The use of the term “force” is not meant to suggest the mustering of yet another army on our ecclesiastical battleground but rather a combination of voices acting more or less independently, through the governing bodies of the church — primarily the presbyteries — under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to call for an end to the prevailing culture of violence in the denomination and for the restoration of civility and a sense of proportion in the prosecution of the theological debates so important to our future.
For more than two decades, the church has been asked to change its mind on disputed matters relating to human sexuality. The most recent series of votes on ordination standards — the passage of Amendment B in 1997 (“fidelity-and-chastity” requirement of ordained church officers), the defeat of Amendment A in 1998 (to weaken substantially that requirement) demonstrated that the church at large was not prepared to change the teaching of the church on human sexuality. In fact, the defeat of the first Amendment A (1998) by a much larger majority of the presbytery votes than that which approved Amendment B demonstrated the church’s displeasure at having immediately to vote on the issue again.
The vote in 2001 on Amendment O, explicitly forbidding same-sex unions by Presbyterian ministers or in Presbyterian churches, involved a different set of issues. It was lost not because there was any change in the church’s understanding of its faith as it relates to human sexuality but because of a realization that polity solutions for such issues were becoming increasingly elusive.
Unfortunately, those supporting a change in theology and practice on this matter misread the vote and proceeded to promote yet another vote on ordination standards. That vote is currently under way and there is no indication that the outcome will be any different from the defeat of the first Amendment A.
The question is: Will those who apparently have won the current round make the same mistake as those who won the vote on Amendment O? That is, will the right of center see in their strong victory some change in the basic structure of opinion in the church at large, and therefore see a warrant for prosecuting the political advantage and moving toward plans to destroy or humiliate the opposition and/or to “take over the church” as some have recently suggested?
To follow the lead of those voices would represent a total misreading of the vote. In the current vote, as there has been in the aforementioned votes, there is a right, a left and a center. The center has held the outcome in its hands in all four votes since 1997. The center has said, in effect, the case has not been made that the church should depart from its historic teaching on human sexuality, and it has voted against the left. On the other hand, the center is very wary of substituting one hegemony in denominational affairs with another. Yes, the left took power a generation ago and, until recently, held it tenaciously. Even now its power is stronger in the governing bodies of the church than that of the right, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which has been the moderate right’s failure to distance themselves publicly from groups whose spirit and methods seem mean-spirited and narrow.
But for the right-of-center faction to see this strong showing as evidence of a decisive shift in sentiment of the center would be a critical mistake.
In terms of theology, the center is still searching earnestly for a word from the Lord which will clarify the disputed issues. In terms of polity, the center has been able to challenge effectively the former hegemony, but it is not about to embrace dominance by the other side.
In terms of power, the center wants power sharing; it’s been a long time since we’ve seen that in our denomination. But there may yet be a chance to achieve such a balance, which is critical if we are to be open to the word which the Lord will with certainty in due time give to God’s people.
Hence, the time is ripe for a “third force” to make its voice heard in the governing bodies of the church — not for the sake of destroying any faction, not for the sake of itself taking power, but rather to bear witness to the truth that Christ is the only Head of the Church, and that all God’s people deserve a place at the table where decisions are made.
Send your comment on this editorial to The Outlook.
Please give your hometown.
