Reformed Presbyterian Minutes of Synod 1993

REFORMED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 147highest court? Is the Synod, taking one stand, to be the enforcer of adifferent stand taken by the larger overturing body? Such questions pressin upon us as elders charged with promoting the peace and order of a branchof Christ's Church.WHERE ERROR HAS COME INWe believe therefore:1. That the sessions which ordained without requiring Query #8 werewrong, and that presbyteries were wrong in not enforcing the Synod'srequirements. Especially do we believe that this lack of enforcement didnotrespond to the interpretation made by the Synod in 1981 (Minutes, Page128, para. 2,4): "As long as the church bases its position overtly on theBible, it does not violate the individual's liberty of conscience... as longas (it) presents its requirements as based upon Scripture, is willing tosupport its interpretation of Scripture by the use of sound exegeticalprinciples, and does not suppress legitimate discussion of its positions, itshould not be charged with improperly binding the conscience." Somehave argued that the Church has not presented this argument formally.Your committee is not in agreement with some of the arguments of pastSynod reports presented in favor of the total abstinence requirement. Butwe are convinced that, although Synod reports have not attempted tomarshall all relevant biblical defenses of the present position into oneplace, we cannot charge it with making no conscientious appeal to theScripture. Appeals to Scripture have been made over and over again. (Seee.g. Synod's adopted view, 1986Minutes, p. 155, "The Scriptural basis fora total abstinence requirement has been discussed extensively over the lastgeneration, and numerous papers and reports presented to the Synod haveconcerned different aspects of that basis... we observe... that the Synodof 1975 acted upon the conviction that the Scriptures and the church'sconfessional standards favored a view of the authority of the churchwherein total abstinence could lawfully be required in order to preventoffenses and to promote mutual edification.") The Church, therefore, hasrequired the taking of the query, and this subscription, since it has requireda limited regulation of behavior and not a belief-commitment, has notbound the consciences of those taking it The query either should have beentaken (as it has been recently in the case of a deacon in the Smiths FallsCongregation) as not binding the conscience, or men refusing to take itshould not have been ordained.2. The two presbyteries were wrong to allow the consciences ofindividuals, of sessions, and even of presbyteries to emerge as superior tothe corporate conscience of the highest mling body of the Church. Andthey were wrong, in any case, in not requiring the actions mentioned above,