I think the same thing applies to the church. In the questions we answer when ordained and installed as ministers of Word and Sacrament, elders and deacons, we commit ourselves to three types of jobs — “Do you promise to further the peace, unity, and purity of the church?” I have come to believe that, like that farm equipment repair shop, we can only have two. If we focus on peace and unity, there wonít be purity. If we focus on unity and purity, there wonít be peace. And if we focus on peace and purity, there wonít be unity.
Much of the tension in our denomination today, it seems to me, is not so much that we have differing opinions on controversial matters [which we do] but that we focus on the different combinations of two out of our three jobs. There are those who do not want the denomination to split or have a rancorous tenor so they de-emphasize doctrinal issues. There are others who give up on peace in order to have the church be of one mind, [ideally the one mind that is theirs]. And, there are still others who call for schism in order that peaceful, like-minded folks may go off on their own together. Is there another possibility?
John Strachey, English politician of the last century, wrote in his book, The Challenge of Democracy, about the Plimsoll Line. He wrote: “Along the sides of all the ships of the world a line is drawn. This is called the ëPlimsoll Lineí after an English M.P., Mr. Plim-soll, who in the 19th century got a bill passed making it compulsory to mark ships in this way and making it illegal, under heavy pains and penalties, to load the ships so heavily that this line sank below the water. This was because . . . overloaded ships foundered in storms.” As valuable as the shipís cargo was, too much of it was not a good thing. A limit needed to be set and the Plimsoll Line set that limit. Perhaps we in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) need a “Plimsoll Line.”
Perhaps we need a marker that will let us know when we are overloading the ship that is the church with the excesses of peace, unity or purity.
I believe that we already have that “Plimsoll Line” in our denomination. It is the Adopting Act of 1729. Our current moderator of the General Assembly, Jack Rogers, describes it in his book, Reading the Bible and the Confessions The Presbyterian Way. He states, “The Adopting Act was a classical Presbyterian compromise. It decreed that Yes, every minister did have to subscribe to the Westminster Confession; however, only in its essential and necessary articles. If the minister had a ëscruple,í or difference of opinion, with the confession, the presbytery would decide whether the article in dispute was essential. Finally, the Adopting Act exhorted all to civility toward those with whom they disagreed on nonessentials.” It was a balance of peace, purity and unity that has kept the ship afloat for almost 300 years.
As we debate and vote on issues before our beloved denomination, may we remember the Adopting Act, the Plimsoll Line and the realization that we cannot have it all. And may we act accordingly.
Posted March 18, 2002
Hugh D. Anderson is regional general presbyter, South Region, Cascades Presbytery. This article previously appeared in the presbyteryís newspaper, Omnibus
Send your comment on this viewpoint to The Outlook. Please give your hometown.
