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