Confusion reigns.
As a former member of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity of the Church (TTF), I have been distressed to see so many Presbyterian friends troubled, perplexed, and even angered by the actions taken by the 217th Birmingham General Assembly in response to the Task Force’s recommendations.
Some of that confusion has been generated by inconsistent legal interpretations issued by the Office of the General Assembly (OGA) and by other “constitutional experts.”
Added confusion has resulted from the difficulty of shifting from the polarizing political rhetoric used pre-GA–in the hope of defeating the proposals–to a more pastorally soothing rhetoric of reassurance we usually utilize after the home team loses or, as in this case, after our agenda fails to get the votes. Having spent nine months radicalizing the meaning of the recommendations, warning about unintended consequences, projecting worst-case scenarios, and expounding on any and all flaws, some opponents were too enraged by the action or, perhaps in a few cases, are too addicted to the fight to make that shift. The rhetoric of contempt has quieted in some places but continues unabated in others.
The title of the TTF report, “A Season of Discernment,” appears to have caused some of the confusion. It has been read, erroneously, as either a) a report of the vaunted TTF’s season of discernment for the church, b) a call to presbyteries and sessions to learn to discern as well as the vaunted TTF (“You haven’t gotten it right yet, so keep discerning until you see things our way,”), or c) an experiment for the church to try for a couple years (an inference drawn from one task force member’s comments). Such interpretations sound insulting and frivolously provocative. That was not our intention. I wish we had titled the report, “The Calling to Discernment,” and that it be used as a tool to help governing bodies fulfill their primary obligation: discerning God’s will, especially when examining candidates for church leadership.
Yet another cause of confusion comes from the various ways people answer the simple question, “Does the TTF report change anything?” We TTF members have argued that we were not inventing any thing new. At most, we suggested, it was simply dusting off and bringing back into practice a step in the ordination process that had gone out of fashion. However, many readers of the TTF report have argued that the report was cutting a loophole that individuals and ordaining bodies could exploit.
The ultimate reason for confusion is that the TTF report tinkers with complicated tensions that are intrinsic to Presbyterianism. We affirm the freedom of an individual’s conscience under the authority of Scripture while also entrusting to governing bodies the authority to corral such freedoms. We commit our allegiance to core beliefs and practices while respecting each other’s convictions in non-essentials. We delegate to local governing bodies the authority to discern God’s will while holding those bodies accountable to the ultimate oversight of the regional and national governing bodies.
The adopted AI seeks to attenuate those balances.
Did it do so correctly? Some believe that the strengthening of ordination standards in 1997 (G-6.0106b) skewed that balance to favor the national authority and that the AI either succeeds or falls short of rebalancing that situation. Others–including the most outspoken opponents–believe that the AI has tilted us too much toward individual licentiousness and local option.
Put that all together and, yes, confusion reigns!
Then again, we Presbyterians are pretty insistent that the sovereign God reigns. And given that God is not the author of confusion (I Cor. 14:33), the people of God listening for the voice of God ought to be able to find their way through a season of confusion into greater clarity. This edition of The Presbyterian Outlook is dedicated to helping us all to listen better, to discern more clearly, and to follow our Lord more faithfully.
— JHH
