fallacy that trouble in thechurch is unique to a particular time and to a particularsituation. This can lead to the erroneous convictionthat if we only were faithful enough or smart enoughor tried hard enough, we could solve the church'sproblems. The experiences of the apostle Paul in hisown ministry are clear testimony that the questions ad-dressed by this committee are not uniquely Presbyteri-an nor are they twentieth century. Paul lists "partyspirit" as among the "desires of the flesh" (Gal. 5:20)contrasting the existence of "party spirit" in thechurch with the presence of "the Spirit" in an interest-ing play on words. To the Corinthians and others heemphasized the necessity of unity in the church withan affirmation of the inevitability and desirability ofdiversity; yet to all he said, "You are the body ofChrist." (I Cor. 12:27.)

One of the earliest controversies in the apostolicchurch was the occasion for the convocation of theCouncil of Jerusalem (Acts 15). Peter recounts avision of the diversity of God's people (Acts 11) ,and adivine admonition to the young church to allow di-versity in its fellowship, and Peter and Paul had alreadyagreed on this very sensitive matter (Gal. 2: 1-10). Atthe council Peter rose to Paul's defense, and the coun-cil made the decision to permit Paul to carry out his

The Synod of New York and Philadelphia at its lastmeeting in 1788 adopted a "Form of Government andDiscipline" which, with many changes, has governedAmerican Presbyterianism since that time. Thefamous "Introduction" to this new constitutionquoted the Westminster Confession of Faith, that"God alone is lord of the conscience, and hath left itfree from the doctrines and commandments of menwhich are in any thing contrary to his Word. ..."(6.109.)

These "Preliminary Principles" (Form ofGovernment, United Presbyterian Church, U.S.A.,Chapter 1,31.00 -31.08) now in the Reunited Churchcalled "The Historic Principles of Church Order" (G.1.0300 -1.0308) affirm in the strongest terms both theright and the responsibility of individuals to formulatetheir own faith as they feel led by the Word and Spiritof God; and also the freedom of the church to order itslife and proclaim its faith according to its understand-ing of God's will. The Presbyterian Church in theUnited States also affirmed "freedom of conscience"in its Book of Church Order (14-3).

Yet the church has in many ways mandated cer~ain

* Directions for the Future I, "channeling the church's energies in

witness in the whole life and into the whole world," the first of five"Directions for the Future to Strengthen the Life and Work of theUnited Presbyterian Church," adopted by the General AssemblyMission Council at its regular meeting, November 11-13, 1982.

1

ministry among the gentiles. There is the impression,based on Paul's letter to the Galatians, that he wouldhave done so in any case, causing a destructive andperhaps fatal division in the young church.

The subsequent history of the church-in all itsbranches-is a story of conflict and compromise.Sometimes the conflict has been destructive. Chris-tians must continually live in the tension that occasion-ally exists between the truth, unity and purity of thechurch. We pray for guidance, recognizing that"synods and councils may err"; but recognizing the as-sumption of our polity that governing bodies whichconduct their business in accordance with the proce-dures of our form of government-guaranteeing therights of every member-are more likely to reflectGod's will for the church than individuals acting intheir private capacity or as members of ad hoc, self-appointed groups.

I. The Historical Context

A. Background

For the first eighty-two years of its existence, Ameri-can Presbyterianism got along with no explicit, writtenform of government. The Adopting Act of 1729 hadmade the Westminster Confession of Faith "in all theessential and necessary Articles" the creedal basis ofthe church, but the "Directory of Worship and Formof Government" adopted by the Westminster divineswas simply declared to be "agreeable in substance tothe Word of God" and was "earnestly recommended"to the congregations and ministers of the synod ''asnear as Circumstances will allow and Christian pru-dence direct."] Thus there was no objective authorityto which parties in controversy could appeal, and noauthority higher than the majority vote of a givensynod.

The Westminster "Form of Government" is notreally a form of government. The Assembly wasdominated by the Presbyterian wing of Puritanism,but not all of them were willing to adopt the full Pres-byterian system of the Church of Scotland. There weresome members wno favored a modified episcopacy, agroup of radical Independents whose influence greatlyexceeded their numbers, and a very significant body ofErastians who believed that a Christian state shoulddominate and control the church. There were alsoeight "Scotch Commissioners" whose presence waspart of the price that was exacted for help that theScots army rendered to the Parliamentary cause. TheAssembly first passed a series of "Propositions ofChurch Government" establishing the full principle ofPresbyterianism but these propositions were rejectedby Parliament. They were adopted by the Church ofScotland, however, in 1645, and formed the basis forthe polity of that church. Following this parliamentaryrebuff, and in the face of the protests of the Indepen-dents and the determined Erastian Parliament, the As-

sembly adopted and recommended "A Practical Direc-tory for Church Government" which avoided as muchas possible all questions of principle. It was a muchmodified Presbyterian system with presbyteries andsynods but no general assembly, no lay elders, and achurch clearly dominated, even in purely ecclesiasticalmatters, by the civil authorities. It was approved byParliament, but never by the Church of Scotland. Thisdirectory governed the Puritan dominated Church ofEngland during the Interregnum and the nonconform-ist churches in England after 1688.

American Presbyterians from the beginning thus in-herited two quite different traditions of church govern-ment from Great Britain. These were augmented byadherents of continental Reformed Churches, espe-cially Dutch and German along with some FrenchHuguenots. Throughout the colonial period whenthere was no written form of government, the dif-ferences between these various traditions were neverresolved.

Subscription to the Westminster theological stan-dards itself had been bitterly controversial. In 1729Jonathan Dickinson of New York proposed a solutionwhich made a distinction between essential and non-essential articles in the theological standards. Candi-dates for ordination were to be required to subscribeonly to the "essential articles" and the presbytery wasgiven the responsibility of judging as to whether an in-dividual's "scruple" was on an essential article or not.The Adopting Act of 1729 further pledged that themembers of Synod "solemnly agree, that none of uswill traduce or use any opprobrious terms of those thatdiffer from us in these extra-essential and not neces-sary points of doctrine. .."2 Dickinson's solution tothis problem was not what would today be called acompromise, but was rather an entirely new construct.The tension between the differing points of view wasretained, and the extremists of neither side weresatisfied, but the unity of the church was maintained.

The tension erupted again during the Great Awaken-ing when presbyteries dominated by the revival partyordained Log College graduates who were less interest-ed in rigid adherence to the Westminster theologythan in an experience of grace. For their part, the"New Side" leaders charged the more orthodoxgroup-which dominated the synod after about1736-with being more interested in theological ortho-doxy than in either Christian experiences or the per-sonal morality of candidates for ordination.

In 1741 the "Old Side" forced William Tennent andthe other Log College leaders of New Brunswick Pres-bytery out of the Synod. This was protested by thePresbytery of New York, of which Dickinson was themain representative. The Dickinson group was not aproduct of the revival, and was not necessarily evensympathetic to it. It was, however, bitterly opposed tothe high-handed manner in which the Synod majorityhad dealt with the revival party, and with the assump-tion of such authority by the Synod over thepresbyteries. For two years Dickinson and others triedto effect a reconciliation. That proving to beimpossible, the Presbytery of New York joined the

2

Log College group and the Synod of New York wasformed in 1744.

Since the "New Side" Synod was diverse from thebeginning, it was necessary that some techniques foraccommodating differences be developed. Dickinsonand Tennent were different in many ways, but theyboth insisted that it was the presbytery-not the higherjudicatory-which was the fundamental unit of Presby-terian organization. This contrasts with the situation inScotland where the General Assembly, originallycreated by act of Parliament, was the basic unit of thechurch's organization.

The reunion of 1758 established the basic pattern ofgovernment under which American Presbyterianismhas continued to operate. It was similar in many waysto the arrangement by which the Synod of New Yorkhad come into being. This reunion was essentially acompromise between the stricter Presbyterianism ofScotland and Ireland, which the "Old Side" Synod ofPhiladelphia represented, and a version ofPresbyterianism much influenced by elements of Con-gregationalism brought by New Englanders and strong-ly reinforced by the Great A wakening.

The reunion reveais the Presbyterian genius forcompromise on matters of polity (and to some extenttheology). It was achieved on the basis of the AdoptingAct of 1729 and most of the other areas which hadbeen in dispute were compromised. The "Plan ofUnion" included a provision for dealing with conscien-tious minorities:

When any Matter is determined by a Major Vote, everyMember Shall either actively concur with, or passivelySubmit to Such Determination; or, if his Conscience permithim to do neither, he Shall, after Sufficient Liberty modestlyto reason and remonstrate, peaceably withdraw from ourCommunion, without attempting to make any Schism:Provided always, that this Shall be understood to extend onlyto Such Determinations, as the Body Shall judge indispens-able in Doctrine or Presbyterian Government.3

Protestant Churches") and "agreeably to the generalprinciples of Presbyterian government" to compilerules "for the government of Synod and the severalPresbyteries."6 The Synod specifically recognized thatthe Westminster "Form of Government" was inade-quate to regulate the day to day affairs of the church. Itinstructed the committee to consider, in addition,"Pardovan's Collections" which was a compilation ofprecedents, procedures, and rules in the Church ofScotland going back to the Reformation. It had beencompiled by Walter Steuart, Earl of Pardovan, andrevised and updated by others.

The committee was chaired by John Witherspoon, aScotsman who had been chosen president of the Col-lege of New Jersey in 1766 partially because he wasneutral in the continuing squabbles between the "NewSide" and the "Old Side." Witherspoon was an abletheologian, administrator and fund raiser; and his con-spicuous patriotism in the days of the Continental Con-gress had brought popular esteem both to him and hischurch. His usefulness to the church continued to be,however, his political astuteness. He was personallyquite orthodox and took a fairly "high church" positionon matters of polity; but politically he was allied in thechurch with the free church leaders from the "NewSide" tradition who had brought him to Princeton. Hisinfluence on the committee and in the synod was defi-nitely in the direction of emulating the Scottish modelof church government.

The committee also included John Rodgers, minis-ter of the First Presbyterian Church of New York City.Rodgers was the product of the revival, and definitely"New Side" in his political and theological sentiments;but he was also what might be called "high church" inboth liturgical matters and polity. Among his manyother contributions to the infant church, for example,was the first draft of the "Directory of Worship"-agenuine liturgy which was rendered innocuous beforebeing adopted by the General Assembly in 1788. Rod-gers was the most conscientious member of thecommittee, and the only one to attend every meeting.It is likely that he was responsible for the actual draft-ing of the "Form of Government," though AshbelGreen, the first historian of American Presbyterianismand biographer of John Witherspoon, asserted, overfifty years later, that Witherspoon was the main authorof the "Historic Principles."7

Francis Alison, minister of the First Church in Phila-delphia and patriarch of the "Old Side," was on thecommittee, as was Matthew Wilson, the defiantly anti-Scottish moderator of the Synod in 1785. Wilson's an-notated version of the final draft of the "Form ofGovernment" is deposited in the Presbyterian Histori-cal Society in Philadelphia and gives vivid evidence ofthe extent to which the church was divided on thebasic questions of polity.

There is evidently a certain degree of correlation be-tween ethnic origin and the theological-political divi-sion in the church. Many of the ministers who had re-cently immigrated from Ulster and from Scotlandtended to side with the more rigidly Presbyterianparty, whereas most of those who favored a greater

After the War of Independence the rapid growth ofthe church made it evident that the government of thePresbyterian Church was in need of improvement.The decision to abandon the increasingly inefficientnondelegated general Synod and create a General As-sembly and the decision to adopt a written form ofgovernment were made about the same time, but areonly coincidentally related to each other.4 In 1785 theSynod faced the problem of increasingly poor atten-dance at its meetings. One of the recommendationswas that it be made into a delegated Synod, whichshould be mostly advisory or consultative, and thatmuch greater power should be assumed by thepresbyteries. This was proposed by the New Englanddominated Presbytery of Suffolk (which then soughtto withdraw from the synod when its suggestion wasnot adopted); but the Synod instead adopted a resolu-tion proposing that "three or more" synods becreated.S

Two days later the Synod appointed a committee todraw up an American compilation of Presbyteriandiscipline. It instructed the committee to look to thepractice of the Church of Scotland ("and other British

3

laxity in both theology and polity were of New Englandbirth or education.S It is also a matter of fact that pro-tagonists in the controversy not infrequently describedtheir opponents in ethnic terms. Wilson's colorfulcomments illustrate this. Beside a phrase in the"Prelimiriary Principles" which refers to the govern-ment of the Church, "which Christ hath appointed,"he wrote: "Has Christ appointed these laws? Are theynot stolen from the Kirk of Scotland?" One must becareful, however, not to make too much of theseethnic differences and identifications. Many of 1hosewho had been influenced by the revival, for example,who favored loose subscription and a more relaxedpolity, were Scots or "Scotch-Irish." The governmentof American Presbyterianism was neither that of Scot-tish (and Irish) Presbyterianism (as some wished),nor was it a slight adaptation of New England Puritan-ism (as others wished). It was a new thing, hammeredout of controversy and compromise, and adoptedwhen the majority of the church-composed of personsof all ethnjc and geographic backgrounds-determinedthat agreement on principles and compromise ondetails was necessary if the unity of the church was tobe preserved, and if the church was .to be enabled tomeet the challenge which it faced in anew, rapidlygrowing, frontier nation.

B. "The Historic Principles"

The original "Form of Government" was clearly acompromise between those in the church who wantedto adopt the full discipline and government of theChurch of Scotland and those who preferred a much"looser" and less rigidly Presbyterian system. At theSynod of 1785, Matthew Wilson proposed the adoptionof a plan of government which he had prepared. Unfor-tunately it was not entered on the Minutes, and nocopy of it appears to have survived. Wilson'sopponents, whom he describes as "the ScottishGentry," then proposed that the Synod adopt the fulldiscipline of the Church of Scotland.9 The Synodrejected both alternatives and reorganized thecommittee, which presented the first draft of the"Form of Government" the following year.

The "Preface" to the new plan thus describes thenature of the compromise which it represents. Thesestatements became Chapter I of the "Form of Govern-ment" in the edition of 1821, where they were, for thefirst time, called "Preliminary Principles." They ap-peared in every subsequent edition of the "Form ofGovernment" of the Presbyterian Church in theUnited States of America and The United PresbyterianChurch in the United States of America. The footnotein the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church(U.S.A.) first appeared as a footnote in the 1821edition. Clearly these principles are intended to mollifythose in the church who were opposed to all or muchof the proposed new "Form of Government." Thiswas done in two specific ways: by the firm declarationof the liberty of the individual conscience, and by thefirm declaration that the church had no aspirations tothe "national church" position then claimed by the

Church of Scotland. The most significant opposition tothe "Form of Government" seems to have existed onthe part of those who favored a greater degree oftheological latitude and local autonomy than themajority. They also feared (1) a delegated GeneralAssembly, (2) a written form of government givingconsiderable and specific powers to the higher govern-ing bodies, and (3) a polity which seemed to resemblethe state Church of Scotland more than the freechurches elsewhere in Great Britain.

These opponents were assured by the introductionto the "Form of Government" that the churchclaimed no authority over their private conscienceswhich were "free from the doctrines and command-ments of men."

The other major focus of the "Preliminary Princi-ples" is the freedom and independence of the church.This strikes us today as a rather noncontroversialmatter, but those who adhered to the more "highchurch" party aspired to the sort of church-society ar-rangement (if not state church) that existed inScotland. It is also likely that the "Preliminary Princi-ples" were intended to differentiate the PresbyterianChurch from other denominations. The statementsmake it clear that the Presbyterians claimed the libertyto order their affairs as they thought best, but weredetermined that others who had different opinions hadthe same right. The principle of church-state separationwas very new in America in 1788; and was opposed bymany. Presbyterians had been conspicuous amongthose who favored this principle, and were perhapsproud to take this opportunity to do so.

The Synod which adopted the "Form of Govern-ment" did not do so unanimously. Overtures were re-ceived from several congregations objecting to variousprovisions, but they were tabled. The irascible Mat-thew Wilson was ill, but sent a long protest which wasignored.lO Suffolk Presbytery on Long Island had sostrenuously objected to the first draft that it requestedto be separated from the Synod. The following yearSuffolk Presbytery was reconciled to the adoption ofthe "Form of Government." Controversy continued,of course, but as far as can be determined no ministeror congregation left the denomination in protest to theadoption of the constitution.

The action of 1788 was to adopt a written constitu-tion for the church consisting of a general system .ofPresbyterian doctrine, government, worship, anddiscipline. As the Adopting Act of 1729 and the unionof 1758 had not required rigid conformity either in doc-trine or polity, so the new constitution permitted con-siderable diversity under adherence to a generalsystem. The Adopting Act proclaimed that AmericanPresbyterianism was not to be as rigidly confessionalas the 17th and 18th century Church of Scotland; theintroduction to the "Form of Government" made thesame point about the church's polity. The right of pri-vate conscience was to be preserved so that therecould be room for differences within the church overmatters of both doctrine and procedure that were notdeemed essential.

4

II. The Relationship Between Polity and BiblicalTheology in Presbyterianism

The notes of the true Kirk, therefore, we believe, confess,and avow to be; first, the true preaching of the Word of God,in which God has revealed himself to us, as the writing of theprophets and apostles declare; secondly, the right administra-tion of the sacraments of Christ Jesus, with which must be as-sociated the Word and promise of God to seal and confirmthem in our hearts; and lastly, ecclesiastical discipline upright-ly ministered, as God's Word prescribes, whereby vice is re-pressed and virtue nourished.

(Scots Confession, Chapter XXVIII)(-Book of Confessions, 3.18)

necessarily incomplete. Individuals are in relationshipto God through their participation and membership inthe covenant community to which they are called bothin a private and a public call. The two sacraments, Bap-tism and the Lord's Supper, bind the community offaith together and are to be administered in the pres-ence of the community by those charged by the com-munity with this responsibility.

The emphasis upon the covenant is also the basis forthe vesting of authority in representative assembliesnow called governing bodies. The covenant betweenGod and the church is expressed by the corporatebodies far more effectively than by any individual. Thedebate of issues within these bodies is more likely todiscern and express the will of God than is any privatedecision made by an individual. The more representa-tive the body (the more inclusive) the more likely itwill be able to express God's will.

God's covenant is made with all who are boundtogether in Christ. This universal church is greaterthan the sum of its parts. Presbyterians have always af-firmed that every particular denomination is but a partof this great church catholic, and must recognize mem-bers of all other branches of the church as our sistersand brothers. This leads Presbyterians to ecumenicalactivity, and has done so from the beginning.

This understanding also means that Presbyteriansare suspicious of particular congregations as sufficientexpressions of the covenant. No single congregationcan stand by itself. It is not complete as a microcosm ofthe whole church, for any congregation is inevitablytoo homogeneous and therefore too parochial to be afull expression of God's covenant with the church.Our polity affirms that it is the more inclusive govern-ing bodies which are more truly representative of thediversity of God's covenant people. Thus they aremore likely to reflect accurately the church's under-standing of God's will than are the less inclusive andinevitably more parochial governing bodies of thechurch.

The basis of Presbyterian polity is theological. Ourpolity is not just a convenient way of getting thingsdone; it is rather, the ordering of our corporate lifewhich expresses what we believe. The connection be-tween faith and order is inseparable. At its heart, thepolity of the church expresses our Reformed theology.What we do and the way we do it is an expression ofhow we understand our faith.

The Scots' Confession makes this clear when itspeaks about the marks of the true church, those quali-ties which e,nable us to identify the church. Thesemarks have to do with both purity of doctrine andproper procedure. The two are interrelated for what istrue must also be expressed in the way things are done.Thus the right administration of the sacraments has todo both with the proper understanding of them andwith the way in which they are done, and the exerciseof discipline is a matter of procedure.

Central to this relationship between faith and prac-tice is our conviction that Scripture is central to all thechurch does. The shape of the life of the church, that isits polity, is a direct expression of what we believe theBible teaches. This is not to say that Presbyterianism isexpressly taught in Scripture; and certainly not to saythat other forms of church order, reflecting the under-standing of others of God's people, are inimical toScripture. We do affirm, however, that we believe thatour polity is biblical in that it expresses our deepest in-sights from Scripture about the relationship betweenGod and the people of God. B. Human Sin

A. The Cownant

It is from Scripture that a central theme of the polityof the Church is derived: That of the covenantalnature of God's dealing with humankind from thebeginning. God chose a people and bound them in acovenant community. For us, that covenant communi-ty is the church which Paul describes in I Corinthians12 as the body of Christ. Each mem ber is called to aparticular ministry according to gifts and abilities as apart of the one ministry of the covenant community.Every member is called to minister in the world. Someare called to minister within the church as its officers.It is indispensable that each member of the covenantcommunity have a sense of inner persuasion and besound in faith, but a purely private relation with God is

Another theological principle which lies at the rootof Presbyterian polity is also derived from Scripture. Itis the clear understanding that all are sinners. Any indi-vidual entrusted with very much power may wellmisuse that power. Individuals may only represent thegoverning bodies of the church in order to carry outthe instructions or directions of the body whichempowered them to speak or act, and they are alwaysresponsible to the church body they represent.

Our emphasis on principles tends to differentiatePresbyterians from those in other Christiancommunions. Presbyterians find the locus of thechurch neither in the local congregation, as in a con-gregational polity, nor in a hierarchy of authoritativeindividuals, as in episcopal polity. Presbyteriansbelieve, of course, that God calls individuals to faith;but we believe that the corporate life of the church isbest expressed by our system of representative govern-.Citations are to the Book of Confessions of the Presbyterian

Church (U.S.A.),

~

ing bodies in which ordained officers act on behalf ofthe church.

No individual in our system holds any authority inthe church except by the call of the church. The offi-cers of a governing body are temporary and limited.The only two required offices are those of a moderatorand a clerk and these titles suggest modesty aboutfunction. Both offices are called by the particularfunction: Someone must preside over the proceedingsand someone must keep adequate records. Apart fromthe electing body, neither of these two officers haspower. Any other person holding authority in thechurch, such as Presbytery, Synod, or General Assem-bly staff persons, is likewise limited in function andcompletely dependent upon the particular governingbody for authority.

It is out of the suspicion of probable misuse of powerthat pastors are limited in their authority. The right ofthe people to elect their officers, including pastors, isin itself a safeguard against their abuse of power.

C. Sowreignty of God

conflict. There is no such thing as a biblical picture ofs~renity as the reality of God's covenant people. Thethree different values which must always be beforeus-peace, purity, and unity-will always be intension. Those who seek a church free of conflict areseeking something that cannot be had in this worldexcept at the price of disobedience, avoidance of diffi-cult issues, or subservience to the will of a few. The di-versity of the church is its strongest asset in seeking todiscover God's will and that diversity will be expressedin very different opinions.

This biblical perspective on God's will for thechurch means that Presbyterians are willing to beuncomfortable, uneasy, disturbed, as these experi-ences are required. If God's will could be neatly cir-cumscribed or limited to "religious" questions, itmight be somewhat easier to achieve a kind of peacewithin the church. Because God's will is so allencompassing, however, the church is thrust intoquestions which are confusing, about which there is noabsolute clarity, and over which there will be heateddifferences.

Spiritual questions have to do with all of life, andspiritual solutions will never come without conflict.Unity is not something which can be had at the price offorced consensus or avoidance. Our unity is best ex-pressed by our continued willingness to hang in whenthe going is tough.

A third biblical emphasis behind Presbyterian polityis the insistence that God has to do with all of life.There is no way by which the temporal and spiritualcan be neatly divided. The church must seek God'swill for the whole of life in society. The spiritual wel-fare of the church involves its total obedience to God'swill and is expressed by faithfulness in all that it does.

All the governing bodies of the church are obligatedto consider and act upon proper understanding of howeach is to express God's will in the whole of life. Eachgoverning body, therefore, may need to deal withissues which are complex and difficult. Seeking short-cuts or easy answers to difficult questions is not beingfaithful. In every age, there are questions and issueswhich must be addressed in the effort to be responsibleto God. Sometimes the issues will have to do with theinternal life of the church and at other times they willhave to do with the relationship between the churchand society at large. In both instances, avoidance ofconflict is not being responsible or faithful.

III. The Historic Principles of Presbyterianism

A. Preliminary Principles

The first group of these Principles came to be knownas The Preliminary Principles.

The Historic Principles of Presbyterianism are theexplication of what Presbyterians believe. They are theworking out of our understanding of the nature of thechurch in the actual life of the church. When theSynod of New York and Philadelphia adopted theseprinciples as a Preface to the "Form of Government"in 1788, the church was acting in response to a particu-lar conflict about the definition of diversity within thechurch and of the various churches within the largersociety. The principles were written to describe the par-ticular identity of Presbyterians and how that- identityshapes the distinctive life of the church, holding in ten-sion the need for diversity and the requirement forcentrality of purpose and commonality of belief. Theintroductory paragraph sets the tone for what follows:

D. Implications

The United Presbyterian Church in the United States ofAmerica, in presenting to the Christian public the system ofunion and the form of government and discipline which theyhave adopted, have thought proper to state, by way ofintroduction, a few of the general principles by which theyhave been governed in the formation of the plan. This, it ishoped, will in some measure prevent those rashmisconstructions, and uncandid reflections, which usuallyproceed from an imperfect view of any subject; as well asmake the several parts of the system plain, and the whole per-spicuous and fully understood. (Form of Government,UPCUSA, Chapter I, first paragraph (31.00).)

Presbyterian polity thus reflects our understandingof the church as the covenant people of God, as sinfulpeople forgiven by God's grace, and as a people calledby God to be an integral part of the body of JesusChrist in the world.

Presbyterianism, with its insistence on individual re-sponsibility and its tradition of educated leadership,has always known controversy, conflict and rigorousdissent. Conflict is often the result of different perspec-tives which people have and these differences may beimportant. Agreement may not necessarily be a sig!) offaithfulness, but may instead be a sign that we do notcare very deeply about the particular issue. The morewe care, the more likely it is that we may disagree.

The people of God in Scripture are often engaged in

6

right and the polity of our church provides guaranteesto protect this right. The church must also be free fromthose laws of the state which limit its freedom to befaithful. Conscience is both an individual and a corpo-rate matter. The corporate conscience of the church isexpressed through the governing bodies (session,presbytery, synod, and General Assembly).

The word "conscience" is used in the WestminsterConfession in the ordinary sense of knowing rightfrom wrong and no technical meaning is given orimplied. It is regarded as an attribute of the humanbeing which manifests the light of nature. Humanbeings are born with conscience which enables them tomake moral distinctions. Conscience includes theinhibitions, social standards, and moral responsibilitypertaining to membership in society, even though itmay on occasion oppose both custom and socialpressure. The following are examples of the uses of"conscience. "

As in 1788, so today, the church is called upon todeal with diversity both within itself and within the cul-ture beyond itself. Now as then, there are persons whowish that the church were more explicit about mattersof faith and practice so that it might have clearer identi-ty and less diversity. There are also those who seek forgreater breadth of opinion and practice and who arefearful of a narrow point of view which limits freedom.Whenever the church seeks to clarify its own position,there will be those who are disturbed and believe thatthey are being forced into compliance against their willand may feel that, for the sake of their integrity, theyneed to withdraw. Every time the church seeks toresolve ambiguity or conflict, it does, in fact, closedoors to other options. Painful conflict over the defini-tion of who we are and how we function continues tobe a central part of our history.

Because the Presbyterian Church is a constitutionalchurch, issues about the breadth of diversity possiblewithin the church are dealt with by constitutionalprocesses. In a church such as ours, it is difficult toavoid issues about which there is disagreement. Sincematters of both doctrine and order are spelled out, theprocess of interpretation of our official documents iscrucial in the determination of how much diversity canbe tolerated. The Principles, themselves, deal with thetension between freedom and order as this tension isexhibited in the life of the church and in the relation-ship of our own church to other Christian churcheswithin the nation.

(The saints) ...come to be deprived of some measure oftheir graces and comforts; have their hearts hardened. andtheir consciences wounded.

(Ibid.. 6.096.)...such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus. and love him insincerity. endeavoring to walk in all good conscience.

(Ibid.. 6. 097.)...by falling into some special sin. which woundeth theconscience. and grieveth the Spirit.

(Ibid.. 6. 100.)...that sincerity of heart and conscience of duty.

(Ibid.. 6. 100.)

Principle Number One

That "God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left itfree from the doctrines and commandments of men whichare in anything contrary to his Word, or beside it, in mattersof faith or worship."Therefore we consider the rights of private judgment, in allmatters that respect religion, as universal and unalienable:We do not even wish to see any religious constitution aidedby the civil power, further than may be necessary for protec-tion and security, and, at the same time, be equal andcommon to all others. (G-l.O301.)

The quotation from The Westminster Confession ofFaith at the beginning of the First Principle establishesthe right of private judgment both for the individual orgroup within the church and for the church within thestate. The right of private judgment is freedom from ar-bitrary laws, civil or ecclesiastical, which bindconscience. It is a right for freedom of obedience toChrist and it is the duty of Christians to insist uponthis right. The quotation from the Westminster Con-fession can be understood more fully when read withthe remainder of the paragraph:

God created humanity "male and female, with rea-sonable and immortal souls, endued with knowledge,righteousness, and true holiness." (Ibid., 6. 023.)

This reasonable nature given in creation is the abilityto know and to do right, but God also gave humanbeings the liberty of will by which that original naturewas corrupted by sin. The distance between God andhuman beings became so great that, "although rea-sonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as theirCreator, yet they could never have any fruition ofhim." (Ibid. 6.037.) Thus conscience is indistinct andcan be easily confused.

Conscience can be an expression of error and theclaim to the right of private judgment can be an act ofdisobedience to God. Although the individual withinthe church who chooses to exercise the right of privateconscience may be right, it is also true that the indi-vidual may be wrong. Each person should take the ac-tions of the governing bodies of the church seriouslybefore making the claim to private conscience. The in-dividual should also be willing to pay the price for hold-ing a particular point of view.

So that to believe such doctrines, or to obey such command-ments out of conscience, is to betray true liberty ofconscience; and the requiring of an implicit faith and an abso-lute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience,and reason also. Westminster Confession (800« ofConfessions, 6.109.)

And because the powers which God hath ordained, and theliberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended byGod to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve oneanother; they who, upon pretense of Christian liberty, shalloppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whetherit be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God. (Ibid.,6. III.)

The individual has the right to dissent from churchlaws which the person believes to be a violation ofconscience. The Principles continue to clarify this

The first Principle concludes with a plea for the free-dom of religious societies (denominations) within the

7

state. The collective right of private judgment is as im-portant as the individual right. Unless the church isfree from the control of the state, there is no freedomfor individuals. Presbyterians knew from historic ex-perience the dangers of state control of religion. Theywanted no part in such favoritism for themselves or forany other group. The one duty which the state owes toreligious groups is the creation of a climate of freedomfor all which ensures that all are treated with equalfairness.

The corporate right of private judgment makes itpossible for the church to be faithful to its Lord. With-out special favors from the state, the church is re-sponsible for the proclamation of its faith, the conductof its own affairs, the exercise of discipline, thedetermination of its standards, and the education of itsmembers. To ask that the state show no partiality is tobe willing to accept the cost of freedom.

Whether individual or corporate, the right of privatejudgment is a necessary one. It includes the right to bewrong.

Principle Number Two

That, in perfect consistency with the above principle ofcommon right, every Christian church, or union or associa-tion of particular churches, is entitled to declare the terms ofadmission into its communion, and the qualifications of itsministers and members, as well as the whole system of its in-ternal government which Christ hath appointed; that in theexercise of this right they may, notwithstanding, err, inmaking the terms of communion either too lax or toonarrow; yet, even in this case, they do not infringe upon theliberty or the rights of others, but only make an improper useof their own. (G-I.O302,)

and exercising influence upon the body. Parliamentarypractice requires that a larger than simple majorityvote be necessary in order to abridge any minorityrights in favor of the rights of the body (generally two-thirds). After an action is taken by any body, an indi-vidual still has guaranteed rights including the follow-ing options:

(I) The right to work for change. Every person canuse the processes to rectify an action believed to be inerror or to persuade the majority of the body to dealwith a neglected issue. No action is permanent. Anyaction of a governing body can be changed. TheConstitution itself can be amended. The history of ourdenomination shows clearly that such change doestake place as members of a minority point of view con-tinue to make their view heard until they persuadeothers of their position.

(2) The right of dissent, protest, or appeal. When achurch body takes an action, individuals may registertheir disapproval. This dissent is part of the record ofthe governing body. If an individual believes that an ir-regularity has been committed by the body, the personhas the right of protest or appeal.

(3) The right of passive concurrence. Most actionsof church governing bodies do not require that indi-viduals do anything by way of compliance. It is possibleto continue to hold a minority point of view after thebody has voted. It is not out of order for an individualto make that minority position quite public. When thegoverning body does require compliance with anaction, it is still possible for a dissenting individual toagree to abide by the decision and to fulfill the require-ments for action while, at the same time, holding a dif-ferent position from that of the majority.

(4) The right of active concurrence. It is possible tohave one's mind changed by the debate in a governingbody. Every member must be open to the possibilitythat such a change of mind may take place. We pray forthe guidance of the Holy Spirit in all our deliberationsand actions and ought to be open to the leading of theSpirit. Change is the risk involved in participation inthe proceedings of a governing body.

(5) The right of peaceful withdrawal. On somematters, the individual dissenter may not be able tosubmit passively to an action which involves personalconscience. The matter is too important for the personto submit. The "Form of Government" provides guid-ance in such a situation by citing in a footnote, the pro-visions of the 1758 Plan for Reunion. (See footnote toG-6.0l08.) Peaceful withdrawal can be made when anindividual cannot in good conscience continue mem-bership in the governing body and is able to withdrawwithout creating schism.

There is always a necessary tension between free-dom of one's individual conscience and belonging toany organization. One's personal point of view willmost likely not always be that of the larger body. Everyperson who participates in a governing body mustaccept the fact that compromise is necessary for anybody to function. The church cannot always expressthe will of each individual member and still take corpo-rate action. Many decisions will involve saying "yes"

This second Principle makes it clear that there is nobasic conflict between the freedom of conscience andthe necessity for the church to make rules to order itslife. The "common right" of which this principlespeaks applies both to individuals and todenominations. Churches have the right to regulatetheir own internal affairs without governmentinterference. Individuals, also, have the right to exer-cise private judgment within the decision-making pro-cesses of the church of which they are a part.

The right of each church, society, or denominationto establish its own standards is not abrogated by error.Freedom must include the right to be wrong. The liber-ty to err does not, in a free society, infringe upon thosewho are not members of the church.

Even when a church misuses its right of makingjudgments for itself, the dissenter still has rights. Thechurch protects its own minority point of view as if itwere protecting its future, recognizing that the dissent-er may well represent the will of God. The churchmakes explicit provisions for the protection of thosewhose positions are in the minority. These provisionsare made in very specific detail in order to protect therights of all.

Every member of a governing body has the basicrights to: (I) know, (2) speak, (3) vote, (4) holdoffice. These rights enable every member to participatefully in the decision-making processes, being heard

8

to some and "no" to others. The only alternative is forthe governing body to delay or avoid making adecision. There are times when delay is a valuable wayof avoiding premature decisions, especially when theminority position is held by a fairly large number ofpeople. At other times, however, a decision must bemade and the consequences of the decision may bepainful.

truth and behavior are very important, the difficultissues and painful consequences of actions may not beavoided.

Principle Number Four

That truth is in order to goodness; and the great touchstoneof truth, its tendency to promote holiness, according to ourSavior's rule, "By their fruits ye shall know them." And thatno opinion can be either more pernicious or more absurdthan that which brings truth and falsehood upon a level, andrepresents it as of no consequence what a person's opinionsare. On the contrary, they are persuaded that there is an inse-parable connection between faith and practice, truth andduty. Otherwise, it would be of no consequence either to dis-cover truth or to embrace it. (G-I.OJO4.)

Principle Number Three

That our blessed Savior, for the edification of the visiblechurch, which is his body, hath appointed officers, not onlyto p~each the gospel and administer the Sacraments but alsoto exercise discipline, for the preservation of both truth andduty; and that it is incumbent upon these officers, and uponthe whole church, in whose name they act, to censure or castout the erroneous and scandalous, observing, in all cases, therules contained in the Word of God. (G-l.O303.)

As Presbyterians we believe that God is God of thewhole of life. There is, therefore, no way to disconnectfaith from practice. What we believe is reflected in ouractions, both individually and corporately. Wrongopinions are harmful to persons and to the unity of thebody. Wrong opinions will lead to unfaithful behavior.

The truth of a particular idea is often revealed in theway it leads people to behave. The results of a particu-lar doctrine become evident in time; time is a test oftruth. The truth of a particular idea may be understoodvery gradually as in the case of slavery or the equalityof women. Presbyterian polity provides a processthrough which the church can be responsive to newunderstandings of truth. One of the ways that thechurch recognizes that its understanding of truthchanges is through the process of constitutionalamendments. Provisions for such amendments withinthe constitution of the church are official recognitionthat new understandings develop and require changesin the way we state what we believe and the way we ex-press that belief in our action.

Because Presbyterians take the connection betweenfaith and practice so seriously, our debate over issueshas a particular intensity. Obedience to God's will is atstake in our discussion of doctrine. Conflict is inevita-ble in the life of the church. Peace within the church atthe expense of faithfulness is the peace of a corpse.Agreement is not always a sign of obedience, but maymore likely be a sign that we do not care very passion-ately about a particular issue.

Presbyterian polity provides a method for dealingwith conflict. The processes assure that fairness andorder accompany the decision-making and that dif-fering points of view will be openly expressed. The di-versity of the church is its best equipment for dealingwith significant issues. The different perspectives thatpeople bring to the discussion enable us to experiencefreedom from narrow parochialism or bondage to thepoint of view of only one segment of society. Thosegoverning bodies which are most inclusive are giventhe most significance in decision-making so that anappeal is carried from the less inclusive to the moreinclusive governing body where a wider diversity ofperspectives may be found.

The church must have order in its life and we believethat thjs order requires that there be officers who carryout the particular tasks of the church. Church officersare a necessity for t}te functioning of the whole"visible" church of Christ. Although the setting apartof some persons as ordained officers of the church isdone by a particular denomination (society), it is forthe whole church. We, as Presbyterians, believe thatwe ordain church officers for the universal church.

They act for the whole church. For example, when aminister baptizes a person, the act is done on behalf ofthe universal church and the person is received intothe church of Jesus Christ. In the same way, we recog-nize the ordination of persons in other denominationsand do not reordain them should they seek to exercisetheir ordination within our church.

Within our own denomination, church officers func-tion as representative members of governing bodiesand exercise responsibility corporately. Church officersare accountable to governing bodies and the questionsasked in ordination and installation are the formal ac-knowledgment of that accountability. All church offi-cers are required to give answer to the followingquestion: "Will you be governed by our Church'spolity, and will you abide by its discipline?"(G-14.0402; G-14.0207.) Church members do notneed to make this affirmation but those who bear ruleare required to accept the system of government as theframework within which they function.

Decisions about the exercise of discipline are madeby majority vote. The purpose of disciplinary action isthe preservation of right doctrine and right behaviorand for the protection of the church against error andscandal. In the context of necessary decision-making,the governing bodies are required to act in accordancewith the Word of God as that Word is understood andinterpreted by the majority. Conclusions must bereached about the truth or error of a particular beliefand about the appropriate character of particularbehavior.

Decisions of governing bodies may be painful to par-ticular individuals or groups who find themselves inminority positions. Because Presbyterians believe that

Principle Number Fiw

That while under the conviction of the above principle we

9

think it necessary to make effectual provision that all who areadmitted as teachers be sound in the faith, we also believethat there are truths and forms with respect to which personsof good characters and principles may differ. And in all thesewe think it the duty both of private Christians and societiesto exercise mutual forbearance toward each other.(G-I.O30S.)

not essential. In that case, the individual is still free tospeak and act from a conflicting point of view. If,however, the governing body determines that the par-ticular question is essential and that compliance isnecessary, then the individual holding a minority opin-ion must exercise judgment about the possible viola-tion of conscience.

Mutual forbearance is to be exercised by individualswithin the church toward one another. Forbearance iswillingness to accept other people in the church whodo not share our own ideas. To exercise forbearance isto accept diversity with gratitude for those who differand willingness to remain in conversation with peoplewhose perspective may disturb us.

Forbearance, when exercised by differentdenominations, is the basis for all ecumenical activity.Presbyterians are able to cooperate with Christians ofother denominations because we do not believe thatwe have a monopoly on truth. We can, in fact, toleratea great deal more diversity in ecumenical activity be-cause our cooperation does not often require that wehold the same point of view. Ecumenical activity doesnot demand uniformity except on the particular issuewhich is the subject for a particular joint activity.

Principle Number Six

That though the character, qualifications, and authority ofchurch officers are laid down in the Holy Scriptures, as wellas the proper method of their investiture and institution, yetthe election of the persons to the exercise of this authority, inany particular society, is in that society. (G-l.O306.)

Holy Scripture defines the general character,qualifications, authority, and purpose of church offi-cers but the church must interpret Scripture and estab-lish the general rules by which it operates. Within eachdenomination, there must be clarity about the functionof officers and the method of their selection. Onedenomination may choose, for example, to electbishops while another does not. Each must be free tomake its own decisions without interference fromwithout. The civil government, for example, must notinterfere with the free choice of the church.

The right of a particular society (denomination) toelect its own officers is expressed at every level of thechurch. General Assembly elects its own officerswithin its own rules as does every other governingbody. The particular congregation also elects' its ownofficers, including the pastor. Yet, each of these bodiesdoes not function autonomously. General Assemblymust elect a Moderator from among the commission-ers elected by the presbyteries. The whole churchdetermines the rules and qualifications. Each govern-ing body must abide by these determinations.

In the election of a pastor, a congregation mustchoose someone who meets the requirements of thepresbytery and it must be guided by the presbytery inthe process of selection. The participation of the pres-bytery in the selection of a pastor is required by the"Form of Government." Within these limitations, thecongregation has the right to elect a particular personto be its pastor. No one can dictate the choice of a

Reasonable people may differ about many matters.The church should encourage diverse points of view.Diversity may be a sign of health of the church. Uni-formity may be the result of the tyranny of those incontrol, the failure to acknowledge differences, or thefear of ostracism.

Those beliefs and practices about which the churchtolerates or encourages diversity are nonessential. Thedistinction between essential and nonessential articlesentered our church with the Adopting Act of 1729.Nonessential issues are not unimportant but are thosesubjects about which diversity is understood to bedesirable or acceptable. A nonessential issue is judgedby a governing body of the church to be one aboutwhich agreement or compliance is not required. TheGeneral Assembly makes, for example, a particularpronouncement about an issue in the world. The issueis important and the debate of the General Assemblyis intense and weighty because the consequences areimportant. But agreement with the position of theGeneral Assembly is not required. People may evenbe encouraged by the Assembly to continue to voicecontrary viewpoints.

Essential matters are those regarding which thechurch does require uniformity of either belief orpractice. There are some issues which are so clearly un-derstood to be essential that the church does not voteon them until a challenge is made. For example, thedoctrine of the two natures of Christ was assumed tobe essential until the question was raised about its es-sential character. Then the church is required to makea decision through its carefully defined procedures. Es-sential or necessary matters of faith and practice aredetermined by the appropriate governing body only inresponse to a challenge in a particular instance.

The consequent decision by an individual to with-draw is a last resort after the dissenter has exercised allthe options mentioned earlier in the discussion ofPrinciple Two. The person needs to be willing to partic-ipate in honest debate and be open to the possibility ofbeing persuaded by the view of the majority. When thegoverning body has acted and has determined that theissue is essential and that compliance is thereforerequired, then the conscience of a dissenter may beabused if that person remains within thedenomination. The freedom to withdraw from a volun-tary association preserves the right of privatejudgment.

The individual does not make the decision about theessential character of a particular decision of a govern-ing body. The governing body, itself, arrives at such adetermination after being careful to allow sufficienttime for thoughtful debate and the full considerationof differing points of view. The action of the governingbody may be to determine that the issue in question is

10

or "misguided." Because our Presbyterian systemoperates slowly and carefully, and because it providesopportunities for every point of view to be heard, thelikelihood of rash decision-making is decreased. At thesame time, it must be admitted that such synods andcouncils may err.

pastor for that congregation so long as there has beenno violation of constitutional policy.

The balance between the freedom to elect and theduty to abide by required procedures is veryimportant. Abuse of the balance is dangerous. When acongregation fails to follow the constitutionalprocedures, it may, for a time, forfeit its right of elec-tion until the presbytery determines that it is willingand able to do so. On the other hand, the presbyterymay not place officers in a congregation except for alimited period of time and for a stated purpose.

All synods or councils since the apostles' times, whethergeneral or particular, may err, and many have erred; there-fore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice butto be used as a help in both. (Ibid.. 6.175.)

Principle Number Sewn

That all church power, whether exercised by the body ingeneral or in the way of representation by delegatedauthority, is only ministerial and declarative; that is to say,that the Holy Scriptures are the only rule of faith andmanners; that no church governing body ought to pretend tomake laws to bind the conscience in virtue of their ownauthority; and that all their decisions should be foundedupon the revealed will of God. Now though it will easily beadmitted that all synods and councils may err, through thefrailty inseparable from humanity, yet there is much greaterdanger from the usurped claim of making laws than from theright of judging upon laws already made, and common to allwho profess the gospel, although this right, as necessity re-quires in the present state, be lodged with fallible persons.(G-I.O307.)

There is no way to guarantee that church governingbodies will make decisions which are in accord withthe will of God. The responsibility of such bodies to in-terpret the Scriptures is done from a limited perspec-tive and a bias rooted in a particular time and place. Allthose who participate in such interpretation are shapedby their culture and, consequently, bring to the Scrip-tures a subjective filter which sometimes screens outwhat is central and fixes upon a peripheral matter. Alldecision-making bodies must exercise caution. The"usurped claim of making laws" is a potential hazardwhich every governing body must recognize. Such aclaim is the overstepping of ministerial and declarativefunctions. Usurped claims are those which are contraryto Scripture.

Those who believe that a particular decision is inerror have carefully described rights and duties. Theymay seek change within the pro~esses of the church.Individuals and governing bodies may seek review ofdecisions by the more inclusive governing bodies.Amendments to the Constitution are another way ofrecognizing the need to rectify error.

Scripture is our highest authority and no governingbody may legislate contrary to what Scripture plainlyteaches. This respect for Scripture means that allchurch bodies must exercise care not claiming toomuch authority for themselves. Ministerial power isperformed in a carefully prescribed manner in obedi-ence to the higher authority of Scripture. Declarativepower is limited to that of stating what biblical teachingis in a given situation. The proper power of the churchis that of interpreting Scripture in a particular context.

No church governing body may bind consciencecontrary to Scripture. It can, however interpret Scrip-ture and require that those who disagree either submitor withdraw peaceably. Because of the right towithdraw, the individual conscience cannot be boundby actions of the church. The church may be wrongand the individual may be right but the duty of thechurch to render judgments is still clear.

Principle Number Eight

Lastly, that if the preceding scriptural and rational principlesbe steadfastly adhered to, the vigor and strictness of its disci-pline will contribute to the glory and happiness of any church.Since ecclesiastical discipline must be purely moral or spiritualin its object, and not attended with any civil effects, it canderive no force whatever but from its own justice, the ap-probation of an impartial public, and the countenance andblessing of the great Head of the church universal.(G-I.O308.)

It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to deter-mine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to setdown rules and directions for the better ordering of thepublic worship of God, and government of his Church, to re-ceive complaints in cases of maladministration, and author-itatively to determine the same: which decrees anddeterminations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to bereceived with reverence and submission, not only for theiragreement with the Word of God, but also for the powerwhereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God, ap-pointed thereunto in his Word.

(Westminster Confession)(Book of Confessions, 6.174.)

When a properly constituted governing body rendersa decision, great care needs to be exercised by thosewho find that decision troubling. Belief that wisdom ismost likely to be found in the prayerful assembly ofGod's people is a proper caution to be remembered bythose who would dismiss such actions as "unbiblical"

The church must trust that truth can be discerned,that it is possible for the will of God to be understoodand obeyed. The church follows the intention of itsown polity, with careful study of Scripture and a sinceredesire to be obedient to its Lord. As Presbyterians, webelieve that taking seriously our own "Form ofGovernment" and applying it to particular situationswith integrity and caution is the best way to assure thatGod's will for us will be discerned. We believe that nosystem of government can be perfect. Even thoughour best intentions may sometimes lead to error, weseek no intervention from nor assistance by the civilgovernment. The freedom of the church is a necessityfor its faithfulness.

Divisiveness and schism are most likely to occurwhen the church does not follow its own procedurescarefully. When an attempt is made to force consensusbefore the time is right, the impatience of those who

demand premature action may produce a lack ofproper attention to the convictions of a large minority.Such a lack is one which produces ill will and potentialfor schism. Another example of the misuse of ourpolity is the neglect by anyone part of the church ofthe other parts. When a congregation, for example, ig-nores the presbytery or the constitutional provisionsfor its election procedures, the result is almost alwaysdetrimental to its own health. When the presbytery ne-glects its role by failing to exercise one of its constitu-tional functions, the other parts of the church suffer.One result of the neglect by the presbytery of its dutymay be that the General Assembly, in an effort to fillthe gap, legislates beyond its properly delegatedauthority.

The imperfections and errors of the church are usu-ally quite clear to those within who are impatient withthe slow processes by which the church rectifies pastmistakes or with the reluctance of the church to take aparticular action. Such concern and impatience aresigns of passionate conviction. Yet the careful andsometimes tedious processes of our polity have beendesigned out of the historic experience of the churchas it has sought to deal with conflict.

The Historic Principles affirm the orderly way bywhich the church handles conflict so that the rights ofthe minority are protected from the tyranny of themajority and, at the same time, the rights of the majori-ty are protected from the paralysis of the intransigenceof a minority. Sometimes only time can enable us tojudge rightly on decisions of the church. Until then,there are many occasions when we are of necessitycalled upon to exercise restraint, caution, andpatience, trusting that what we see to be error mayturn out to be wisdom.

the balance of perspective and broader inclusion of theother governing bodies. Particular congregations are anecessity for the function of the whole church but theyare to be understood ''as a local expression of the uni-versal church." (G-4.0102.)

Central to Presbyterian polity is the insistence uponconsultation and coordination among the various partsof the whole. Each governing body must conduct itsbusiness with faithfulness to the constitutional proce-dures requiring consultation with other bodies.

This shared authority among the governing bodiesof the church can be vividly demonstrated in the proce-dures for the ordination of ministers of the Word. Thesession of a particular church recommends a candidateunder care, the presbytery supervises the candidate'seducation and trials for ordination and approves thecandidate for ordination; the synod advises on excep-tions to constitutional requirements for ordination,and if there is disagreement with the presbytery, thepresbytery may override the synod only by a majorityvote of three fourths; the General Assembly has theresponsibility for the Presbyteries' Cooperative Exami-nations for Candidates; and finally, a particular congre-gation calls a candidate before that candidate may beordained. No one governing body alone has authorityover the "making of a minister." This interrelationshipof various governing bodies demonstrates our under-standing of the unity and wholeness of the church.

...that a larger part of the church, or a representation of it,should govern a smaller, or determine matters of controversywhich arise therein. (G-l.O400.)

The system of more and less inclusive governingbodies demonstrates both the unity and the diversityof the whole church. The larger part of the church isgiven authority over the smaller. Each governing bodyis representative of a part of the church and it is given aparticular role to play in the whole with carefully de-scribed powers and duties. Each governing body alsohas limitations upon its acts imposed by theConstitution.

B. Radical Principles

The church later adopted another paragraph which isoften referred to as the Radical Principles:

...that, in like manner, a representation of the whole shouldgovern and determine in regard to every part, and to all theparts united: that is, that a majority shall govern. (G-I.O400.)

The radical principles of Presbyterian Church governmentand discipline are:That the several different congregations of believers, takencollectively, constitute one Church of Christ, called emphati-cally the Church (G-I.O400.)

The General Assembly is the governing body whichrepresents the whole church and it is, therefore, thehighest authority among the various parts of thechurch. It is the duty of the General Assembly to inter-pret the Constitution of the Church in response to re-quests or in the resolution of controversy. Everygoverning body is composed of persons who are elect-ed to represent the church. Representatives are notsimply to reflect the will of the people but rather toseek together to find and represent the will of Christfor the Church. For this reason, the polity of theChurch requires that representatives may not be in-structed nor vote by proxy. They must have the free-dom to participate in debate. Debate within the contextof prayer is properly open to the movement of theHoly Spirit. Representatives must be open to the possi-bility of having their minds changed and the rules for

The "radical" or "root" principles were adopted bythe General Assembly in the 1790's as further explica-tion of what became known as the "PreliminaryPrinciples." They spell out the particular way in whichPresbyterians order their affairs. The first of these"radical" principles establishes the nature of thechurch as a body. There is one body which is thechurch and all the diverse parts of that body make upthe whole.

Action on the part of any governing body has animpact upon all the others. Presbyterian polity seeks toexpress the wholeness and unity of the church QY in-sisting upon the interrelatedness of all the parts. Eachcongregation, for example, is but one part of thewhole. The limited vision and often quite homoge-neous composition of any single congregation needs

l'

case cannot be permitted to thwart the expressed willof the majority. Once the General Assembly has ex-pressed its will, there is no further appeal except theaction of another General Assembly.

IV. The Amendment Process And The RightsOf Conscientious Minorities

The overture which requested a "solemn interpreta-tion" of relationship between freedom of conscienceand the requirements of the church's polity madespecific reference to the amendment process. To whatdegree is an individual, previously ordained in goodconscience, bound by a subsequent decision of thechurch to amend its polity or theology in ways that theindividual feels to be a violation of conscience? If thechurch changes its mind on a sensitive and controver-sial subject-perhaps' through a growing consensuswhich eventually. becomes a majority-must all theofficers of the church change their minds?

Clearly, however, the church has the right to changeits mind, "new occasions teach new duties." From thebeginning all parts of the church's Constitution havebeen subject to amendment, and all have frequentlybeen amended. The church continually studies theScriptures and prays for guidance of the Spirit. It wouldbe futile to do that if the church had no way to dealwith new insights and no way to express more relevantapplications of ancient truth to its contemporary life.The church in its corporate life must reflect the refor-mation motto of the Reformed Church in theNetherlands: Ecc/esia refarmata, semper refarmanda.(The Church Reformed always being reformed.)

When the Constitution was adopted in 1788 theamendment process was incompletely described. The"Form of Government" said:

the conduct of debate are designed so this may happen.The responsibility of the majority to govern must be

seen in the context of the requirement that the wholegoverns the parts. Majority rule is not a mystical or ab-stract concept. It is simply a reflection of the fact thatthe whole church, as it acts, can do only that whichmost of the church is willing to do. When through theviolation or short circuit of proper procedure the willof a minority is imposed on a judicatory or on thechurch, seriously divisive conflict is often the result.The Constitution defines the majority in various waysto meet various circumstances:

(I) Simple majority (1/2 + 1) is the basis for mostdecisions in a governing body. When a very closemajority vote is taken on an issue of importance, theresult is often troubling. The parliamentary practicesof the church permit the Moderator to vote in theevent of a tie vote. This moderatorial vote may defeatthe issue at hand until a larger majority can expressitself.

(2) A two-thirds majority vote is required in orderto amend the Doctrinal Standards, or to achieve unionwith another denomination. (G-I8.020I; G-I5.030I.)This larger majority requirement is a recognition of theneed for greater consensus on issues of greatmagnitude.

(3) A three-fourths majority is required of the pres-bytery in order to grant an exemption to a congregationfor failure to meet requirements that both men andwomen be elected as elders and deacons (G-I4.0202a)or to override the requirements for ordination in an ex-ceptional situation (G-I4.0308).

These different definitions of "majority" are therecognition of the need for greater agreement aboutissues which are most critical or where the unity of thechurch is most threatened.

(4). ..and consequently that appeals may be carried fromlower to higher governing bodies, till they be finally decidedby the collected wisdom and united voice of the wholeChurch. For these principles and this procedure, the exampleof the apostles and the practice of the primitive church areconsidered as authority. (G-l.O400.)

Before any overtures or regulations, proposed by the Assem-bly to be established as standing rules, shall be obligatory onthe churches, it shall be necessary to transmit. them to all thePresbyteries, and to receive the returns of, at least, a majorityof the Presbyteries, in writing, approving thereof. ("Form ofGovernment," 1st edition, 1788, Chapter XI, Sect. VI.)

This provision appears to be modeled on the"Barrier Act" adopted by the Church of Scotland in1697, which eliminated the initiative and authority ofthe Parliament of Scotland in day-to-day ecclesiasticalaffairs. Henceforth regulations and procedures in theChurch of Scotland could be amended only at the ini-tiative of the General Assembly and with the approvalof a majority of the presbyteries.

A second edition of the "Form of Government" ofthe Presbyterian Church, U.S.A., was approved in1792, because the first edition was no longer available.The General Assembly appointed a committee tocompile scriptural proof-texts for both the confessionaldocuments and the "Form of Government." Thiscommittee, which finally reported in 1796, recom-mended no changes in the Consti~ution; but in addi-tion to the proof-texts apparently also added the

The unity of the church is exemplified in the provi-sion for appeals from one governing body to another.When an individual believes that a wrong has beencommitted in a congregation, for example, that personmay appeal to a more inclusive governing body, thepresbytery, and failing to be satisfied there, may carrythe complaint on to the synod and General Assem bly.

This right of appeal recognizes the right and duty ofthe more inci.usive governing body to make decisionsbinding upon the less inclusive body. It also recognizesthe right of persons to seek for redress of grievanceswithin the polity of the church, reducing the need forpersons to engage in disputes outside the church in thecivil courts.

There must be a final arbiter of disputes, a court oflast appeal, as it were. The unity of the church requiresthat there is a point beyond which a vocal minoritywhich has been given every opportunity to press its

13

"radical Principles" paragraph (G-l.0400), which wasa footnote in the "Form of Government" of the Pres-byterian Church in the U.S.A. until 1958. It thenbecame part of the Constitution of The United Presby-terian Church in the United States of America.

In 1798 the General Assembly adopted a fairlyelaborate procedure by which ministers and licentiatesfrom other countries, mainly Britain and Ireland, wereto be received. The substance of these regulations wasto make it more difficult for foreign ministers to comeinto the church. John Rodgers entered a protestagainst this action, and in 1799 the General Assemblyreceived a strong protest from the Presbytery of NewYork attacking the new rules as "unnecessary and ob-noxious" and stating: "If the General Assembly de-signed these regulations as a standing rule. ..they vi-olated the 6th section of the 11 th chapter of our ownConstitution" requiring "standing rules" to be ap-proved by the presbyteries.

The General Assembly of 1799 responded bydefending the new rules (although agreeing to somemodifications of them) but objected to the implicationthat regulations of all sorts must be submitted to thepresbyteries before being adopted. This, it said,"would reduce the Assembly to a mere committee toprepare business upon which the presbyteries mightact." 11 The Assembly admitted, however, that the"Form of Government" was ambiguous in its use ofthe term "standing rules," and suggested that thephrase "constitutional rules" be substituted. The pres-byteries were asked to approve this change.

The very ambiguity alleged prevented several pres-byteries from acting; they simply assumed that nochange was necessary and did not vote, and in 1800only 10 of the 25 presbyteries sent responses(approving the proposed change: six to four). Thenext two General Assemblies deferred action, and in1803 a committee was appointed "to consider whetherany, and if any, what, alterations ought to be made" inthe "Form of Government." The committee recom-mended a number of changes including the substitu-tion of the phrase "constitutional rul~s," in Chapter II.These were approved by the General Assembly in1804 and sent to the presbyteries which approved all ofthem.

'The next proposed constitutional change came in1811, establishing procedures for ordaining ministerswithout a formal call. It was rejected by thepresbyteries; resubmitted in 1813 and again rejected.In 1820, after several years of consideration, extensiveamendments were proposed which amounted to arewriting of the entire "Form of Government." TheGeneral Assembly instructed the presbyteries thatthey were to vote separately on each chapter, section,and article of the proposed revision. Fortunately,every article was approved, and an extensively revisededition of the "Form of Government" was adopted in1821.

The church has been much more willing to amendand change the "Form of Government" and the proce-dures for discipline than it has been to change its con-fessional basis. The church, in the Adopting Act,

1729, received and adopted the Westminster Confes-sion of Faith and Catechisms "in their essential arti-cles" as its creed. In 1788 the Synod in accepting thenew "Form of Government" changed the WestminsterConfession to conform to the American understandingof the relationship between the church and the "CivilMagistrate," and an amendment offered from thefloor in 1788 dropped a phrase from the LargerCate-chism which appeared to at least one commissioner toteach intolerance of other Christian denominations(though the references to the Pope as "that Antichrist,that Man of sin and Son of Perdition" were not re-moved until the twentieth century). Through the nine-teenth century there were minor changes in the West-minster documents, and in 1903 a series of amend-ments were adopted by the Presbyterian Church in theU.S.A. and two chapters were added which slightlyameliorated Westminster's seventeenth century inter-pretation of Calvinism. The church also adopted a"Declaratory Statement" in 1903 which was "the au-thoritative interpretation" of Chapter III of the West-minster Conf~ssion. The "authoritative interpreta-tion" was that Chapter III does not mean what it says.In 1967 The United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.amended its confessional basis and adopted the "Bookof Confessions." The Presbyterian Church in theUnited States through the years made very similarchanges in the Westminster documents, but had notenlarged its confessional basis prior to reunion.

All these changes in the polity and theology of thechurch were made in accordance with the procedureoutlined in the Constitution itself. Many were minorand uncontroversial. Others were bitterly controversialat the time because they made significant changes inthe church's government or reflected significantchanges in its theology. It is perhaps significant thatnone of the major schisms that have divided AmericanPresbyterianism (1741, 1810, 1834, 1861) was a directreaction to amendments to the church's form ofgovernment or confession of faith. Some, who in thelast decade or so departed both the antecedent denomi-nations from which our church was formed, allegedconstitutional changes as among their grievances; butin most cases it appears that these defections werecaused by theological and ecclesiastical issues, and notby constitutional changes.

Each of these hundreds of amendments to thegovernment, discipline, and theology of the churchbecame effective upon its adoption and in each casewas binding upon individual officers in the same wayand to the same degree that the confessions, polity,and discipline of the church were already binding. Atordination the ordinand responds to the constitutionalquestions in the context of a Constitution that is sub-ject to change by amendment. The relevance ofchanges upon an individual's conscience becomesapparent, however, when the officer is installed to anew work or a new term of office in the context of anamended constitution.

From the time of the Adopting Act of 1729 the con-fessional documents have not been interpreted as bind-ing in all their details upon the theological views of all

14

trivial; some controversial, some not-in which ourchurch's "Form of Government," and that of our pre-decessor denominations, require and prohibit conducton the part of officers and governing bodies. A presby-tery may not receive an individual as a candidate forthe ministry who has not been a member of a congrega-tion in that presbytery for at least six months(G-14.0303). One does not have to approve of thatrequirement. The majority of the presbytery may wishto establish a longer or a shorter period, but it may notdo so. Each synod must meet at least biennially(G-12.0201). One may strongly feel that this is a wasteof money and human energy, and wish that the synodsmet quadrennially. Anyone who feels this way has theright to try to persuade the majority of the church tothis view. Such a person may also decline to be electedas a commissioner to a synod. But the synod itself maynot decide to meet quadrennially.

A person who believes that worship should be heldon Saturday may be a Presbyterian, and may even beordained as an officer (assuming the presbytery or ses-sion conducting the ordination judged this scruple tobe "nonessential"). But a session has no right to con-vene the congregation regularly to worship on Saturdayinstead of Sunday (S-2.0200). One whose consciencerequired Saturday worship would normally do better ina denomination other than Presbyterian.

Such examples could be multiplied. While neitherthe confessions nor the polity of the church cancompel an individual to a belief that is contrary to thatindividual's conscientious understanding of the wordor the will of God, the polity of the church-as distinctfrom the confessions-can and inevitably mustcompel conformity to those procedures and practiceswhich the majority of the church has determined to bethe most appropriate or desirable or faithful. In its con-fessional statements the church confesses its ownfaith. Individuals within the church may properly avowa diversity of theological views within the general con-text of the church's confessional basis. In certain areasdiversity of practice is also possible. Some congrega-tions sing Bach, some prefer "Sweet By and By." Someministers wear Geneva tabs and academic hoods in thepulpit, some wear white suits and red blouses. Somepresbyteries meet monthly, some meet quarterly.Some have a committee on necrology, others give thisfunction to the Stated Clerk. The "Form of Govern-ment" permits this diversity, but it could be amendedto require uniformity in any or all these areas.

Ultimately officers must conform their actions-not necessarily their beliefs or opinions-to thechurch's practice in those areas where the church hasdetermined that uniformity is necessary or desirable.

V. Conclusions

(1) The rights of the individual conscience withregard to matters of faith and worship and to decisionsmade within the church are related to the right ofvoluntary association. The membership of an individu-al in the church is purely voluntary. The possibility of

church officers. Therefore the amendments to the con-fessional documents are also not absolutely binding.Presbyterian ministers and elders were free to believeafter the revisions of 1903; as they were before, thatGod did "foreordain some men and angels to everlast-ing damnation" notwithstanding the "DeclaratoryStatement" to the contrary. Any Presbyterian officerwho believed that the remarriage of divorced personswas usually unscriptural and sinful had the right andthe freedom to hold that opinion and act on it, thoughthe Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. in 1953changed the prohibition in the Westminster Confes-sion of Faith against remarriage of divorced persons,and the Presbyterian Church in the U.S. did the samething in 1959.

The situation regarding the requirements and prohi-bitions of the "Form of Government" is different; be-cause polity often requires compliance in behavior,whereas the confessional standards may not. If thechurch prohibits the ordination of persons not semi-nary graduates, no presbytery-however strongly itmay feel that the conditions in its area makes thisprohibition unwise-can be free to ordain suchpersons. The Presbytery of Cumberland discoveredthis in the early years of the nineteenth century.

When the church required that slaveholders bebarred from communion, as the Associate Synod ofNorth America (subsequently part of the United Pres-byterian Church of North America and now of ourreunited church) did in 1831, then no congregationcould admit them. When the Associate Synod ofNorth America united with the Associate ReformedPresbyterian Church in 1858 to form the United Pres-byterian Church of North America, the Synod of theSouth of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Churchfelt compelled to remain out of the union on this point.

When the church did not permit the ordination ofwomen, no church governing body had the freedom toconduct such ordinations; even though it may havestrongly felt that the church's practice in this regardwas unwise, unscriptural, even heretical. The church'spolity, like its confessions, cannot compel uniformityof opinion as it can of behavior. Presbyterian officerswere free to believe in 1920 that women should beeligible for ordination. They were free to work to makethe change in the church's Constitution that wouldpermit it. They were free to withdraw from thedenomination and to form another more to theirliking. But they were not free to ordain women in viola-tion of the church's Constitution as it was theninterpreted.

Illustrations of this principle abound. The churchcannot compel its officers to support the overseas mis-sionary program of the denomination. But it canprohibit them from becoming members of an"independent" board of foreign missions. Whether itis wise to do so is beside the point. The church couldnot compel Professor J. Gresham Machen's consciencein the 1930's on this point. But it could discipline himfor his refusal to resign his membership on the inde-pendent mission board.

There are scores of ways-some important, some

15

of a large minority.e. a governing body violates the Constitution in

which our visible unity is defined.f. a governing body is perceived to offend or vio-

late the right of the individual to know, to debate, tovote, or to hold office. Such offense can be in the eyeof the beholder as a result of suspicion or a sense ofhaving been excluded from serious involvement.

g. an individual church officer or group of churchofficers become isolated from the governing body andsee the action of the body as that of an enemy, thusrefusing to take such action with seriousness.

(7) Forbearance is a very important principle whichneeds to govern our actions. As we enter a new rela-tionship with each other in the reunited church, weshould be aware of the advisability of having a periodof time for both sides to become acquainted. There aremany areas of our life which do not and will not requireuniformity of belief or practice. Respect for diversity isa central requirement for the peace and unity of thechurch.

(8) The "Form of Government" of the PresbyterianChurch (U.S.A.) makes the process of amending theConstitution somewhat more difficult and less subjectto the desire of a temporary majority. Time will beneeded to determine to what extent changes, if any,need to be made in the new Constitution. Issues ofgreat moment in one era often fade into the back-ground with the passing of time. Governing bodies ofour church should not be immediately burdened witha plethora of amendments to the Constitution.

(9) The church is never static. In our effort to workfor needed changes, we also need to remember thatthe church is always imperfect. Efforts to establishmandatory provisions to insure uniformity of functionshould be made with caution and sensitivity.

This catholic Church hath been sometimes more, sometimesless, visible. And particular churches, which are membersthereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine ofthe gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered,and public worship performed more or less purely in them.

(The Westminster Confession)(Book of Confessions, 6.143.)

The toleration of imperfection in the church is an exer-cise in patience and a necessary attitude to establish abalance between the purity and the unity of the church.

(10) There is a sense in which the Historic Principlesof the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) are the AdoptingAct of 1729 brought up-to-date and applied to polity aswell as doctrine. They provide the church with guide-lines to shape our actions. They insure the rights of all,protecting those of both the minority and the majority.When the Principles are understood and followed withcare, the church will be able to tolerate diversity and,at the same time, be able to make necessary decisionsregarding its life and mission.

Footnotes

Minutes, Synod of Philadelphia, 1729, p.13; reprinted, Guy Klett,ed., Minutes of the Presbyterian Church in America. 1706-1788,Philadelphia; Presbyterian Historical Society, p. 105. All subse-Quent citations to the minutes are from this edition.

peaceable withdrawal from the church, which was artic-ulated in the formation of the Synod of New York in1741 and explicitly reiterated in the Reunion of 1758,is now cited in the Constitution of the PresbyterianChurch (U.S.A.). The right to withdraw peaceably pro-tects individuals from having their consciences boundby decisions of the governing bodies of the church.

(2) The rights of the individual, the minority and ab-sentees are carefully protected rights within the Consti-tution and by the parliamentary practices of thechurch. Individuals have every reasonable right topress their case to try to persuade the majority of thechurch to their point of view and, having failed, theystill have the right to enter a formal dissent or proteston the records of the governing body to which theybelong.

(3) When a person is ordained to office in the Pres-byterian Church, that person knows what the Presbyte-rian Church is and what its position is. The Constitu-tion of the church contains clear provisions for its ownamendment. Every church officer is ordained or in-stalled within a church which is changing.

(4) The fact that the church permits diversity oftheological beliefs but in many areas requires uniformi-ty of practice does not exalt polity over theology. It issimply a recognition that in at least some areas practicemust be uniform in order to define the church'sidentity. Whether it is wise in a particular matter forthe church to require uniformity of practice is alwaysdebatable but the wiil of the majority is necessarily ex-pressed in response to a particular challenge ordispute. Church officers must conform their actions,though not necessarily their personal beliefs oropinions, to the practice of the church in areas whichthe church has determined to be necessary or essential.

(5) The right of peaceable withdrawal should be ex-ercised only when the individual cannot activelyconcur in decisions made by church governing bodies,nor passively submit to them. The decision to withdrawwithout attempt to create schism should only be madeas a last resort. Those contemplating this optionshould remember the injunction of the Plan of Re-union of 1758, "Provided always that this shall be un-derstood to extend only to such determination as thebody shall judge indispensable in doctrine or Presbyte-rian government."

(6) Schism is generally the result of an improper un-derstanding or use of Presbyterian polity. Lessonsavailable to us from our history suggest the followingas contributing factors:

a. minority or majority assumes to itself extra-constitutional prerogatives.

b. a governing body assumes to itself extra-constitutional prerogatives.

c. a governing body acts on crucial matters whichaffect the whole church, even with proper authority,but without giving consideration to consultation andthe slow process necessary to aid in the building ofconsensus.

d. a governing body assumes the simple majorityto,be sufficient for taking action binding the conscience

16

2. Leonard J. Trinterud, The Forming of an American Tradition,Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1949, pp. 481T.

3. Minutes, Synod of New York and Philadelphia, 1758, p. 341.4. See Trinterud, pp. 279-306 for a description of the organization of

the General Assembly and the writing of the form ofgovernment. The two older "standard" histories of the churchare also useful: C. A. Briggs, American Presbyterianism, pp.362-373; and Charles Hodge, History of the Presbyterian Church,pp. 408-415. Hodge is "Old Side," "Old School," Briggs is "NewSide," "New School" in sympathy.

5. Minutes, 1785, p. 597.6. Idem.7. Trinterud, p. 292.8. See ibid, pp. 1521T. for details.9. Letter from Matthew Wilson to John Miller, June II, 1786; cited

by Trinterud,p. 286.10. Minutes, 1788, p. 634.II. Minutes, General Assembly, 1799, p. 179.

Recommendations

The committee recommends:1. That the General Assembly receive this report

and distribute it throughout the church as a vehiclefor dialogue leading to further understanding of ourtheology and polity.

2. That the General Assembly adopt the followingresolution as the solemn interpretation requested bythe 194th General Assembly (1982) of The UnitedPresbyterian Church in the United States ofAmerica:

The Historic Principles of Presbyterianism havesought to establish balance between the private judg-ment of the individual and the freedom of the churchto order its affairs. While the majority cannot forceits will on an unwilling minority, neither can theminority thwart the intention of the majority on thegrounds that the conscience of the minority isviolated. Freedom of conscience does not require thatthe conscientious opinion of every member of thechurch will prevail. Where there are differences ofopinion, our church recognizes that the ways ofresolving conflict between the freedom of individualconscience and the requirements of our polity arecompromise, acquiescence by one group or another,or withdrawal without causing schism. Thereforefreedom of conscience is not abridged by the require-ments of our Constitution.

17