Covenant Fellowship Plan of Action (3)

Covenant Fellowship Scotland, (herafter CFS), recognises that their resistance to the new and forthcoming legislation put them on a collision course with the denomination and the decisions of the General Assembly.

They state: “A Minister vows ‘to be subject in the Lord to the courts of the Church’ and the words ‘in the Lord’ must be taken seriously. Our promise to obey is not an unconditional vow but a vow conditioned by our loyalty to a higher authority than the General Assembly, namely, the authority of the Lord.”

In what sense will they not be obeying the G.A.? Presumably in their refusal to recognise these in active same-sex relationships as legitimate officers and members in the church.  So what?  The ordinations of those individuals will still go ahead, apart from the rare situation of, say, Lewis Presbytery, where presumably no-one would be found willing to participate in the ordination.  In other presbyteries a quorum will be found and the ordinations will go ahead. 

I presume that CFS mean they will refuse to recognise and work with those who come to or are ordained in their presbytery.  It could lead to the rather ridiculous position of evangelicals recognising and working with liberals who deny the virgin birth, the sacrificial atonement and the bodily resurrection but not working with others who may affirm these truths but are in homosexual relationships.

The Action Plan takes the vow to be “subject in the Lord”, quite rightly as limited by the higher duty of obedience to Scripture.  However, I would suggest a different understanding after the example of Ephesians 6:1 “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.”

“In the Lord” is the sphere of their obedience; it is because they and their parents are Christians that they ought to obey.  I presume that Paul is not expecting young children to assess each demand of their parents and decide whether or not it is according to God’s will expressed in Scripture!

If the parallel is established with the ordination vow “‘to be subject in the Lord to the courts of the Church” it is saying that we obey because we are together part of the body of Christ and  we recognise that we and they, (the courts), are united in fellowship. 

To say that we will not obey is to say that this condition no longer applies.  It is to say that we do not recognise a bond of fellowship with these courts, that we cannot accept that we are one with them “in the Lord”.  In other words, the decision to disobey the courts of the church is saying “We do not recognise you as part of the body of Christ because your rebellion and disobedience of Scripture show that you do not love and follow the Lord.” But if this is the case, why do CFS wish to remain in denominational fellowship with those to whom they cannot be subject to “in the Lord”?

I may be mistaken here.  It is up to CFS to say whether or not their proposed disobedience is in effect a statement that they will not recognise the legitimacy of such courts as part of the body of Christ. I imagine that they will argue that it is only on this one issue that they cannot be subject “in the Lord” and that the fellowship relationship of being one “in the Lord” with the court of the church will still stand nevertheless.

Scripture tells us, “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account.” (Heb 13:17) Presumably an act of principled and continued disobedience is saying that the court is not recognised as genuinely concerned with the wellbeing of the souls of its members. Interestingly, Scripture says these courts will “give an account” and face judgment.

Let us consider some practical issues.  A refusal to obey a court of the church could bring about a discipline charge of contumacy against members of CFS.  Would the liberals be bold enough to do this? I doubt this, as they have never brought a charge against those who will not ordain women – they just remove them at source, by refusing to recognise them as candidates for ministry, and wait for the dinosaurs to retire or die or leave.  If history repeats itself then the church establishment will have patience with the rebels.  Time is on their side and they can afford to wait for the akward theological rebels to simply die out, as in the case of those opposed to woman's ordination, (or worse, to change their mind and accept the revisionist position as has also happened with woman's ordination.)

What of candidates for the ministry?  Will they be asked if they will be subject to the courts of the church on this matter, as candidates are now asked if they accept the church’s position of women in office?  A presbytery could legitimately refuse a candidate who has reservations about the current law of the church.  Remember, they will not be asked whether they personally believe that active homosexuals should be ordained; they will be asked whether in the broad church context they will work with and recognise such individuals within presbytery, the G.A., or Kirk Session if the Session moves in that direction.

I have another question: Should not candidates on the basis of honesty and integrity clearly affirm to presbytery that they do not accept this law?” Or, following previous evangelical history, will they keep quiet in the hope that they are not asked and if asked prevaricate?

It could be argued that if we find ourselves having to disobey the law of the church on an ongoing basis then the correct thing to do is to renounce the jurisdiction of the church and leave.  We would not expect a minister who rejected infant baptism and refused to recognise those so baptised as legitimately baptised to remain in a Presbyterian denomination.

(To be continued)