November 09, 2001
Remits Before the Church, November, 2001
Available as a Microsoft Word Document remit112001.doc
This fall Presbyteries is being asked by the General Council to respond to several remits. (Roughly speaking, a remit is a vote). The Basis of Union, the church's “constitution”,
requires that, when matters of doctrine, discipline, government and worship are changed in The Basis of Union, Presbyteries and, as appropriate, congregations must be consulted as to whether they agree or disagree with the changes.
The Executive of the National Alliance of Covenanting Congregations believes that two of the four remits that coming to the Presbyteries this fall need some comment.
(1) There are good reasons to vote against the remit that calls for the replacement of the terms, "memorial, petition, and resolution" with the word "proposals". A "petitions" is a formal request that a Court of the Church takes some specific action. Congregations can submit them, and the procedures for handling them are carefully defined in The Basis.
On the face of it, what the remit proposes may seem to be just a simple change in terminology, but, if approved, congregations will lose control over the wording of petitions they submit. Higher courts would be given the freedom (a) to refuse to forward petitions or (b) to edit them as they see fit. At present, a Conference can refuse to forward a petition to the General Council, but this decision can be appealed. The remit removes this right of appeal. Moreover, Presbyteries and Conferences which agree with the general thrust of a petition but feel the wording is inappropriate can already vote "non-concurrence" and then draft a new petition with preferred wording. However, at present the original version retains the opportunity of also being heard.
2. The other remit of concern calls for changing The Basis of Union to allow for alternate Ordination/Commissioning vows. This is an issue with a long history. Some Conferences have complained that the current vows, which ask ordinands to affirm their belief in “God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit”, are “exclusive” in their language and should therefore be replaced. However, judging from the 36th General Council (Camrose, 1997), a remit to replace the current vows with a more “inclusive” version would not be likely to be approved by the wider church. If this new remit were to pass, however, Conferences could decide to use an alternate version in place of the present “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”. The alternative would be found in the bylaws, and that make possible the eventual addition of other alternatives, since the bylaws are outside The Basis and remits are not required to alter them.
Thus the proposed change has some serious implications. First, by placing an alternate service in the bylaws any changes to the ordination service in the future could be made by the General Council without consultation of the wider church. This is a top down approach. Second, it avoids a potentially fractious, very public vote on which ordination service should prevail. For those who desired to retain the traditional language of, “Father, Son and Holy Spirit”, the opportunity to voice objections would be reduced. Third, this sets up a situation where different Conferences across Canada could use different ordination services, thus giving prominence to an issue which presently divides the United Church. Fourth, other denominations might very well refuse to recognize the legitimacy of United Church ordinations.
The two suggested sets of vows are:
Traditional: Do you believe in God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and do you commit yourself
anew to God?
Alternate: Do you profess your faith in God, who has created and is creating, who has come in
Jesus, the Word made flesh, to reconcile and make new, who works in us and others
by the Spirit; and do you commit yourself anew to the living God?
The alternative is in the language of the New Creed. While the language has a Biblical basis (see John 1:1-3), it is not necessarily an improvement. For instance it does avoids naming the first person of the Trinity (“Father”). Ordinands affirming this version would not have to be Trinitarians.
To be fair, if passed, this remit would permit Conferences and ordinands who currently object to what they view as “exclusive” ordination vows to affirm with integrity their belief in what has become a standard confession of faith in the United Church, namely the New Creed. It does not preclude the use of the traditional vows, but allows for choice. It is not clear whether individual ordinands could personally select the version to be used.
Presbyters will have to weigh the advantages of continuing to use the traditional vows throughout the United Church of Canada, over against giving Conferences the option of picking between the two. Given the choice, we believe many Conferences will avoid using the traditional vows. (The remit would also make it possible for yet other alternatives to be introduced eventually into the bylaws.)
In conclusion, we believe (1) the remit calling for a change in the name of "petitions, memorials, and resolutions" to "proposals" should be defeated because it would curtail the right of all church members to have their voices heard in the higher Courts. We also believe (2) the remit on ordination vows should be defeated since it would deny Presbyters (and also congregations) the right to vote on future changes to the vows. In addition, this remit authorizes an affirmation with theologically weaknesses. It also opens the door to others which may be even more seriously flawed. We further question whether ordinands who wish to use the traditional Trinitarian vows will always be afforded that option.
The NACC Executive, 2001-11-07
Posted at November 9, 2001 11:04 AM