Those who believe that the church is wrong have fought the good fight and must now admit that, for the time being at least, the church is not prepared to change the explicit standards which have been added to the Constitution. These were developed with some struggle and reluctance to make clear what the church believes Scripture and its confessions teach about human sexuality.
Now we need to join together in strengthening the peace and tranquility of the church. There is much we could learn here. Do we resolve to listen more clearly to one another or do we decide to defeat one another in other ways? Those who lost have a decision. They must choose whether they are going to stay and hope and work, or to withdraw peaceably without making a schism.
It seems clear that ministers, officers and governing bodies who declare their defiance of the Constitution which they are sworn to obey have stepped over the line and must be held accountable through the orderly processes of church discipline.
On the other hand, ministers, officers and governing bodies who declare their defiance of the church in other, albeit legal, ways need also to be held accountable by the church as well.
What about the winners? We’re speaking, for example, of some conservatives who are constantly threatening to withhold financial gifts from the larger church if this or that is done or not done. Or to leave the denomination. The church is not strengthened by these threats — especially since that side has won. Legal, yes, but a violation of the spirit of the law.
Some conservatives have been perceived as violating this spirit. These are the same folks who are suggesting that ministers who do not serve a church should not be allowed to vote in their presbytery of membership. Should those who withhold their money then also forfeit their right to vote?
Does it not seem that sometimes we are burdened by more anger than we need? Anger can turn to rage and self-righteousness, and if it does, it must be named and resisted — in the name of Jesus Christ.
There is the rage of a few on one side which issues forth in declarations of disobedience, despite the fact that the church has devoted a quarter-century to discussing the matter, and has still said that the discussion can continue.
Then there’s the rage of a few on the other side who are ready to drive out all those who disagree. At the same time they, paradoxically, give little, if any, support to the larger church of which they are a part. They are constantly threatening to leave.
The problem, of course, is that angry people tend to speak the loudest. They tend to dominate the discussion.
It is painful to consider it, but could it be the case that peaceable withdrawal may well be best for all concerned — those who’ve lost, those who’ve won but are not now nor will ever be satisfied?
How much of the violence that the whole church has endured for so long could be removed if a relatively small minority of ministers, officers and churches were allowed to find some other denomination to which they could be loyal?
Maybe it’s time to consider Article 13 (of the Articles of Reunion), which lapsed in 1991. That article allowed churches to leave with property, but they had to make their minds up within a specified period of time. There were some pretty vicious fights in some congregations, but in the end few left.
What would be the outcome today if we gave a one- or two-year window of opportunity to leave? Probably about the same as the last time.
Send your comment on this editorial to The Outlook. Please give your hometown.
