Since the Executive Editor of The Layman, Carmen Fowler LaBerge, set aside her ordination based on her inability to be in subjection to the new PCUSA vows, there has been much discussion on why this action was appropriate, and (in Mrx. LaBerge’s mind, necessary). Here are a couple of samples of the letters and responses.

All officers to review/renew ordination vows?

In your blog you mentioned that all ordained officers would be required to renew their ordination vows. In my mind, this would be a very large issue for many people. Can you point me to something in the new form of government that makes this requirement? I have looked without success. [Editor’s note: the original URL (link) referenced is no longer valid, so the link has been removed.]

Pete Allen
First Presbyterian Church, Mesquite, TX

Editor’s response: Mr. Allen, thank you for the question. I first want to applaud that you’ve read the new Form of Government. I also want to point out that the 2011-2013 is now available for free download from the denomination’s “store.”

To your question: I believe that if the PCUSA system of governance is going to have any integrity whatsoever, all those who have agreed to serve in leadership, certainly all those who are ordained, necessarily need to review those commitments in light of our new constitution.

I used the word “requirement” to indicate that no one can legitimately keep a vow to a constitution they have not read and no one can by expected to govern a church by a form of government they do not know. To me that means that in order to maintain good order, every officer is going to have read, study, be examined on and commit themselves anew to upholding, abiding by and leading according to the new constitution. Anything less our current crisis will only be further exacerbated.

Carmen Fowler LaBerge, Executive Editor

Our denomination has changed the rules

This letter is in response to Dr. Lowry (July 14). Dr. Lowry, you seem to contrast your behavior at the time when you first started seminary and were in disagreement with the PC(USA) over ordination issues with the reaction of conscience by those of us who are in opposition to the recent changes in ordination standards. You also seem to view your behavior in some way as more honorable.

You say: “What I did not do was leave the denomination because it did something with which I disagreed. I did not reject my colleagues who held opinions different than mine. Instead I chose to stay in the church, to be subject to its discipline and order and work for change within. ”

I believe you have overlooked a fundamental difference in the two situations. In your seminary illustration, you had willingly joined a denomination knowing its policy on ordination. That policy had been in effect as a basic understanding within the broad denominational tradition for hundreds of years. (One might argue that the policy was only codified within the last century, but that was because prior to that time, it was inconceivable to the church that anyone would even consider such a deplorable course of action, and so there was no need to set a policy.)
Furthermore, that policy was not unique to the Presbyterian church, but had a consistent historical precedent across broad denominational and religious traditions. You knew the denomination you embraced. Of course you didn’t “leave the denomination because it did something with which (you) disagreed,” because the denomination had done nothing except hold to its historic standards. It had never changed. It was you whose conscience was never in line with the denominational standards to begin with.

In contrast, we who joined the PC(USA) under one set of precepts, which we prayerfully considered and affirmed, find that our denomination has changed the rules. Furthermore, it has changed its “interpretation” of the Authority upon which we had all agreed to base the rules. There is a very big difference between leaving a denomination that refuses to change to conform with your opinions (as a fallen creature) and a denomination that makes a radical change away from doctrinal foundations based on the Word of God, to which we had all formally submitted. The fact that you joined the denomination without agreeing in your own mind does not release you from the responsibility of having formally assented to its doctrine. I do not see any moral superiority in your having stayed with the denomination. Actually, I see it as a duplicitous action on your part to have knowingly vowed to uphold a doctrine to which you knew you could not adhere, and to then work to subvert the denominational policies from within. If you believed we were apostate in our policies when you joined, yours was the sin in joining us. Those who believe that the denomination has become apostate can reasonably conclude they must leave. The two situations are far from analogous.

Martha E. Leatherman
Elder, St. Andrew Presbyterian Church

******************************************************

To read more letters on this topic go here.