Lest one misinterpret the writer’s intentions, hear this: there exist many kinds of churches. Dr. Barron’s research just happened to focus on two.
If “One is the loneliest number,” as Three Dog Night sang forty years ago, then two is the fightingest number. Sure, many humans do pair off with a significant other in search of love, but too many of those pairings end up in warfare. Many other pairings have been organized specifically to set up rivalries and competitions. Most sporting events are structured as contests between two individuals or teams, most elections operate as races between two parties, most deliberative processes set up choices between yes and no votes. The common general perception of the world is of one divided between friends and foes, us and them.
Now that the presidential and congressional races are finally fading in the rearview mirror, might we possibly contemplate a world that’s not bifurcated in this way? Might we imagine a U.S. Congress that works with the president to develop legislation that a consensus can support by incorporating the best ideas that all parties’ leaders can pull together? Can the majority party actually share authority with the rest?
How about here in Presbyterian country?
Last week’s edition of the magazine presented yet another Outlook Forum: two articles written by folks wrestling on an issue from the theological left and right. Yet, the positions offered didn’t follow red and blue party lines.
Barbara Wheeler, an executive committee member of the Covenant Network and advocate for equal status in the church for persons of varying sexual orientations, nevertheless expressed concerns about ratifying the newly proposed amendment B, which would eliminate the explicit prohibition on ordaining those not living “in fidelity in a marriage between a husband and a wife or chastity in singleness.” She invited presbyteries to choose to take no vote at all rather than to bifurcate into a pro-con debate — acknowledging that such non-votes would seem to work against her own cause.
Mike Loudon, a board member of Presbyterians for Renewal and an opponent of ordination for sexually active gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered persons, also urged rejection of the proposed amendment either by voting no or by following Wheeler’s idea to not vote at all. But, he also urged his fellow evangelicals to give the much criticized PUP* policy a chance to work, including the part that invites ordination candidates to scruple points of departure from the church Constitution, subject to the ordaining body’s decision whether or not to extend forbearance in such instances.
These two points of view don’t boil down to two polar opposite positions. That’s caused in large part by the fact that Barbara and Mike both believe God called them to live out their faith in covenant accountability to one another. By God’s sovereign design they are sister and brother in the body of Christ and colleagues in ministry with all the rest of us in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). They aim to honor that calling.
In upcoming weeks we will publish a mix of other writers’ perspectives on the amendment, from enthusiastic supporters to concerned critics. But many of those positions will not simply follow two party lines.
God has invested into every expression of the body of Christ a variety of gifts, skills, talents, ethnicities, interests, experiences, visions, and hopes.
So let’s read about the two churches Ed Barron has studied. At the same time, let’s keep in mind that about 11,000 other worlds exist within this connectional fellowship. Vive la différence.
— JHH
*For disclosure purposes: Prior to my service at The Presbyterian Outlook, I accepted appointment with Mike Loudon and Barbara Wheeler and others as a member of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity of the Church (PUP).
