1945. [Summary of the First 3 Days of the OPC's 12th General Assembly]. The Presbyterian Guardian. Vol. 14. No. 11. May 18-19. pgs. 172-176
The Complaint
The complaint signed by thirteen members of the Presbytery of Philadelphia against certain actions of the presbytery relative to the ordination of Dr. Gordon H. Clark was the order of the day. The following letter from a committee of the complainants was read by the clerk:
This letter presents to you a complaint against actions and decisions of the Presbytery of Philadelphia. The complaint is presented by those whose names are attached to it as filed with the Stated Clerk of the Presbytery of Philadelphia on October 6, 1944. The original is in the hands of the Stated Clerk of the Presbytery of Philadelphia who will doubtless, in accordance with the Book of Discipline, Chapter X, section 4, lodge it with the General Assembly upon the request of the latter. A copy of the complaint is attached hereto.
The Presbytery of Philadelphia has given prolonged consideration to aspects of this complaint and some consideration to all of it. That Presbytery has not, however, seen fit to acknowledge that it has erred in any respect with reference to the actions and decisions against which complaint is made, although it has had sufficient time and repeated opportunities so to do.
With reluctance, therefore, the complainants are compelled to present the complaint to the General Assembly, for they are convinced of the weighty character of the errors of the Presbytery of Philadelphia.
In this connection we wish to center the attention of the Assembly upon a most important distinction which is made by the complaint. This is the distinction between the essence of the complaint and the particular amends which are asked. The essence of the complaint is that it charges the Presbytery of Philadelphia with error in several actions and decisions. The question of the particular amends which should be made is, accordingly, a matter of secondary and subsequent consideration. The essential validity of the complaint does not stand or fall with any judgments that may be made as to proper amends but rather with the primary and fundamental matter of error in the several actions and decisions against which complaint is made.
Discussion in the lower judicatory indicates that there are passages in the complaint which have been misunderstood. The complainants are also aware of infelicities of expression in the complaint. They would desire, were it possible at this stage, to make certain alterations of wording and statement. However, they believe that the complaint is a substantially accurate statement of the errors of which the Presbytery of Philadelphia has been guilty, and because of the weighty character of these errors they wish, in bringing the complaint to the attention of the General Assembly, to request that the Assembly give to it its most careful and kindly consideration.
Although various persons have stated that there are elements in the complaint which are personally objectionable, the complainants did not have, and do not now have, any intention of including any such elements in the complaint. On the contrary, they deeply regret that any have chosen to make such statements, for they serve only to confuse the momentous issues which are before the Church. The complainants trust, therefore, that the members of the Assembly will accept their avowal, made in good faith, that no elements of this sort are intended to be expressed in the complaint.
The complainants hope that the gravity of the decision which is to be made by the General Assembly will be apparent to every member of that body and that each will face his duty with respect to the future of our beloved church with a due sense of his responsibility.
In the hope that the Assembly may take such action as will safeguard the purity and peace of the Church, we are,
Fraternally,
ARTHUR W. KUSCHKE, JR.,
N. B. STONEHOUSE,
PAUL WOOLLEY,
For the Complainants.
The Rev. Professor Paul Woolley attempted to make a motion calling for the election of a committee of five to consider the complaint, secure information concerning the facts involved, and make recommendations to the Thirteenth General Assembly. The moderator promptly ruled him out of order on the ground that the making of motions involved taking part in decisions, and since no member of the Presbytery of Philadelphia could vote it followed that no member of that body could introduce motions. The moderator's ruling was challenged, but he was sustained by the assembly.
Immediately Mr. DeWaard made the motion Professor Woolley had attempted to make, which was this: "That a committee of five be elected by this assembly to consider the complaint against certain actions of the Presbytery of Philadelphia, to secure information concerning the facts involved, and to make recommendations to the Thirteenth General Assembly."
Professor Woolley said that he believed this would result in the presentation of a formal record to the next assembly which would facilitate action and that it would provide opportunity for study of the facts during the coming year so that at the next assembly the vote could be made intelligently.
Legality of the Meeting
Mr. Smith moved, as a substitute, "that the action of the Presbytery of Philadelphia, in denying that its meeting of July 7, 1944, was illegal and its actions thus* null and void, be sustained."
Before debating this motion, the various pertinent actions of the Presbytery of Philadelphia were read by the clerk of that presbytery. These supplied the information that the presbytery had defeated two motions, one to dismiss the complaint and the other to find the presbytery in error in its decisions at the July 7, 1944, meeting.
Professor Woolley urged that the complaint be not chopped into pieces, with decisions rendered on some points and delayed on others, but that the whole complaint as a unit be handed to the committee for a well-rounded consideration of the whole position.
Mr. DeWaard declared that the question of the legality of the meeting had no reference to "unfrocking Dr. Clark by indirection," a phrase which Dr. Clark's supporters used repeatedly throughout the remainder of the debate on the legal aspects of the case. If it should be decided that Dr. Clark had been illegally ordained, said Mr. DeWaard, the alternative was not deposition but legal ordination.
Shall we keep the church in a state of tension for a year over this matter? asked Dr. Strong. The assembly, he said, was competent to deal with the case, and could and should make a start in that direction by dealing with the legal portion of the complaint.
Finally the motion proposed by Mr. Smith was substituted for the motion of Professor Woolley and became the main motion before the assembly. At this point, the section of the complaint dealing with the legality of the meeting was read by the clerk.
The traditional understanding of the word "emergency" was dealt with at some length by Professor Woolley. The framers of the Form of' Government in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. in the eighteenth century considered it to mean something which emerges or arises, something not of long standing, and something not known at the time of the preceding meeting. We have, said Professor Woolley, historical evidence of the meaning of the word "emergency" and that meaning cannot be applied to the meeting of last July. There was no evidence that the matter could not have been safely deferred for ten more days, until the regular meeting of presbytery.
Dr. William E. Welmers drew the significant difference, apparently disregarded by those who opposed the position of the complaint, between emergencies arising from the cause of the church of Jesus Christ and emergencies arising out of matters concerning the convenience of individuals.
Mr. Hamilton then read the section of the proposed answer dealing with the legality of the July 7th meeting. He added that at the time of the previous meeting it was not known that Dr. Clark would be unable to attend the regular meeting and therefore, he declared, there was an emergency even on Professor Woolley's definition of that word. Mr. Hamilton ignored the contention of the complainants that an emergency for this purpose must be an emergency to the church, not just the personal emergency of an individual.
Speaking to the motion, Mr. Marsden said that, if the legal matter is settled as the complaint requests, the doctrinal questions will become purely academic. He appealed to the dictionary's definition of "emergency" as "a pressing necessity, an exigency," but likewise seemed to feel that it made no difference whether the emergency was the church's emergency or Dr. Clark's emergency. He declared that, even if it were granted that there were illegal elements in the meeting, those illegal elements would not necessarily require that all the actions were therefore null and void. This argument overlooked the fact that the complainants were not claiming merely a few illegal elements, but that, since the calling of the meeting was illegal, the entire existence of the meeting was illegal.
Presbytery was not at that meeting faced with a new matter of business, declared Dr. Stonehouse, so that elements in the life of an individual could not constitute an emergency. Moreover, the matter of inconvenience to other presbyters which was involved in the calling of the July 7th meeting was in his opinion subordinate to the infringement of the rights of presbyters. We dare not, he said, establish a precedent that circumstances of this nature be considered valid reasons for the calling of special meetings.
On request, Dr. Clark told of factors unknown to the presbytery or to himself at the previous meeting. These were (1) that he and his family were in process of moving, so that it would have been impossible for him to be present at the regular meeting, and (2) that he was going to be in the East for the Quarryville conference, and that was why the meeting was called for that particular time. Both of these unknown factors, it should be noted, concerned an individual and neither of them constituted emergencies to the church.
Mr. Hills declared that an emergency would be an external call to some gospel ministry requiring ordination. Mr. Hamilton replied that Dr. Clark had come East expecting to enter the active ministry but, after his ordination, the existence of a complaint blocked the possibility of a call to certain churches. It was pointed out that the complaint was not in existence until about three months after the disputed ordination, and Mr. Hills suggested that the church does not ordain men because they intend to enter the ministry but only when they have received a definite external call to some particular field.
Mr. Dyrness held that Dr. Clark's ordination was granted on the basis of his call to an evangelistic ministry and that there was no reason why he should be delayed in beginning the exercise of that ministry. He closed with a plea that the assembly face the main issue of doctrine, but first clear the decks of this subordinate question of legality.
The main motion, which reads as follows, was finally adopted:
That the action of the Presbytery of Philadelphia, in denying that its meeting of July 7, 1944, was illegal and its actions thus null and void, be sustained.
Legality of the Amends
This disposed of one important section of the complaint. The second of the two so-called "legal aspects" of the case concerned the constitutionality of the amends asked by the complainants. The complaint asked that if the presbytery (and, on this appeal, the general assembly) were not ready to acknowledge the meeting as illegal and its actions thus null and void, it acknowledge that various views of Dr. Clark set forth in that meeting were in error and in conflict with the constitutional requirements for licensure and ordination, and that therefore all the later actions of the presbytery leading up to his ordination were in error and unconstitutional and therefore null and void. (It should be remembered that one of the signers, Leslie W. Sloat, signed the complaint only to the extent of the reasons for it, but did not concur in the request for specific amends.)
It was the contention of the supporters of Dr. Clark that the amends asked by the complainants actually would have the effect, if granted, of unfrocking or "unordaining" Dr. Clark by indirection, without allowing him his day in court or according him a proper trial. In an attempt to remove this threat to Dr. Clark's ordination, Mr. Gray moved "that the portion of the complaint which requests the general assembly to ask the Presbytery of Philadelphia to declare null and void the actions of the meeting of the Presbytery of Philadelphia of July 7, 1944, re Gordon H. Clark, Ph.D., be declared unconstitutional because it seeks in effect to depose or to unfrock a minister of the church in good and regular standing without filing charges or without due process of a trial."
On challenge, the moderator ruled this motion in order, and his ruling was sustained. The challenge was based on the contentions (1) that the motion asks the assembly to decide the question of amends before deciding whether or not error exists, and (2) that it contains a charge of unconstitutionality despite the fact that the constitution of the church contains no specific provisions as to the method of punishing a judicatory found to be in error.
In speaking to his own motion, Mr. Gray said he proposed it in the interests of disentangling the legal aspects from the doctrinal questions. He held that the complaint was a matter of administrative discipline, but that the requested amends were those of judicial discipline.
It was again stated by Dr. Stonehouse that the motion dealt with the question of amends before deciding the existence of error, that it "put the cart before the horse." He also pointed out a central factor, often repeated in later debate but apparently never adequately appreciated by the supporters of Dr. Clark, that no action of this assembly could be binding upon the next or any subsequent assembly, and that if the existence of error were granted by the Thirteenth General Assembly, no action of the Twelfth could dispose of the question of amends.
The questions of whether or not Dr. Clark was really ordained, what would happen to the marriages he had performed if the amends were later granted, and other related matters, were then freely argued. The complainants apparently failed to reassure their opponents by repeated protestations that of course Dr. Clark was ordained. He was ordained "de facto"; if might later develop that he had not been legally ordained, but beyond a shadow of a doubt he was definitely ordained.
Mr. DeWaard moved that the motion before the house, together with the doctrinal portion of the complaint, be referred to a committee of five to be elected by this assembly to bring in recommendations to the Thirteenth General Assembly. This motion was quite promptly laid on the table.
Dr. Welmers drew the analogy of a man found to have entered the country illegally. The authorities do not, he said, hold a trial and deport him; they merely take him outside the country and tell him to enter legally. If Dr. Clark has been illegally ordained, he would be given the opportunity of a legal ordination and it would be hoped that the requirements could be fulfilled.
Mr. DeWaard then moved that the motion of Mr. Gray be referred to a committee of five elected by this general assembly to report to the Thirteenth General Assembly. That motion was carried by a vote of twenty to sixteen.
Mr. DeWaard moved that the doctrinal portion of the complaint be referred to the same committee to report to the next assembly, but this motion was laid on the table.
Upon motion, the assembly voted to reconsider the first motion of Mr. DeWaard to refer the question of the legality of the amends to a committee of five. This was for the purpose of changing the size of that committee to three, but before the amendment could be offered Dr. Burton L. Goddard moved that the assembly dismiss that portion of the complaint which specifies the nature of the amends asked. Although this was a most unfortunate motion which certainly should not have been made at this juncture in the reconsideration of the motion to refer, the moderator was forced to rule it in order. Dr. Goddard, however, was persuaded to withdraw it. The reconsidered motion was amended to call for "a committee of three, none of whom are members of the Presbytery of Philadelphia." The amended motion was then re-adopted.
It was moved that the doctrinal portion of the complaint be referred to a committee of five, none of whom are members of the Presbytery of Philadelphia, to be elected by this assembly to report to the Thirteenth General Assembly. The assembly recessed without action on this motion.
Devotional exercises on Saturday morning were led by the Rev. W. Benson Male.
After roll call and approval of the minutes, Dr. Edward J. Young urged passage of the motion to refer the doctrinal portion of the complaint to a committee of five. He based his remarks upon the gravity of the questions at stake and the centrality of the doctrines involved. He declared that this was no question of apologetics, but of theological considerations of the most profound importance. These matters, he said, should not be dealt with in a summary fashion.
As a complete surprise came a motion by Dr. Lawrence B. Gilmore to reconsider the motion which referred the question of amends to a committee of three. Since this was a second reconsideration of that motion, it was challenged. The moderator ruled it in order, however, since he considered it had been "materially changed" at the time of the first reconsideration. He was sustained in his ruling. The motion to refer the doctrinal portions of the complaint to a committee of five was then laid on the table.
Dr. Gilmore then spoke to his motion to reconsider. He said he wanted his motion passed for three reasons. First, he had been confused on Friday afternoon about the intent and motive behind that motion. Secondly, he felt that to have the question of the constitutionality of the amends go unsettled for another year would work an injustice to the security of any newly-ordained minister of the denomination. For a period of three months after any ordination, a minister could not know for certain that he was really ordained, and if a complaint were lodged his ordination might be in jeopardy for two or three years. Thirdly, Dr. Gilmore was concerned because the matters of the complaint were a stumbling-block to many laymen. He spoke of the discouraging effect upon the laymen of what he held to be an overemphasis on doctrine. He mentioned a prospective member of his church who had been disturbed by items concerning the case appearing in THE PRESBYTERIAN GUARDIAN. The technical considerations had worried her and the reputed lack of human charity shown by participants in the debate had made her reluctant to become a member of the denomination. Therefore, Dr. Gilmore held that since these matters were so disturbing to the laymen, the assembly would do well to dispose at once of the technical aspects of the case and then to study the doctrinal questions in committee. He warned of what he termed the dangers of establishing "extra-confessional standards of orthodoxy."
Professor Woolley took issue with the third portion of Dr. Gilmore's position and declared it to be contrary to the whole principle on which The Orthodox Presbyterian Church was based. He opposed the policy of placing the acquisition of members above the stressing of the importance of the doctrinal foundation of the church, which policy he considered Dr. Gilmore's remarks to have encouraged. Dr. Gilmore's basis for reconsideration, said Professor Woolley, would disintegrate the church faster than any other means.
Mr. DeWaard said that referral of the question of amends to a committee would not establish the precedent that a man may be unfrocked in other than the constitutional manner - it would make no decision whatever. After more debate, the motion to reconsider was finally carried.
After additional discussion, the motion itself, which had been adopted twice the day before, was defeated. This brought the original motion on this same question before the house. That was the motion which asked that the portion of the complaint concerned with amends be declared unconstitutional because it seeks to depose without filing charges and without a trial.
Again there were pleas for the passage of the motion on the same grounds as before, and those pleas were again met by the same answers. In the midst of the debate, Dr. Clark suggested that if the complainants were afraid that the transcript of his pre-ordination examination would be ineligible as a basis for a heresy trial, the proposed answer to the complaint, signed by him and others, might well be used as grounds for charges against him and the other members of the committee.
The previous question finally shut off debate, and the motion was carried by a vote of twenty-one to nine. To avoid confusion, this motion is here repeated:
That the portion of the complaint which requests the general assembly to ask the Presbytery of Philadelphia to declare null and void the actions of the meeting of the Presbytery of Philadelphia of July 7, 1944, re Gordon H. Clark, Ph.D., be declared unconstitutional because it seeks in effect to depose or to unfrock a minister of the church in good and regular standing without filing charges or without due process of a trial.
Mr. Heerema moved "that a committee of five be elected to make a thorough study of the doctrinal sections of the complaint in the matter of the ordination of Dr. Clark and make recommendations to the Thirteenth General Assembly regarding these doctrinal charges.
Mr. Gray moved, as a substitute, that the complaint be dismissed.
The Chaplaincy
The time was now noon, which was the hour previously set aside for the consideration of the work of the denomination's chaplains and for prayer for them and the members in the armed forces. This service had been recommended, together with the importance of having the churches keep in close touch with the chaplains, by the Committee on Overtures and Papers in reply to the following communication from the Presbytery of California:
The Presbytery of California of The Orthodox Presbyterian Church, meeting at San Francisco, California, April 12, 1945, made the following recommendation to the Twelfth General Assembly: The presbytery voted to "Recommend that the Twelfth General Assembly instruct the presbyteries to recognize the excellent work of their chaplains and to urge them to maintain regular correspondence with their chaplains."
The service was conducted by Chaplain A. Culver Gordon, USA, and Chaplain E. Lynne Wade, USNR, who told of the open door for evangelism which was theirs in the work of the chaplaincy. Following the two brier talks, specific prayer was offered by members of the assembly on behalf of the chaplains of the denomination, the members in the armed services, and others serving with the fighting forces of the nation.
Doctrinal Portion of the Complaint
Although the docket provided for a week-end recess beginning at 12.30 Saturday, the commissioners decided to reconvene for an afternoon session.
The motion to dismiss the complaint was substituted, by a vote of nineteen to eight, for the motion to refer to a committee. The assembly was now faced with discussion of the entire doctrinal question - a question which Philadelphia Presbytery had debated for more than a year and which the supporters of Dr. Clark considered the assembly capable of settling in a matter of hours.
Dr. Strong charged the complaint with being a "bad document." He said that it makes accusations not in accordance with the facts. To demonstrate his claims, he began a series of questions directed at Dr. Clark. The strategy, obviously unrehearsed, was for Dr. Strong to read a paragraph from the complaint, ask Dr. Clark whether he ever said anything to justify the complaint's charge, and for Dr. Clark to deny categorically that he ever said - or even that he ever believed - what the complaint charged him with holding. This system of testimony was ruled in order by the moderator, who was sustained in that ruling by the assembly. Although Dr. Strong got no farther than his second question, he and Dr. Clark managed to create a general impression that the same sort of categorical denial could be given to just about every accusation of the complaint, that they considered the document libelous and without justification in fact.
What terminated the questioning abruptly was a call for the reading of the stenographic transcript of Dr. Clark's theological examination, which record alone could supply a valid support or denial for the charges of the complaint. Despite additional warning that to embark on a consideration of the doctrinal portions of the complaint would require at least another week of deliberation, it was voted that the transcript be read. Faced with that grim prospect, Mr. Gray moved the tabling of his own motion to dismiss the complaint, and it was tabled by an overwhelming majority.
Dr. Gilmore moved the "election of a committee of five, not members of Philadelphia Presbytery, to study the following doctrines involved in the complaint, namely, the incomprehensibility of God, the relation of intellect, will and emotions, the divine sovereignty and human responsibility, and the free offer of the gospel, and report its findings to the Thirteenth General Assembly." The effect of this motion would be a mere study of the isolated doctrines without relation to the complaint, and the formulations of the committee would have no constitutional status whatever.
Mr. DeWaard moved, as a substitute, that "a committee of five, none of whom ate members of the Presbytery of Philadelphia, be elected by this assembly to study the doctrinal parts of the complaint of certain members of the presbytery and report to the Thirteenth General Assembly and that the report be distributed to ministers and sessions at least six weeks prior to the convening of the general assembly." In contrast to Dr. Gilmore's motion, this motion would have the effect of evaluating the doctrinal position of the complaint in relation to the standards of the church, and thus provide progress toward an eventual verdict on the validity of the complaint.
The remainder of the Saturday session was consumed by a discussion of whether or not to substitute the DeWaard motion for the Gilmore motion. At 3.45 the assembly recessed for the week-end.
On Monday, after further debate, the motion of Mr. DeWaard calling for a committee to study the doctrinal parts of the complaint was adopted by the assembly, and the following ministers were elected, in this order, to that committee: John Murray; Edmund P. Clowney, convener; Lawrence B. Gilmore; Burton L. Goddard; and Richard W. Gray.
The assembly instructed the clerk to send mimeographed copies of the transcript of Dr. Clark's theological examination to ministers and sessions as soon as possible.
Actions of the concluding three days of the assembly will be reported in the June 25th issue of THE PRESBYTERIAN GUARDIAN.
* The word "thus" was not in the original form of the motion but was later added by amendment.
No comments:
Post a Comment