Important discussion during an important discussion

During this afternoon's debate on revising the definition of marriage, a commissioner asked for a ruling as to whether the Book of Confessions and the Book of Order could be at odds with each other.  The Moderator turned to the Stated Clerk, who turned to the moderator of the Advisory Committee on the Constitution. 

Paul Hooker, that moderator of the ACC, provided a very helpful distinction.  He pointed out that we turn to the Book of Confessions for our theology and the Book of Order for our polity and our rules. That is, of course, absolutely right.  And so Moderator Presa ruled that the portion cited from the Book of Order was not in conflict with the Book of Confessions.

So then someone made a motion to overrule the ruling of the moderator.  How helpful.

In any case, it brought about a theological discussion of substance on the floor, for which I give great thanks.  Those of us who are ordained as Teaching or Ruling Elders in the PCUSA vow to be "instructed and led" by the confessions of the church, but we do not hold them to the standard of scripture - and we hold them to a different standard of polity. 

During the discussion, a young woman pointed out that if we indeed kept our polity in total accord with the Book of Confessions, then she would not be able to be standing there taking part in the debate and voting. She is correct.  Neither would I be serving in the capacity that I have served for twenty-five years as of next month. And we would still be keeping people from being ordained who were guilty of usury, who had undergone a divorce, and much more. 

Short answer.  We are instructed and led by our confessions.  They tell us who we are.  The Book of Order tell us how we are. As much as I prefer the Book of Confessions to the Book of Order, I don't know how we could have one without the other.