HOW CAN WE LIVE TOGETHER AS ONE CHURCH?
Reflections on the Anglican dilemma

by Gene TeSelle, Witherspoon Society Issues Analyst
[1-15-04]

We welcome your comments
on this important question.
Just send a note
and we'll share it here.

Click here for links to more comments.

In the PC(USA) we have serious disputes about GLBT ordination. But this is not the only issue. The self-proclaimed "confessing church movement" has asserted that many sectors of the church are heretical, and several attempts are being made to list the "essential tenets of the Reformed faith" and give them constitutional status. A number of congregations, furthermore, have used the power of the purse, refusing to pay per capita charges or support the general benevolence budget of the church.

When there is passionate disunity of this sort, we must ask about possible outcomes, including schism, but also about ways to avoid this consequence and live together as one church.

We can learn something from the Episcopalians, where a sizable majority of U.S. bishops voted in favor of recognizing Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire. The conservatives in that church are making a lot of noise, with a well-publicized gathering in Plano, TX, in the symbolic heart of conservative territory. They are talking about setting up an alternative network within the worldwide Anglican communion. Despite their angry line, they have not yet done it; they are discovering the many logistical difficulties that arise. But at least a handful of conservative bishops will deliver on their threats.

One approach that has been bruited about for several years in the world Anglican community is this: conservative churches or dioceses would affiliate with other Anglican communions in other parts of the world that have more conservative positions. Bishops in both Southeast Asia and Africa have expressed their willingness to facilitate such an approach. It would mean, in effect, establishing "non-geographical" dioceses or entire communions overlapping those that already exist.

In the PC(USA), too, the conservatives are the ones talking about either leaving or finding some means of "gracious separation." They are aware that they have only 15-30% of the vote at GA. The "broad middle" in the church is not likely to follow them in their intransigence, and even on the "ordination question" they will eventually lose.

So it is quite conceivable that some conservatives will propose, as an alternative to outright division, non-geographical presbyteries based on conservative ideology. That's analogous to what is emerging in the Anglican communion. It's what the Reformed church in the Netherlands has done to make a place for conservatives in a church that permits GLBT ordination.

A decade ago, it was liberals who were raising the possibility of non-geographical presbyteries willing to ordain GLBT persons when most presbyteries would not. But it may in fact be the conservatives who first make this kind of proposal seriously.

Two issues of polity - and of policy - are involved here. I am putting them forth as questions, and I would welcome further insights about both of them.

First, the PC(USA) abandoned the principle of geographical presbyteries in the early Nineties when it continued Dakota and Hanmi presbyteries, and since then it has approved at least one more Korean presbytery. It may be time to consider seriously whether the same thing might be done on theological as well as ethnic grounds. And it is conceivable that conservatives will be the first to request it.

That raises the unpleasant prospect of presbyteries divided along recognizable lines of liberal versus conservative. Then there would be even more of a separation of people with different views. The objection is that it might help in the short run but hurt everyone in the long run. One person said that, while she might like to be ordained by a liberal presbytery, she knows that "it would be better for them to deal with me and me with them." She goes on to say, "We cannot simply disown each other and say that we belong somewhere else."

Of course we know that there are already presbyteries that are recognizably conservative or liberal, and the ministerial grapevine is full of stories about how this or that person was given a hard time on the floor of presbytery. Even when there is a mixture of perspectives in a presbytery, there is concern about "tipping the balance" toward one side or the other. At present, however, even those presbyteries that have a predominance of liberal or conservative votes are willing to receive ministers of the "other" persuasion, recognizing that congregations within their bounds can be quite varied in their doctrinal perspectives and that their judgments in calling ministers ought to be respected.

If non-geographical presbyteries were to be encouraged, we might lose the diversity we already have. A better alternative is to encourage a more open-textured approach to theological differences. By that I mean acknowledgment of pluralism, recognizing that the whole counsel of God is richer than any of us can capture, and thus not only taking an attitude of "mutual forbearance" but genuinely seeking to understand each other. If passions are too intense, however, we as well as the Anglicans may end up with the non-geographical solution.

Second, if non-geographical presbyteries based on differing theological perspectives were to be set up, the polity question is whether presbyteries (and sessions, for that matter) can add doctrinal statements to those that are in the Constitution and require ordinands to pledge their support to these new formulations.

Such an approach may be permitted by one of John Witherspoon's principles of church order (G-1.0302): that every church, union, or association "is entitled to declare the terms of admission into its communion, and the qualifications of its ministers and members, as well as the whole system of its internal government which Christ hath appointed." The Presbytery of San Diego cites this in adopting specific guidelines for examining inquirers and candidates.

I would like to know, from those who know the interpretations of the Book of Order better than I do, whether (or to what extent) presbyteries have the right to do this, in spite of the other principles that ordination is an act of the whole church and that only the Constitution is binding on the whole church.

Ray Kersting, stated clerk of Santa Fe Presbytery, offers some useful comments on this question. He says,

It is one thing to suggest questions for ordination exams and examinations for receiving a clergy into the presbytery. It is quite another to require adherence to specific theological stances beyond the actual ordination questions.

We have a list of suggested questions for persons wanting to become members of Santa Fe Presbytery. They are not slanted one way or the other but are helpful in insuring that every potential member is treated the same way and that we have a feel for the person's theological perspective.

The San Diego list is very conservative in its slant, but they go to great lengths to say that this in no way is to be interpreted as a perspective that clergy must adhere to.

That seems to be a good "middle ground" in dealing with this question. But we must ask, once again, whether this kind of pluralism and mutual forbearance can be achieved under conditions of stress. The price of staying together might be presbyteries that have recognizable doctrinal or theological positions.

When positions seem irreconcilable, there are three courses of action: schism (or "gracious separation"), non-geographical communions or governing bodies, and a more open-textured approach. It should be clear that I prefer the third. The question I am raising is whether the non-geographical approach is a workable alternative to separation, at least on an interim basis, and if so how it might function.

[1-15-04]

Dear friends in Christ,

I am responding to Gene TeSelle's essay and its concluding question: "Whether the non-geographical approach is a workable alternative to separation..."

1. It can "work" in the long run, if the course follows that of the "non-geographical" ethnic presbyteries of the 19th century in the US. Historians can offer a more documented approach, but as I see the overall picture, the aim was "unity in diversity" not as a static thing but as a means of approaching a newer diversity in unity. Two generations later, we don't even remember what the issues were.

2. It cannot work if one group thinks the other is "heretical" or "apostate." Then we are in a zero-sum game. where the father/mother/relative/household member of the Prodigal Son is asked to choose between two equally loved sons on the basis of "what have you done for me lately." The "winner" takes all. The loser is cast out. This is not according to the theology that I learned at a PC(USA) seminary and continue to study.

I continue to grieve over the attempt of some to define for all the parameters of acceptable service, while recognizing that for some, clear and stark boundaries based on literal, "common-sense" understanding are comforting. We all long to be of meaningful service to our Lord Jesus Christ and to hear his voice saying "Well done, good and faithful servant."

Where is the Solomon who will declare: "cut the baby in half" and give each to the claimant mother - after all, that is fair?" And then see the response.

Barbara Renton, Former GAC Chair and retired EP

Renee Guth of Tucson, AZ, writes:

For an additional perspective to Gene TeSelle's article entitled, "How can we live together as one church? Reflections on the Anglican dilemma", I would recommend Lyle Schaller's recent book, From geography to affinity: how congregations can learn from one another. Schaller's proposal is directed to current mainline denominations including the PC(USA). Although I have not embraced this as an option, I think that it is one to consider.

Schaller proposes that congregations be permitted to freely choose their judicatory affiliations based on affinity, not geography. In addition to theology, these affinities may include community context, culture, role, type, size, hopes, dreams, and priorities. Congregational ministry is supported by their affinity-based judicatory.

Affinity-based judicatories would be joined voluntarily and for mutually agreed upon purposes. This movement from regulatory agency to voluntary association acknowledges the culturally based tension between regulation and self-determination. An affinity-based judicatory provides a balance between these values. It is a covenant community bathed in the freedom to serve Christ.

When people join together with a common focus or shared commitment, it is relatively easy to attract new adherents. Movement to a vision-based purpose often results in new vitality. Additional advantages to this approach include:

1) Honors loyalties to our religious traditions

2) Maintains assets including members, volunteers, staff, property, and financial assets

3) Provides hope

4) A relatively easy approach to planned change initiated from within the denomination.

5) Frees resources to implement a vision for a new tomorrow rather than an attempt to maintain the old. Regulation and long standing denominational disagreement costs money, energy, relationships, and lost opportunities.

6) May indirectly redesign and strengthen denominational systems.

Schaller identifies three significant paradigm shifts that would be required for this plan of action:

1) Recognizing congregations' freedom to affiliate. This is a less radical approach than abandoning denominational ties altogether.

2) Affirming the strength and benefit of peer learning and learning-driven affinity-based relationships. This moves us away from superior-subordinate learning and governance. Some examples of peer learning/governance include law firms, teaching hospitals, sports clubs, hobby groups, recovery groups, support groups, etc.

3) A new approach for defining the identity and public image of denominationally affiliated churches. Their identity shifts to what they are doing in ministry and possibly away from denominational affiliation.

There don't seem to be any easy answers for our denomination. Is a proposal similar to Gene TeSelle's or Lyle Schaller's the best option we have?

Renee Guth

Tucson, AZ

Please add your comments
on this important question.
Just send a note
and we'll share it here.