Progressives may draft new Auburn
Affirmation
The intent is to preserve space for dissent within the church
from Presbyterian News Service
[2-8-01]
WebWeaver's note: This is the fourth version
of this report.
Presbyterian News Service note: An
earlier version of this story contained some unconfirmed material. The
Presbyterian News Service regrets the error.
Check out some
background stories.
Affirmation
2001 has now been issued. [4-28-01]
by Alexa Smith, Presbyterian News Service
LOUISVILLE -- February 9, 2001 -- A
group of Presbyterians will gather this weekend in Baltimore to update a
historic church document from the 1920s that refused to narrowly define
the doctrinal basis of the faith and essentially brought an end to more
than a decade of dominance by fundamentalists.
The Rev. David Bos, of Louisville, who issued a
call for a new Auburn Affirmation from the pulpit of the
controversial, gay-affirming Downtown Presbyterian Church in Rochester,
N.Y., last fall, is one of those who will take part.
The group will be debating whether to amend the old
document, draft a new one or come up with a new covenant of dissent for
church members who cannot conform to the theological views that have
recently changed the constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA) to
flatly forbid the ordination of sexually active gays or lesbians to any
church office.
The notion has appeal for church leftists, and
according to Bos has the support of members of outspoken organizations
such as the More Light Presbyterians and That All May Freely Serve, two
pro-gay ordination groups; the Voices of Sophia, a stridently feminist
coalition; and even Semper Reformanda,
a caucus that sees its role as providing faithful theological reflection
on issues facing the church.
Among more moderate leftists, the idea is evoking more
curiosity than outright support.
"We've determined that we need to begin by
defining what we see as the crisis in the church, much as the writers of
the original Auburn Affirmation did in their time," said the Rev.
Bear Ride, director of the Peace Center at United University Church in
Los Angeles, and a member of the board of More Light Presbyterians.
"But it is hard to say exactly what we'll do. The group has never
gotten together before.
"The consensus among us is that the church has
really strayed from faithfulness to the gospel and the broad principles
on which it was founded, (including) tolerance of different opinions.
There really is a parallel to the controversies of the '20s. It does
seem to have gotten to that point.
"Some issues are different," Ride added,
"some are the same. But people are not free to express different
theological (ideas) without causing great furor in the church."
The "great furor" Ride mentions is what Bos
outlined in his September sermon when he argued that "reactionary
forces" within the denomination -- as in the 1920s -- are
manipulating faith as a way to advance their own political agenda and
change the character of a historic tradition. In the '20s, Presbyterians
wishing to be ordained were called to subscribe to five fundamentals of
the faith: inerrancy of scripture, the virgin birth, the sacrificial
atonement of Christ, the bodily resurrection of Christ and the
performance of miracles by Christ that superceded the laws of nature.
The fifth tenet was understood by some to be the physical return of
Christ.
Drafted long before it was ever made public at Auburn
Seminary in northern New York, the Auburn Affirmation argues, in a
nutshell, that Presbyterians must "safeguard liberty of thought and
teaching of its ministers"; prohibit restricting the church to
rigid interpretations of scripture and doctrine; and refuse to rank
ecclesiastical authority above the conscience swayed by the Spirit.
In other words, it set the parameters broadly. The
document was essentially ratified by the 1927 General Assembly when it
removed the necessity for every minister to subscribe to the
fundamentals -- by declaring that presbyteries, not the General
Assembly, have authority to decide what clergy within their boundaries
must affirm theologically.
That is precisely the legislative outcome many
liberals seek -- giving presbyteries authority over their pastors in an
overall church climate that allows dissent. Conservatives held that view
when the national church approved the ordination of women in the
1950-'60s; liberals argued against it then. The sides have flip-flopped
their previous stances in the current debate.
The moderator who appointed the commission that
integrated much of what the Affirmation said into the GA's position was
Charles Erdman, a conservative who wanted to keep alienated factions in
the church and pleaded for moderation within his own constituency. The
Assembly affirmed the right of conscience and clearly said no to the
idea of a litmus test of doctrines that ministers must affirm.
Opposition to rigid Biblical interpretation and to
changes in historic patterns that are alien to what Bos calls Reformed
and Presbyterian principles is what he says is driving the project,
which will involve about 25 Presbyterians. Among them are a Yale
Divinity School professor, the Rev. Letty Russell; the Rev. Bob Brashear
of New York City; and Elder Virginia Davidson, a longtime activist from
Rochester's Downtown Church.
Bos insists that the groups' intention is to draw the
circle wide -- not to push conservatives out, but to keep diverse voices
in. "What we want is to get rid of any trace of a subscriptionist
mentality," he said, citing, specifically, what is known as
G.60106.b, the constitutional provision that prohibits ordinations of
practicing gays.
In the 1920s, the denomination's progressives were not
opposing a constitutional amendment, but General Assembly policies,
which are easier to buck.
Bos acknowledges that the church's problems today do
not mirror every facet of the fundamentalist controversies of the 1920s.
But he says the theological core of the debate is the same. In his
words, the two struggles, although separated by about 80 years, are
"far from being out of sync."
Some liberals are waiting to see what happens. Others
are worried about the timing.
Barbara Kellam-Scott of Palisades Presbytery, the
spokeswoman for Semper Reformanda, says her organization is intrigued
enough by the idea to study the Auburn Affirmation, and other
denominational documents, during its pre-Assembly gathering in June.
It is the "mushiness" of the project at the
moment that is a deterrent to more dialogue, she says, adding, "As
a body, we're interested in David's call."
Some in the Witherspoon Society, which posted Bos'
statement on its Web page, and in the Covenant Network, perhaps the most
visible liberal group, are more circumspect. They're waiting to see what
happens during the June 9-16 General Assembly in Louisville. According
to the Covenant Network, the GA will receive 38 overtures that would
change or delete the current constitutional provision prohibiting the
ordination of sexually active gays and lesbians.
The most frequent criticism of Bos' proposal among
liberals is that this may not be a good time to make a potentially
provocative statement, because the church's theological current may be
changing.
"The original Auburn Affirmation was issued in
response to what was seen as an intolerable situation," said Pam
Byers, of the Covenant Network. "We are very hopeful that the
church (now) is moving in a positive direction."
Byers said she is encouraged that, to date, 48
presbyteries have voted not to explicitly ban gay union ceremonies in a
constitutional vote under way now.
Only 20 have voted to approve such a ban. Another 105
presbyteries have yet to vote.
"The church in the last few years has made good
use of the unity and diversity conversations," says Byers, who has
been one of the liberal voices in Bible studies shared by left- and
right-wing Presbyterians -- a delicate process she doesn't want to
jeopardize in its infancy after years of no conversation at all.
In the meantime, the left wants to be ready when its
turn comes to speak.
Ride and Bos aren't timid about telling folks that a
covenant of dissent is one of the possibilities that could emerge. That
is an option, of course, should the constitutional ban on gay ordination
not be rescinded. In that event, its signers might be open to judicial
action for defying the church's constitution.
"What happens at this Assembly could affect the
eventual shape of the document," says Bos, who said he doesn't
expect the writers to have a finished document in hand by June.
While the nebulousness of the project is off-putting
for some, it clearly appeals to others. Russell, who is widely published
as a feminist theologian, is one of those.
"I want to see what could be done, if there was
something to be done," she said, describing her response to the
invitation to go to Baltimore. "We need to look at that. I'm not
saying we'll make it better, but we won't paste it over. There are
materials that are published (about) groups who are trying to take over
the church from the right. That's quite serious. I, like others, am
serious about keeping the church together.
"But we have to look and see what's going on.
Compromising in the middle doesn't always make things better."
