Doug and Witherspooners,

I just wanted to thank you for your powerful and courageous voice. One of the things I love about Witherspoon is your undeterred vision for the mercy and justice of the Gospel, and your unending hope that the PCUSA follows that vision.

On August 25 the Theological Task Force (TTF) released its complete report, including the much-awaited recommendations.

The document begins, continues, and ends with exhortations to mutual "discernment" as Presbyterians conduct their business and respond to each other’s actions. Citing Jesus’ longest prayer (John 17), it notes that he does not pray for sameness or total agreement. Unity consists in communicating to each other the truth as God has given us to know it, and supporting each other, in all our differences, in the hope that "the quality of our life together" will be "compelling testimony to the truth and power of the gospel we proclaim" (lines 1549-51).

Recommendation 2 urges governing bodies, congregations, and other groups of Presbyterians to follow the example of the TTF and engage in a process of "intensive discernment" (line 1089). This has already been done in a few presbyteries, but not, unfortunately, in many.

And Recommendation 4 urges all who plan and moderate meetings of governing bodies to "explore the use of alternative forms of discernment and decision-making as a complement to parliamentary procedure, especially in dealing with potentially divisive issues" (lines 1150-54). Many of us have seen that these alternatives can work well in committees of the General Assembly and on other occasions. May they continue to increase, so that we do not remain captive to Robert’s Rules and to those who are skilled in exploiting them to the confusion of most participants.

All this is to the good. But most people in the church are wondering about the "bottom line" in dealing with the issues for which the TTF was created.

The TTF has already reminded us that their mandate was to deal with ordination standards, not with sexuality as such, and therefore they have focused on the former, trying to do it in a way that will achieve and maintain peace, unity, and purity in the church.

Now we get to the specifics.

The big surprise is that the TTF focuses not on the controversial G-6.0106b, which was added to the Book of Order in 1996-97, but on G-6.0108, which has been there since reunion in 1983. This says:

--  that ordained officers "shall adhere to the essentials of the Reformed faith and polity";

-- that freedom of conscience in the interpretation of Scripture is to be maintained as long as there is not "serious departure" from these standards; and

--  that the judgment whether a person has departed from the "essentials," and how seriously, rests with the governing body.

In Recommendation 5 on page 31, the TTF recommends that the 2006 General Assembly adopt an authoritative interpretation ("AI" for short) of G-6.0108, stating that

--  the standards for ordination and installation are set forth in the Constitution;

--  governing bodies have the responsibility to apply these standards;

--  this includes the task of determining whether a candidate has "departed" from the scriptural and constitutional standards and whether any such departure amounts to a failure to adhere to the "essentials" of the Reformed faith and polity;

--  even when a governing body has acted responsibly, its decision is always subject to review by a higher body; but

--  all parties should "endeavor to outdo one another" in honoring each others’ decisions.

In the Rationales there is a constant balancing of two seemingly contradictory perspectives.

Sometimes there is "hold the line" language, to the effect that standards are established by the whole church; that local governing bodies "cannot set their own standards or set aside the church’s standards"; and thus that "local option" is in no sense a part of their recommendation.

And yet there is flexibility, since any examination involves determining, "on a case-by-case basis," whether the person adheres to the "essential and necessary articles" and, if there is any "departure" from them, whether it is "serious." It is noted that the Adopting Act of 1729 gave ministers the opportunity to dissent from articles of the Westminster Confession and gave ordaining bodies the responsibility to determine whether this was an essential tenet.

The report emphasizes both faith and practice, as G-6.0108 does, and as the Adopting Act did in speaking of "doctrine, discipline, and government." It notes the irony that over time (especially in recent years, we might add, with heated disputes over same-sex relations) an imbalance has developed, with flexibility over doctrine but requirements for strict compliance in conduct – in other words, the Book of Order has become a more powerful, or at least a blunter, instrument than the Book of Confessions.

At one point it notes, with implicit disapproval, that some bodies "have considered adopting their own version or distillation of essential standards, to be applied to all officers-elect" (lines 1261-62). This presumably refers to the action of the Presbytery of San Diego several years ago, and the position taken by both the Confessing Church and the New Wineskins movements.

But at another point (line 1360) it expects the candidate to accept the essentials of Reformed faith and polity "as determined by the examining body." If I understand the spirit of the report, this passage means that the determination is one that emerges from the examination process itself. The TTF ought to clarify this point; otherwise we would have the same set of essentials being imposed each time a candidate is examined, which is not in the spirit of either the Adopting Act of 1729, G-6.0108, or the TTF’s own report.

Note that these recommendations would increase the pressure on the person seeking ordination, since the procedure would inevitably be "case-by-case" (line 1227). The examining body is urged to gain "the broadest vision of each officer-elect’s faith, manner of life, and promise" (lines 1308-9) -- presumably trying to be comprehensive and balanced during the examining process. But comprehensiveness increases the pressure as the examining body tries to judge "whether these actual, fallible human beings have the self-awareness, commitment, and capacity to exercise faithful ministry" (lines 1345-46). As if to balance concerns like these, the report reminds us several times that the ordination standards are "ideals" and that no officer-elect will be "perfect" in satisfying them.

Let’s begin with what the recommendations do, and then turn to what they do not do.

1. The TTF acknowledges, and urges the Assembly to acknowledge formally, that G-6.0108 has already established the legitimacy of "departures" ("scruples" in the language of the Adopting Act) from literal adherence to the Constitution, as long as they are not violations of the "essential and necessary" features of Reformed faith, practice, and polity.

2. This principle could apply to G-6.0106b and related AIs from past Assemblies, which cumulatively were designed to deny ordination to persons involved in same-sex relationships. There are very few who would call this central, essential, or necessary. If a governing body, in examining a candidate, finds that person to be suitable, then it has authority under G-6.0108 to make the judgment that his or her ordination is not prohibited. (The Layman on August 25 expressed the fear that the TTF has in effect opened the way to "local option" concerning this issue, even though the TTF worked hard to show how it has not.)

3. The TTF tells us exactly how and why this might happen. Ordination standards, as constitutional provisions, are intrinsically "subject to authoritative interpretation" (line 1401). At the same time higher governing bodies may not prevent lower bodies from carrying out their constitutionally mandated responsibilities, specifically in ordination (line 1403). In sum, an AI binds how the examining body shall interpret a standard, but it cannot override that body’s power to judge which matters are essential and whether a departure is a serious obstacle (lines 1410-13).

4. The TTF emphasizes that the authority to decide which candidates are qualified belongs to the ordaining body; indeed, it reminds us of something that has always been true, that no governing body can be forced to ordain a person whose faith or manner of life is judged to be a serious departure from the essentials (lines 1443-45). It is conceivable that some governing bodies might regard conformity to an exclusivist interpretation of G-6.0106b as an "essential" of faith and practice; certainly that is what the Presbytery of San Diego and the Confessing Church and New Wineskin movements seem to be telling us.

5. The TTF acknowledges the impassioned debates over the issues of sexuality and ordination raised by G-6.0106b. Instead of trying to solve them, it proposes "ways for the church to live faithfully while dealing with those issues" (lines 1367-68) and makes much of the need for dialogue, discernment, and mutual forbearance. Certainly this is a good thing, for it acknowledges the legitimacy of diverse perspectives. Dialogue is always worth trying.

But now let’s turn to what the TTF report does not do.

The bitterest medicine is in Recommendation 6 on page 37: that, if the General Assembly approves the previous recommendation, it should adopt no additional AIs, nor remove any existing ones, nor send any constitutional amendments to the presbyteries that would change the church’s policy on these matters. The hope is that we will remember our obligation "to conciliate, mediate, and adjust differences without strife, . . . prayerfully and deliberately" (D-1.0103, cited in lines 1469-72).

Those of us who have been advocating removal of G-6.0106b will inevitably be disappointed, regarding this as a temporizing move at best. While the TTF has affirmed our tradition of interpreting the "essentials" in a way that permits diversity, it has not gone far enough. It has decided to be ambivalent about the sexuality issue.

Matters might even turn out to be worse than that. Presbyterians for Renewal is already encouraging presbyteries to send overtures that call for G-6.0106b to be amended to say that it cannot be reconsidered before the year 2018. A move like that is contrary to the spirit of the TTF report. But it is one of the things that can happen when we count too much on mutuality and dialogue and overlook the constant opportunities for political maneuvering. Delay may not be productive.

Finally, in exhorting the church to continue engaging in dialogue and discernment, the TTF has forgotten to urge it to include those persons who are most affected by the ecclesiastical warfare of recent years, our gay and lesbian, bisexual and transgender members, many of whom have been called to church office but have encountered various obstacles, including "review" by higher governing bodies and their Permanent Judicial Commissions.

So where do we go from here? The TTF has done admirable work, but that work is obviously incomplete, and its own failure to reach closure should not prevent the church at large from seeking it.

The presbyteries have every right to continue what they have been doing – send overtures for revocation of all previous AIs and removal of G-6.0106b.

And the General Assembly has every right, after praising the TTF, adopting its Recommendations 1-5 (and also 7, as a matter of procedural housekeeping), and dismissing it with thanks, to approve these other measures, thereby bringing the TTF’s work to its appropriate conclusion.

For the full text of the Task Force report, go to http://pcusa.org/peaceunitypurity/resources/finalreport.pdf

For more reflections from Witherspooners and others, go to
http://www.witherspoonsociety.org/2005/ttf_final_report.htm

If you have comments on this important document,
please send a note,
to be shared here.

In the few days since the report of the Theological Task Force on the Peace, Unity and Purity of the Church was released, many people and groups have had things to say about it, and there will be much more. The report deals with very important issues in the life of our church – and let’s remember that it deals with terribly urgent questions for many sisters and brothers who are members of our faith community.

The urgency of the issues compels me to offer some thoughts on this report, but I do so fully aware of my limited understanding of some crucial parts of the report. We will all need time and study and conversation and prayer to gain any clear sense of the implications of the report, and of the best ways to move ahead on the basis of what the Task Force has given us.

I appreciate the work of the Task Force, which has labored for four years, with obvious good will and commitment to the life and mission of our church. I recognize that the process has been a deeply significant experience for all of them, and I respect their hope that the whole Presbyterian Church might share the same kind of experience.

Out of that process, they have learned some important things for all of us, including the danger of power as domination or as hierarchical (lines 94-96 of the Report). The process of discernment reminds us of the importance of humility and of listening to one another, and of setting aside stereotypes. They acknowledge the alienation and pain that have been inflicted on many people through our battles over sexuality and ordination. They point out that legislative and judicial actions alone will not bring peace to a community divided by conflicting but deeply held convictions. For all this and much more, we can be grateful.

At the same time there are some elements in the report’s recommendations which merit our concern. I mention some of them here not as objections, but as important points for our attention and discussion.
 

1. The report calls for an extended process of discernment in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). (Recommendation 2, lines 1086-1090.)

The call for a process of discernment is clearly an effort to open a way through our church’s troubles – a way that might make possible some change without splitting the church. It might also help us all learn to listen to one another. It reminds us that discernment involves patience, silence, setting aside our own certainties, listening, openness – and awareness that we don’t know everything, that life is a mystery, and so is God. Engaging in discernment opens us to be "surprised by God," and to live without certainty, but in faith. These are all good things. The Task Force has clearly gained much through its own experience of discernment. We do note, however, that they say after all this time and talk, "We have not compromised our basic convictions or commitments. We still hold most of the views and perspectives we brought to the task force." [Lines 413-414. Emphasis in the original.] I wonder, then, what change can be expected from employing the same process across the church.

The discernment process, like any other human undertaking, will reflect the power differentials that are simply a part of life, even in the church. This means that specific efforts must be made to insure the full participation of people whose lives and faith are most immediately at stake in the discussion. I wonder how that can happen, when they enter the room (if they enter at all) as second-class members of the community, defined by some as "the problem." Further, if lesbian, gay, transgender and bisexual members of our church do manage to take part in discernment discussions, there must be measures to protect them from the kinds of charges and attacks that have occurred in similar "dialogues" over the past few years. Certainly no one can guarantee safe passage through the stormy waters of discernment, but it is not enough merely to express a hope that "Whenever possible, personal engagement, mediation, and conciliation should be used before either administrative or judicial action is considered." (Lines 1489-1490.)

2. The Task Force recommends that the 217th General Assembly adopt a new authoritative interpretation of section G-6.0108 of the Book of Order. (Recommendation 5, lines 1178-1208.). It sets out the sensible, helpful idea that among the scriptural and constitutional standards by which candidates are judged, some may be determined to be "essential" and others may be seen as not essential. And the responsibility for discerning the weight of any standards is clearly assigned to the ordaining body – the session or the presbytery. But the Task Force makes clear that the decisions made by the ordaining body are always subject to review and reversal by higher governing bodies. That seems to leave open the possibility of judicial cases in which it could be decided that one standard or another is to be seen as "essential" throughout the church.

This proposed authoritative interpretation may be a helpful step toward resolving our tensions, but there are too many open questions to be sure. For example, the changes suggested in the ordination examinations would seem to intensify and politicize the pressures already present in the examination of candidates. I wonder, though, whether this might not deepen the differences between "liberal" and "conservative" presbyteries, as each becomes more diligent in approving candidates who conform to its view of "essential" standards. I have to wonder how this will further the unity of the church.
 

3. The call for discernment is accompanied by a strong call for the 217th General Assembly to take no further actions dealing with matters of ordination (or with Christology, biblical interpretation, or essential tenets), other than adopting the proposed authoritative interpretation. (Recommendation 6, lines 1458-1472.) This call for delay seems to reflect the Task Force’s shared belief that the unity of the church must be preserved by all means possible. (See Recommendation 1, lines 1050-1057, and especially lines 1061-1060: "The task force believes that the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is called to hold together in one body.")

We are deeply concerned that this extends a series of delays that began at least a decade ago, with calls for a period of dialogue, then for a moratorium, and then for the creation in 2001 of the Theological Task Force. But we must ask what kind of unity is being preserved, when the price is the continued exclusion of many of our members from the full life and leadership of the church. We must ask what kind of peace is being protected when very real conflict is being excluded from discussion or action, and when calls for justice are repeatedly put on hold. We must ask what kind of purity is being achieved by enforcing ancient ritual laws, and by ignoring what modern science and experience are helping us to learn.

I hope, therefore, that the 217th General Assembly will give serious consideration to the Task Force report, seeking to discern the ways in which it might help our church move forward.

I hope there will be recognition of the reality that peace is not merely an avoidance of conflict, but is built slowly and painfully as people of differing convictions face their differences and work through them. That has evidently been the experience of the members of the Task Force. It is difficult to see how this experience can be replicated across the church if we are again told not to take any action.

We know that peace is not possible without continuing efforts for justice; that unity (at least Jesus’ kind of unity) is based on love, not on exclusion; that purity is God’s gift of a new heart, not something Christians achieve by avoiding certain actions and ways of life.

The Task Force seems to hope that a period of discernment, with no further action, will create the mutual respect and trust that will allow us to resolve our differences over sexuality and ordination, and other – perhaps weightier – matters. A simpler, bolder, clearer way, as Gene TeSelle suggests in his analysis would be to adopt the authoritative interpretation proposed by the Task Force, while refusing the call for a period of no action. The 2006 General Assembly, by acting on the overtures which are already coming their way, could end the continuous round of judicial proceedings, by revoking all previous Authoritative Interpretations and removing G-6.0106b from our Book of Order.

The Task Force challenges us, as individuals and as a church, to search our own hearts, to acknowledge our own sins of stereotyping, of exclusiveness, of thinking of ourselves more highly than we ought to think. May we respond to these challenges with humility, with love, and with action.