|
|
B) The report of the working group on The Authority of the General Assembly and Other CouncilsMembers
Revd Martin Cressey (Secretary), Revd John Hall, Revd Donald Hilton
Remit
The United Reformed Church is a conciliar church, in which the various councils have different but complementary responsibilities. These include responsibilities in relation to the selection, training, call and ordination of ministers. The discussions over human sexuality have exposed tensions at two levels of the functioning of councils. The General Assembly has a general function of oversight (function i) and acts as the interpreter of the constitution (function x); it makes decisions on reports and recommendations from its own committees (function ii), and may also remit questions concerning the witness and judgement of the Church to other councils (function ix). There is a tension between the role of the General Assembly as the only council which is given the right to interpret the Basis of Union and opinions held by other councils and individuals about the Basis. There are also tensions between councils arising from the different functions assigned to them with regard to the selection, training, call and ordination of ministers. At the points at which the Provincial Synod takes decisions on candidates for the ministry (i.e. at selection and at determination of eligibility for call) and at the point at which the District council has to concur in calls to pastorates (which are themselves made by the pastorates), there is potential for conflict which needs to be resolved.
The group should reflect on the following questions:
a) what processes of decision-making will lead to the reception by the whole church of the decisions made, particularly on contentious issues?
b) what are the limits of diversity in policy appropriate to different councils of the Church which will facilitate response to local circumstances without imperilling the authority of the General Assembly? (The issue of subsidiarity).
c) what is the extent of the necessity of prescription of any issue?
d) how may the rights of personal conviction and the safeguarding of the substance of the faith and the maintaining of the unity of the fellowship, as set out in para 10 of the Basis, be upheld?
e) why have certain decisions in the area of human sexuality been problematic?
The group should make use of the report of the Task Group on Authority presented to Mission Council in January 1997.
Group Meetings
The group on The Authority of the General Assembly and Other Councils and the Role of Personal Conviction did its work by meeting eight times and exchanging texts for revision between and after meetings; the meetings were held at Westminster College, Cambridge or at Regents Square URC London in January, March, April, June, July (two), August and December 1998. The group began by sharing its various perceptions of the issues and then compiling a list of topics for work from this sharing and from suggestions made by the core group and others. Early meetings prepared and refined a paper on the process followed so far in the debate on human sexuality. Gradually there was evolved a positive report on creative ways of dealing with contentious issues; the report was circulated in August, revised and expanded in December and finalised by clarificatory amendment agreed in correspondence during January 1999.
The sub-group presenting this report was set up with the above topic in fulfilment of the section of Resolution 18 of the l997 General Assembly calling for further work on "the relationship between the authority of General Assembly and the other Councils of the Church". The work has been done by retrospect, in a careful survey of the process followed with regard to questions of human sexuality in the years 1994-1998, and in prospect, by seeking to design good practice for dealing with potentially contentious issues. The group is agreed that the process hitherto has followed the pattern laid down in the Basis and Structure of the United Reformed Church; it believes that the United Reformed Church has a groundwork of authority in the church to which it should hold on (Part 1 of the report). The group has also identified areas of difficulty and stress in dealing with contentious issues; a detailed survey of the process on matters of human sexuality has aided this identification (Part 2 of the report). The group offers a design of good practice for future dealing with contentious issues (Part 3 of the report).
1. Groundwork – Authority in the Church
1.1 Doctrine
1. 1.1 For all Christians of whatever denomination and living in whatever church polity the source of authority in their individual and corporate lives is God who calls them. The response to this call is a longing to live in loving and willing obedience to God, a response expressed in baptism and in the life of faith in which disciples of Jesus Christ seek to proclaim and serve him, in the Church and in the world. Church life therefore must be rooted in obedience to God and a desire to acknowledge freely a commitment to God and God's authority over us.
1.1.2 Such love of God and longing to be obedient to God lead the Church to proclaim its submission to God's authority; the acceptance of that authority is an integral part of Church life as Christians seek God's forgiveness, worship God in adoration and ask for renewal. How that authority is discerned and expressed, however, is understood in various ways within the universal Church; this leads to great difficulty in the search for unity.
1.1.3 It is fundamental to the life of the United Reformed Church that it "has been formed in obedience to the call to repent of what has been amiss in the past and to be reconciled. It sees its formation as a part of what God is doing to make his people one, and as a united church will take, wherever possible and with all speed, further steps towards the unity of all God's people"(Basis of Union 8)."Believing that it is through the freedom of the Spirit that Jesus Christ holds his people in the fellowship of the one Body", the United Reformed Church acknowledges two equal responsibilities, namely to "uphold the rights of personal conviction" and "safeguarding the substance of the faith and maintaining the unity of the fellowship"(Basis of Union l0). These responsibilities have always to be kept in balance with one another; In contentious issues (i.e. issues which arouse strife and controversy) they often pull against one another. The first ten paragraphs of the Basis of Union express a strong theology of unity, which has formed the groundwork of United Reformed Church policy, even when there is difficulty and pain in its shared life.
1.1.4 The United Reformed Church "acknowledges the Word of God in the Old and New Testaments, discerned under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as the supreme authority for the faith and conduct of all God's people" (Basis of Union 12). It acknowledges, too, "its duty to be open at all times to the leading of the Holy Spirit" "accepts with thanksgiving the witness borne to the catholic faith by the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds" and "recognises……its own particular heritage". It has shown in its reception of both Scripture and tradition an awareness that through them the Church can be called to "make....new declarations of its faith" and to have "its life....renewed and reformed according to the Scriptures, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit"(Basis of Union l8 and 6). In contentious issues disagreement can arise over the meaning of the Scriptures and over what the Spirit is guiding the Church to do in changing circumstances and in face of new knowledge.
1.1.5 These doctrinal principles led to the creation of a Basis and Structure for the United Reformed Church in l972 and again in l98l which seek to be open to fresh developments, responding to disagreement and even to contention by affirming both freedom and responsibility. This has meant that no prior limits have been set to diversity (freedom) while the General Assembly has sought to prescribe rules when, and only when, it has become plain that a common practice is needed in order to safeguard the peace and unity of the United Reformed Church (responsibility). It is inevitable that there are occasions when some in the church plead for freedom while others are seeking a prescriptive ruling. The stress which this sometimes produces is to be preferred, in the opinion of this group, to the development of a detailed "canon law"; we believe that such sustaining of stress affirms the doctrinal principles which are foundational for the United Reformed Church.
1.2 Structure
1.2.1 The United Reformed Church is a conciliar church. Its Basis of Union establishes a balance of oversight between its councils: the Basis gives authority, all the councils of the church participate in the exercise of it, and the General Assembly has as one of its tasks the guardianship of the distributed responsibilities.
1.2.2 The Structure of the United Reformed Church is based on the affirmation that church meeting/elders' meeting, district councils, synods and General Assembly shall each be recognised "by members of the United Reformed Church as possessing such authority…… as shall enable it to exercise its functions and thereby to minister in that sphere of the life of the United Reformed Church with which it is concerned."(Structure 1.3). This fundamental paragraph of the Structure ( embodying what some call the principle of subsidiarity) affirms that wider councils should recognise that more local councils make decisions appropriate to their sphere, while the wider councils exercise an oversight which maintains unity and peace; it is the need for unity and peace that requires a structure that sets limits to local liberty and to conciliar decisions and actions. District council and synod each exercise oversight in their own particular sphere and the General Assembly " shall embody the unity of the United Reformed Church and act as the central organ of its life and the final authority, under the Word of God and the promised guidance of the Holy Spirit, in all matters of doctrine and order and in all other concerns of its common life . . . " (Structure 2.5). Local churches, district councils and synods are expected to receive and to apply reports and decisions from the wider councils; they also have access to the wider councils on any matter by reference or by appeal.
1.2.3 It must always be remembered that a free church is a voluntary society; authority can offer precept but can only enforce practice by an ultimate sanction of depriving a person of membership - and even that does not compel the person to follow the precept.
1.2.4 The members of the United Reformed Church are "publicly admitted to the full privileges and responsibilities of membership of the Church of Jesus Christ and in particular to the membership of the local church"(Basis of Union, Schedule A). They are encouraged both to develop their personal convictions and to learn from one another in the councils of the church. Ideally such learning from one another leads to consensus but where disagreement persists the United Reformed Church recognises that it can be right to move to a decision by majority vote, always in the setting of prayer for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, careful consideration of the witness of the Scriptures and open discussion.
1.2.5 Such is the constitutional understanding of authority within the United Reformed Church, regularly reaffirmed in acts of worship and in particular at ordinations and inductions of ministers of the Word and Sacraments.
1.3 Practice
1.3.1 There is, however, no perfect form of church order. The ideal is elusive. As with every denomination, there are strengths and weaknesses in applying doctrine and using structure. The United Reformed Church has a particular agreed polity and church order and draws upon rich but varying traditions; inevitably, there are tensions in how the United Reformed Church understands and works with the Basis of Union and within its Structure. To help us (i.e. the members of the United Reformed Church) understand one another and resolve our present concern with authority and especially that of the General Assembly and the other councils of the church we need to look afresh at who we are and some of our characteristics.
We are a church in which, from our origins in the quest of Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Churches of Christ for visible unity:
1.4 Strengths and weaknesses
1.4.1 This doctrine, structure and practice create a church whose strengths and weaknesses include the following: Strengths
Weaknesses
1.5 Conclusion
1.5.1 Thus the United Reformed Church carries within it treasured traditions and understandings which include strongly held and potentially conflicting attitudes towards authority, its exercise and reception. The actual exercise of authority in our conciliar church has a potential for both disregard of decisions and resistance to them. To avoid both of these, our Reformed understanding of the whole people of God being the Church needs to be better expressed in our processes of decision-making. Listening to each other, mutual respect and concern, together with a mind-set throughout the church that expects a collective discerning under the Word of God of ways forward, can bring a sense of unity and acknowledgement of one another, our beliefs and traditions, thus making a surer foundation for the authority of the councils of the church.
2. How may we achieve this?
The Group began to answer this key question by reflection and comment for future practice upon the process concerning issues of human sexuality, 1994-98.
2.1 The origins of the debate
2.1.1 The group was divided in opinion from the beginning in its work about what assumptions had been or are now made on the ground of the United Reformed Church's avowed acceptance of Scriptural authority. It was felt to be clear that individuals should be able to raise issues about the teaching of Scripture to test the mind of the United Reformed Church on them. Decisions made on matters where Scriptural authority is involved must therefore include the making explicit of an agreed interpretation or range of interpretations of Scripture - agreed not by any particular group within the United Reformed Church but by the United Reformed Church as a whole through due conciliar process. It was recognised that the particular issue of homosexuality had produced intense debate partly because of certain passages of Scripture but also because the issues affect Christian discipleship in aspects of life that are personally sensitive.
2.1.2 Further clarification is needed on whether colleges related to the United Reformed Church have the right (and if so, under what circumstances) to refuse particular recognised United Reformed Church candidates on any ground other than the academic suitability of their courses for a candidate. There are also tensions between councils arising from the different functions assigned to them with regard to the selection, training, call and ordination of ministers. At the points at which the Provincial Synod takes decisions on candidates for the ministry (i.e. at selection and at determination of eligibility for call) and at the point at which District Councils have to concur in calls to pastorates (which are themselves made by the pastorates), there is potential for conflicts over the structural distribution of authority which need to be resolved. These should be ongoing concerns for the Mission Council.
2.1.3 The group agreed that in any future process for matters of such seriousness and controversial nature, any Task Group should be appointed by the General Assembly rather than by the Mission Council, or if as a matter of urgency appointed by the Mission Council should be explicitly confirmed in its task by the General Assembly. At the same time as a Task Group is appointed an interim policy should be proposed to the General Assembly in a resolution (at this stage perhaps on the lines of reaffirming for the interim the existing procedures and protecting the interests of those directly affected without introducing any new practices).
2.2 The conduct of investigation
2.2.1 The group felt that a longer period of reflection should be provided on such controversial issues, despite the fact of prolonging uncertainty. Use should be made of a core group and specialist groups from the start; means should be found for ascertaining a preliminary opinion on a specific set of questions, so that the General Assembly could know more clearly the state of opinion throughout the church while retaining the Assembly's right to offer prophetic leadership when appropriate.
2.2.2 The group agreed that the United Reformed Church should develop a general policy on how to conduct and evaluate such surveys of opinion; for example, it was not the quantitative (percentage of response) aspect of the survey on issues of human sexuality distributed by Mission Council that led to ambiguity in its outcome but the fact that the polling was self-selective, not random.
2.2.3 The group agreed that centrally prepared material was useful in church-wide discussion; criticisms of any particular material did not invalidate that point. It was, however, important to draw the lesson for future major discussions that instead of papers from various sources there should be prepared by a core group and specialist groups a basic statement paper which could be considered and revised by the Mission Council for transmission to the General Assembly, debated, if necessary amended, and approved by the General Assembly and then used in wider consultation.
2.2.4 The group further affirmed (a) the need for clear definition of terms (e.g. the crucial, and for some controversial, distinction between homosexual orientation and homosexual practice was not, in our opinion, sufficiently set out and discussed in the papers circulated by the Task Group on Human Sexuality, nor was a committed, long-term partnership explicitly distinguished from a casual relationship); (b) the necessity of giving priority to theological and moral issues - a guided debate on principles was missing from the process; (c) a period of five years rather than two years is needed for major issues to be tackled in our participatory system (as has also become clear in other church polities).
2.3 The General Assembly debate and resolutions
2.3.1 On procedure in the General Assembly debate of 1997 the group noted that the method of offering an alternative motion which will be put if an original motion is defeated has the disadvantage that the alternative cannot readily be discussed in detail nor amendments to it be dealt with. A number of questions were raised for possible revision of the Standing Orders of the General Assembly. The Standing Orders might provide for (a) a going into committee of the whole Assembly with more flexible and mutually responsive debate(which at present requires suspension of Standing Orders) (b) alternative motions (as the Church of Scotland permits) that can be voted on as an act of choice between the alternatives, i.e. members of the General Assembly vote for one or other in competition (c) a means of seeking a vote (as in WARC procedure) to discover whether the General Assembly concurs with the Moderator's judgement on a point of order (this is not a criticism of the decisions made by the 1997 Assembly Moderator, rather a protection for the Moderator of future Assembly meetings against the haste engendered by the stress of debate).
2.3.2 The group agreed on the need for further consideration of the relation between interpretation of the United Reformed Church's constitution and alteration of it. There has been evident confusion over the nature of Resolution 19 of the 1997 Assembly, which was intended to clarify the present constitutional position, not to establish any new principle, so that, for example, the freedom of local churches and district councils in the matter of calls is not given as a new right but affirmed as an existing right; the present study process under Resolution l8 is intended to bring forward any changes to the constitution which are deemed desirable. The current confusion suggests that an interpretative judgement that the Basis and Structure of the United Reformed Church do not preclude a course of action which many have thought was precluded may need in future to come under Structure 3(1) with its special procedures for amendment. This may be particularly so if an interpretative judgement of the General Assembly (whatever the logic of it) removes decision-making powers of other councils without a Structure 3(1) process. The General Assembly has a duty under paragraph 10 of the United Reformed Church Basis to uphold rights of personal conviction among those who find themselves as individuals unable to accept particular rulings of the General Assembly ; it must also exercise great care in responding to other councils if they declare an intention of disobeying a General Assembly ruling on grounds of conscience.
3. Good Practice
This reflection and comment has led the group to propose the following as good practice for the process of dealing with potentially contentious issue s.
3.1 Relationships and reception
3.1.1 The shared life of the United Reformed Church is the common concern of both local and more widely representative councils. All councils have the responsibility of promoting the work and welfare of the United Reformed Church in harmony with its faith and practice as set out in the Manual. The more local councils are expected to receive and apply reports and decisions made by more widely representative councils, the more widely representative councils are expected to listen carefully to the views put to them by the more local councils.
3.1.2 It is inevitable that difficulties will arise when assigned functions overlap, either between councils or between councils and other institutions e.g. colleges, Mission Council etc. This is most acutely the case when different councils are not in agreement over an issue, for instance when a district council does not accept the decision of the General Assembly or a church meeting does not accept the decision of a synod. Given such a style of church polity clear channels of consultation (c.f. A proposed process 3.2 .below) and good relationships are essential.
3.1.3 A serious negative factor is that the wider councils of the church are seen as too distant and often irrelevant to the workings of the local church(es). With the development of clustering and various groupings of churches, sometimes through expedience because of the lack of financial and ministerial resources, the number of councils and/or their size needs reviewing in order to improve communication and the sense of relevance. There are possibly too many layers of government already for a church the size of the United Reformed Church and, in some instances, the advent of new forms of grouping local churches will add yet another layer. (Revision of the Structure as distinct from reflection upon it will require a more representative body than the present core group and this sub-group)
3.1.4 Reception here means the acceptance of and active response to the decision of one council of the church by another council. To enable reception of a decision of a council of the church more is needed than that council's passing a resolution. Listening and careful consultation need to precede a decision and careful presentation and explanation need to follow it. The structures of our church militate against the authority vested in its councils where there are not effective communication and good relationships between the people involved. The structure and dynamics of the General Assembly can produce decisions which may be deemed unrepresentative of the local churches. Careful consultation and presentation are important factors for making and maintaining essential good relationships.
3.1.5 The whole area of
education of churches in regard to self-understanding and decision-making
needs enhancement in the life of the United Reformed Church. Such
enhancement needs to be worked at through the continuous training of
ministers, elders, members and adherents. Training and mentoring skills are
very important for ministers in pastoral charge and for office bearers
within councils of the church if the churches and the councils are to work
well; such people have a responsibility for communication, making clear the
channels available for local expressions of opinion to reach the wider
church and conveying, commending or at least explaining decisions and
reports from wider councils to the more local ones. It is a part of training
that those with long experience of a council should set an example to new
members in creating an atmosphere of respect for all views presented. 3.1.6 There may be some
issues where it is not possible for one council of the church, even with
such help, to receive the decision of another. It must always be for the
wider councils of the church to judge where such a refusal injures the peace
and unity of the church as a whole. The final authority for such decision
remains the General Assembly. Where a refusal of reception leads to a
request from a local church for permission to secede from the United
Reformed Church or even to groups of local churches wishing to part from one
another and follow different paths of denominational life, the church needs
to work out a process which will be just to all concerned and which will
honour both God and the convictions of all those involved. The following
considerations are relevant for such a process: a. Provision has already been made by the
General Assembly of l987 for cases where a particular local church has
requested permission to secede with its property from the United Reformed
Church. Where careful consideration has failed to resolve the issue(s) that
led to the request and the General Assembly is satisfied that a local church
has acted responsibly, permission to secede can be given. b. A new situation has arisen with the fact
that a number of churches have apparently begun to adopt the position that
if certain steps are taken by the General Assembly they will wish to
withdraw from the United Reformed Church as a group of churches offering one
another mutual support, i.e. an incipient denomination (which might then
seek to join some existing denomination). Even if the present debate about
issues of human sexuality is resolved without this crisis arising, it is
suggested that there could be other possible developments in United Reformed
Church policy (e.g. over further church union) that could produce such a
situation. c. A process for such separation would have
many complexities, e.g. in securing the rights of minorities in such local
churches who wished to remain members of the United Reformed Church or in
securing equitable application of the law of trusts (to name but two
difficulties). Yet to avoid even greater harm to the general work of all the
churches the process would need to be dealt with both urgently and with a
proper respect for the principles of a theology of unity. Consequently, of our group some would
emphasise and plead for patient negotiation until settlement is agreed in a
still united church, while others think that provision for separation is the
wise action in such circumstances. We are all agreed that the questions
surrounding separation between majority and minority (or equal) groups of
local churches are distinct from those of secession by a particular local
church and we recommend that these questions be discussed by the Mission
Council as a theological/constitutional matter apart from the particular
issues of the human sexuality debate.
3.2 A proposed process for dealing with contentious issues
3.2.1. We suggest the following process for dealing with contentious issues.
a . Pre-conciliar discernment: committees of the United Reformed Church and the officers of the General Assembly and Mission Council need to identify those potentially contentious issues that are likely to arise in the near future. It is important that such issues are recognised and a procedure for dealing with them is brought into action by appropriate councils and/or committees rather than waiting for such matters to become personalised or exacerbated. There needs to be action at this stage rather than ignoring the matter. Such discernment will need to reflect all perceptions commonly held, rightly or wrongly, and not just those of officers and members of Mission Council. It will also be greatly assisted by close sharing with our ecumenical partners.
b. Pre-conciliar consultation: an initial paper exploring the issue and underlying matters is prepared in consultation with other councils of the church, ecumenical bodies and other relevant agencies or groups. The paper will provide a broad-based presentation of the issue from all and/or different perspectives.
c. First General Assembly meeting: the issue is identified and the initial paper is discussed by Assembly and, after any necessary revision, accepted as a consultative view able to be offered in the name of the church. This is then passed to the other councils of the church for reflection and consideration. Materials for use by councils and instructions for voting on resolutions need to be user-friendly and clear, particularly on means of making known the opinion of councils. Materials need to facilitate good consultation, communication and decision making.
d. Second General Assembly meeting (not necessarily in the year following the first in c above): When responses from the other councils of the church are received, they must be seen to be taken on board in the framing of resolutions to be brought to Assembly. In particular, representatives of Synods which have expressed strong views, positive or negative, should have opportunity to put these views to the Assembly in Year 2 and not have to wait until the Year 3 ratification debate. For many issues the Assembly may pass resolutions in Year 2 and the matter is then completed. However, if the issue is seen to be divisive and contentious Mission Council may suggest to General Assembly that the matter be dealt with under constitutional amendment provisions, or such a procedure may be decided on by the General Assembly itself. If this is agreed, these resolutions then go to other councils of the church for voting on their acceptance, amendment or rejection. On a very contentious issue the resolutions would need to go to every council of the church, synod, district council and local church meeting. A process calling for positive acceptance of a resolution by a council, rather than the present system allowing a motion that the proposal be not proceeded with, might encourage and promote reception of the decision, though the present system, where a negative vote of more than one third of the relevant councils is needed to halt a proposal, protects the rights of significant minorities without being unduly weighted in a conservative direction.
e. Third General Assembly Meeting (normally in the year following the second in d above): The resolutions return to Assembly for ratification or for further amendment. In the latter case amendment would involve a further year of consultation and voting in each of the councils of the church, with a vote on ratification at the following year's General Assembly.
3.3 Recommendations
3.3.1 The United Reformed Church needs to clarify whether its recognised colleges have the right (and if so, under what circumstances) to refuse particular recognised United Reformed Church candidates on any ground other than the academic suitability of their courses for the candidate (2.1.2).
3.3.2 The United Reformed Church needs through the appropriate committees (Training and Ministries) to continue its consideration of the roles of the colleges, the synods, the district councils and the local churches in the selection, training, call and ordination of ministers 2.1.2).
3.3.3 The United Reformed Church needs to establish rules for the appointment of Task Groups to deal with matters of a serious and controversial nature (2.1.3). 3.3.4 The United Reformed Church needs to develop a general policy on how to conduct and evaluate surveys of opinion (2.2.2).
3.3.5 The United Reformed Church needs to review its conciliar structure with the aim of improving the sense of relevance of one council to another and to enhance reception of decisions by other councils of the church. (3.1.3ff).
3.3.6 The United Reformed Church needs to assess and explore ways of improving training for representatives in the councils of the church. Such training in the areas of the United Reformed Church's understanding of church and polity, consultation, decision making and implementation, should enrich the life of all its councils (3.1.5).
3.3.7 The United Reformed Church needs further to develop reflection, based on the considerations set out in 3.1.6, concerning a theology and process of what it is right to do when radical disagreement harms the peace and unity of the church (3.1.6).
3.3.8 The United Reformed Church needs to agree a process, such as that suggested above, for dealing with contentious issues (3.2.1).
3.3.9 The United Reformed Church may wish to consider amendments to Standing Orders and the Structure, such as those discussed in paragraphs B2.3.1, B2.3.2 and B3.2.1d.
This list makes it clear that the sub-group recognises that its report points forward to future work by the Mission Council. We have discovered important differences of emphasis on these questions of authority. Some of these differences have surprised us but we have been glad to find that we could listen to one another with mutual respect and so come to agreement among us on our report. Et quasi cursores vitai lampada tradunt - And like runners they hand on the torch of life! (Lucretius: De Rerum Natura,ii.79)
|