Presbyterians, beware the Ides of September.
All right, technically the Ides of September falls on the 13th and I’m referring to the 15th. People from many sectors of the PC(USA) are waiting expectantly for that date, for the release of the report of the Theological Task Force on the Peace, Unity, and Purity of the church. The Presbyterian Outlook recently featured an editorial as well as several articles and letters on this topic:
Common Ground: Task Force, small groups seeking way forward for PC(USA)
Common Ground: Montreat meeting focuses Columbia Grads on future
September 15 (editorial, May 30 2005 issue)
Letters to the Editor response to ‘September 15‘.
Some groups like More Light Presbyterians have elected not to wait but to act peremptorily: https://www.mlp.org/resources/overturefaq.html . Many presbyteries have already begun softening the church in anticipation. I find I am a bit more inclined to proceed with extreme caution.
The PUP Task Force was charged with, among other things, developing a process and an instrument for church-wide discernment and reflection https://www.pcusa.org/peaceunitypurity/covenant.htm . Most of the materials they have so far released and most of the commentary about their work focus on ways to discuss ‘the issues that divide us.’ If this emphasis is indeed about fostering honest conversation, then it may do great good — honest conversation being the operative phrase. I am persuaded that this is desperately needed in our denomination.
What I mean by honest conversation is that we lay all our cards on the table and say what we honestly believe – without dissembling language and without resort to vagueness and platitudes. Specifically, I mean what we believe about God, about the work of Jesus Christ, about what the Gospel actually is, about Scripture, about whether we believe the church as a whole should take political stands and if so, under what circumstances, about what direction we think the church should move, and about what we believe God would have us do. Such a conversation should, of course, proceed civilly, respectfully, in a decent and orderly manner; it should involve the reasons beliefs are held, and it should entail a great deal of listening.
But in order for it to have any value at all, such an exchange must also be honest – there’s the rub.
There are quite a few obstacles to honesty that must still be overcome, and so far several seem to be playing a prime role in our ‘discernment process’. What I’m seeing so far does not bode well. Some people will be appalled at the suggestion that vagaries, platitudes, and dissembling language will be employed; but of all possible outcomes, I find this by far the most likely.
What I mean is the possibility that the PC(USA) will, after much introspection, produce something akin to the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification released by the ELCA and the Roman Catholic Church:
https://www.elca.org/ecumenical/ecumenicaldialogue/romancatholic/jddj/declaration.html.
It was crafted in such a way as to be able to be interpreted by traditional Lutherans to indicate what they believe and to be interpreted by traditional Catholics in accordance with Catholic doctrine. Much to everyone’s surprise, Lutherans and Catholics have really agreed all along and the Reformation never happened. I fully expect to see a concerted effort to advance the idea that we in the PC(USA) in reality, all agree, and in fact, our perceived differences never existed. Such a solution – a generic statement to which we can all agree and be proud of our subtle and complex thinking – is not a desirable outcome. Neither progressives nor conservatives believe their positions to be in error.
In the case of ordination standards, for instance, progressives see a social justice issue – meaning that those who disagree are unjust; conservatives see an issue of biblical authority – meaning that those who push for change are rebelling against God. These positions are mutually exclusive. If a person truly believes one or the other of them, no flowery statement will bridge the difference – no matter how spiritual sounding it may be. And in fact, he or she will be unable, in good conscience, to assent to the contrary view or even to be a party to propagating it. There is a danger that we will become a denomination of Henry Clays, deferring disaster only for a little while at the price of violating our own consciences. Such a non-solution has an added danger for conservatives: the compromise it entails would represent an abandonment of their position – whereas, from a progressive viewpoint it could be seen as a step in the ‘right direction’.
In spite of its insufficiency (and lack of honesty) there are several reasons I consider this option highly likely. First, it is human nature to avoid friction and unpleasantness. No one wants to be the odd person out, and if people perceive their views to be unpopular or divisive in a given setting they are unlikely to express them. There will be a natural temptation toward servility, the desire to ‘go along, in order to get along.’
Second, such a ‘solution’ resonates with our wider culture’s emphases on consensus and conflict resolution. The symptoms of conflict are treated without ever addressing their roots. Where root problems are addressed, this is done in a stereotypical, facile manner based on presumed group memberships and prejudices. These fashionable processes are designed to convince people they have delved deeply into a problem without ever going to the trouble of actually doing so. A nice sounding summation everyone can agree to takes the place of any genuine unity.
Third, a bona fide honest conversation would likely involve a measure of self-criticism, but this is something institutions and organizations, by nature, avoid. They have vested interests in self-preservation and self-promotion. At most, an organization may criticize its predecessors or dissenters who hold no institutional power. For example, Kruschev could denounce Stalin but not the Communist Party.
Fourth, the process by which such a conversation is being enjoined, both by the task forces and by groups throughout the PC(USA) is intrinsically flawed. It is designed to combat a specific and very real problem: the human tendency to be unjust and unfair based on prejudices, stereotypes, visceral dislikes, or ignorance. Thus great emphasis is placed on getting to know those who hold opposing views and putting a human face on them. This is, of course, a necessary thing, for even if we hold ‘all the right views’, if we hold them for the wrong reasons we are not honoring Christ. That said, this emphasis creates a situation that is equally likely to distort the truth and interfere with our ability to discern what God would have us do. Once emotional bonds are developed there will be a tendency to be unjust and unfair based on personal relationships. Some would argue that Christ’s reconciling ministry necessitates placing such a priority on personal relationships, but both the Bible and history are replete with examples of emotional bonds being very poor guides to moral choices and questions of truth. There are those who will insist that we show our love for God by how we love others – and I fully agree with them – but what happens when the choice is between being faithful to God and being faithful to our friends and loved ones?
I fear that this (a disingenuous statement and a false and temporary consensus) will be the way of it. The materials I’ve seen from the PUP task force reinforce that trepidation. For example, they produced a report for the 216th GA that involved a considerable sleight of hand. In saying Jesus Christ Himself is the Church’s Peace, Unity, and Purity they seemed to suggest different emphases for each. Unity requires our action to honor Christ. Purity becomes the work and responsibility of Christ – He has already perfectly accomplished it. (This about purity is, of course, biblically true and standard Reformed fare.) It is suggested, however, by forbidding separation on the basis of purity, that we ought not to worry so much about it. Either way we have the purity of Christ, so when we see a lack of purity we must apparently pretend we don’t or risk disbelieving God.
What if we were to treat unity the same way? Suppose for example, the PC(USA) were to dissolve into 11,000 separate congregations, each taking their buildings and a share of the resources now held by the organization, and having no further contact with one another. By this rationale, we would have the unity of Christ already. We would still be unified – it was the gift of God, to suggest otherwise would be to disbelieve God.
Also, there is, in this report, a lamentable vagueness surrounding the word purity. It can either mean purity of action or purity of doctrine–they are not the same thing. One may involve sin – for which Christ has provided the remedy, but the other may be definitional to Christianity, and to abandon it is to abandon Christianity – for this there is no remedy.
WILL SPOTTS is a freelance writer, researcher, and editor. He is an elder (not currently on session) at Rock Church in Fair Hill, Md. He is a contributor to the Web site of the Truth in Love Network (https://www.pcusaelders.org ) .
