A report on a conference on C-67
Reconciliation today - a hope and an imperative in
church and in society
a special report from Gene TeSelle, Witherspoon
Society Issues Analyst
[2-6-02]
| A
great resource on the Confession of 1967 [8-15-02]
Church & Society, the Presbyterian
"Journal of Just Thoughts," has published a special
issue with papers from the February 2002 conference on the Confession of
1967, plus added essays.
We recommend this as an excellent resource for
personal theological study, as well as for group study. |
|
Three reports from our West
Coast mini-conferences on the
Confession of 1967 and our church's commitment to reconciliation and
justice
[5-21-02]
In early May, 2002, the Witherspoon Society sponsored
three "mini-conferences" to stimulate reflection on the
relevance of "C-67" for our church today.
Here are three reports from those events:
Kent
Winters-Hazelton reports on all three of them.
Jim Kitchens' paper for
the meeting in Davis, CA, addressed the question of the potential for
division in our church, in light of the challenge of C-67's call to
reconciliation.
Bruce Cameron,
speaking to the group in Eugene, OR, saw C-67 as a confession for when
"the times they are a-changing" -
which is all the time. |
| The
Confession of '67 affirms faith in Christ - and an ethic
that flows from that faith [3-25-02]
Amid all the demands for confessions of faith
in Christ, Gene TeSelle has noticed that a central section of
the Confession of 1967 (C-9.31-32) offers a clear affirmation of
faith in Christ, and links that faith to a radical ethic of
reconciliation. That "ethic" is not so much imperative
or moralistic as it is eucharistic: a thankful response to God's
grace shown in Christ.
TeSelle suggests that this passage might well
serve as a prayer at the close of a celebration of the Lord's
Supper, combining both "promise" and
"charge." |
Feb. 5, 2002 - A group of about 120 converged on the
Stony Point Conference Center February 3 and 4 for a conference on the
Confession of 1967 with the theme, "The Hope of Reconciliation
Today." As Chris Iosso said in opening the conference, "This
is the beginning of the 35th anniversary celebration of the Confession
of 1967." It is a celebration that the Witherspoon Society hopes to
continue by sponsoring a series of regional conferences on
"C-67," as it is affectionately called. One of the
participants in the audience commented at one stage of the conference
that "the hope of the church lies in this kind of theological
reflection." Other participants seem to agree.
I'll try to give some of the highlights. The addresses
will be printed, probably in somewhat condensed form, in an issue of Church
and Society within a few months, certainly in time for the General
Assembly.
Douglas Ottati: C-67 is part of a whole
confessional package
Click
here for the full text of this address.
Douglas Ottati of Union Seminary in Richmond kicked
off the discussion by pointing out that C-67 is "part of a
package"; it was adopted only as part of the larger Book of
Confessions, and it was not intended to stand on its own. Like the
Barmen Declaration and the more recent Brief Statement it assumes other
confessional statements, and thus it can afford to be
"thematic." C-67, of course, looked at what was at stake in
the divisions in society during the Sixties, and it found the biblical
message of reconciliation to be especially appropriate.
Continuing his theme, Ottati reminded us that all of
the Reformed confessions were written with an awareness of earlier
confessions and were immediately sent to other churches to continue the
conversation. In keeping with that tradition, then, our
"confessional standard" is the entire Book of Confessions,
which understands itself as a provisional reading of the message of
Scripture; it cannot be narrowed down to three or four or five
"fundamentals." The most appropriate way to observe the
anniversary of C-67 is to read both Scripture and the confessions and
engage them in further dialogue about the issues of our own day.
Issues not touched by C-67
One of the participants in the audience used the
felicitous expression "redefining reconciliation." That is
exactly what we were challenged to do by a number of the speakers. Some
of them pointed primarily to omissions in C-67, others pointed
primarily to new issues of which the drafters could not have
been fully aware.
Two views on homosexuality
One controversial issue was highlighted early on by
two speakers, Paul Capetz of United Seminary in the
Twin Cities, who recently gave up his ordination as a Presbyterian
minister because of G-6.0106b, and George Hunsinger of Princeton
Theological Seminary, who elaborated on his recent defense of G-6.0106b
and explained how he thinks it can be broadened to make a place for
"responsible discretion" on the part of governing bodies.
[The full text of Dr. Capetz' address
is available on this site.]
Capetz dealt forthrightly with the scapegoating of gay
and lesbian people that has been reinforced by Christian teachings
through the centuries and continues into our own day, as demonstrated by
the lynching of Matthew Shepard several years ago. His question was
this: "What would it mean for gay people to be reconciled with the
church?" Then he suggested that the more basic question is,
"What would it mean for the church to be reconciled with gay
people?"
In the course of a very rich address Capetz reminded
us that the Brief Statement challenges the church to "hear the
voices of those long silenced" and to "unmask idolatries in
church and culture." He suggested that C-67 itself exemplifies the
"moral confusion of our time." But he also appropriated C-67's
own affirmation that people reconciled to God can have "joy and
respect for their own humanity and that of other persons" and
"commit themselves to a mutually shared life" (C-9.47). What
makes this larger interpretation of C-67 possible is something that
happened soon after the writing of this confession -- Stonewall in 1969,
when gay people refused to "sit at the back of the bus" and
decided to come out and affirm their own humanity. The church, however,
has yet to acknowledge the positive side of finitude and particularity
and difference.
Capetz dealt with the issue of the biblical passages
that seem to condemn all homosexuality. He refuses to explain them away;
instead he said that "the Bible is wrong," and he tried to
understand why the Bible said what it did. His approach, in
other words, is not to throw the Bible out, but to discern God's will
today.
George Hunsinger took a different
approach, insisting on the "plain sense of Scripture." This
does not mean he was unaware of the importance of interpreting
Scripture, for he recognized that the ancient world had no understanding
of sexual orientation; to them all same-sex relationships seemed
voluntary, and usually they were casual or exploitative in character.
But his own emphasis is on thinking with Scripture, not against
it. While he recognizes that a homosexual orientation, like a
heterosexual orientation, is a deep inclination that cannot be called
either voluntary or addictive, his own view is that it is still contrary
to God's intention for humanity, thus a "tragic disorder," but
not an abomination. He would require neither reorientation nor celibacy,
which, he recognizes, runs counter to Reformed doctrinal principles.
His own approach, he said, is like that of some other
"progressive traditionalists" like Helmut Thielicke, Robert
Benne, and Alexander McKelway, who try to clear the way for "a more
generous orthodoxy" by having greater tolerance for ambiguous or
"borderline" situations. Recognizing that the church has
always ordained sinners, since there are no other candidates, Hunsinger
is ready to ordain those who are in committed, faithful relationships
and interpret G-6.0106b in a way that acknowledges these persons and
gives "responsible discretion" to governing bodies. If
Amendment A should fail this year, Hunsinger's position, while it is
widely spoken against by both liberals and conservatives, will become
all the more important, perhaps the only place where there is room for
debate and maneuver.
Women: absent voices
Homosexuality, of course, was one point on which C-67
and the Book of Confessions have been found lacking, or at best
controversial. Another is the role of women in the church, who were
already being ordained but were somehow overlooked in the writing of
C-67.
Heidi Hadsell, President of Hartford
Seminary, recalling the many statements that confessions are written in
a specific context, said that this makes it all the more important to
ask who is at the table. Women are absent from the language of
C-67, and even this absence can teach us much, she said. The existence
of an inclusive language version (which was used at the conference) does
not help very much, for it still does not address women's issues. The
question is not merely who is present, but who has voice
and is really conversing with others. Those who are not present
will be spoken for anyway, and women are spoken for in the
"men" or the "we" who constantly appear on the pages
of C-67 without any sense of uneasiness. The historical study of
Scripture and of all human institutions has been helpful to women by
tracing all that intervenes between the exercise of traditional power
and the uttering of words like "we," Hadsell said. And the
increased presence of women in the church's leadership has brought a
major change. But C-67 cannot be given much credit for this.
Religious pluralism
The world scene, and specifically its religious
pluralism, is another topic largely ignored in C-67. Philip
Wickeri, who spent twenty-some years as a missionary in China
and is now a professor at San Francisco Theological Seminary, had some
favorable things to say about C-67 (it kept the youth of his generation
inside the church, he said), but he soon went on to point out that the
momentum was soon lost, just when the World Council of Churches was
doing new thinking in a post-colonial setting and style, and Europe was
moving beyond its "Christendom" mentality and paying attention
to secularization. Wickeri called special attention to the
Christocentrism of C-67, which is inevitably a perspective "from
above," losing the perspective "from below," from
people's own histories as they are embedded in the natural world. What
is needed now, he said, is a shift from Christocentrism to a
"Trinitarian" approach, far more promising as we seek a
theological understanding of religious pluralism -- a pluralism that is
no longer across the world from us, when a mosque is right down the
street and Buddhism can be drawn to our attention through our own
children.
Technology: new speed, new separation
Richard Hong reinforced some of
Wickeri's points about our current situation and corrected some common
misconceptions about it. Technology, he said, has not basically changed
since 1967. McDonald's and jet airplanes were already on the scene. Even
PCs and the Internet have made communication quicker but not really
different; paper use is not reduced but increased with the growth of
PCs, copiers, and faxes. Technology mainly enables us to do what we
already decided to do, but do it more quickly. The most noticeable
influence of technology has come with cable; the increase in television
channels leads to a fragmentation of the audience, when even the most
popular shows do not have the same market share that they would have had
during the Sixties. Technology has generated fragmentation in other
ways, too. The private car encouraged the growth of suburbia. Now the
Internet is encouraging communication through separation rather than
contact, a situation in which "reconciliation" is likely to be
only a facade.
The natural world, our environment
Finally, while C-67 gave some acknowledgment to the
environment and the nascent environmental movement, Carol F.
Johnston of Christian Theological Seminary was critical of its
approach. Nature enters chiefly as the theater of divine and human
action, and very little is said about the nurture or liberation of the
world as a whole. By contrast the Bible is full of concern about the
land, fruit trees, animals, and crops, even commanding a Sabbath rest
for the land. The prophets think of justice as a right relationship
including all the creatures, and they look forward to a restoration of
the peaceable kingdom in a new heaven and new earth. The wisdom
tradition, often ignored because it is so low-key, encourages the
cultivation of a healthy community over time -- "women's
work," Johnston said. For many reasons, then, there is a need for a
new understanding of vocation, stewardship, even of reconciliation, the
restoration of healthy relationships with God, neighbor, and nature, all
species together.
Continuing issues
I have summarized the comments on omissions
and on new issues. But of course there are many continuing
issues that are dealt with in C-67 and continue to be with us.
Racial justice
The confession strongly advocates racial justice, of
course, and there have been advances in civil rights; but there have
also been reversals through court and legislative action, and we may
legitimately ask how much progress has really been made since the
Sixties. Curtis Jones of Baltimore, who was to have
spoken about empowerment, self-determination, and cultural identity, was
unable to attend because a million dollars were at stake in the Maryland
legislature. Race and racism remain a major issue for those who claim to
take the Book of Confessions seriously.
Poverty
Poverty is another issue highlighted in C-67. Annie
Rawlings of the Beck Institute on Religion and Poverty at
Fordham University in Manhattan reminded us that we are still engaged in
debates over the relative importance of "personal
responsibility" and "structural" factors such as wages,
welfare payments, and the cost of housing. Debates about poverty are
full of blame, of either the poor or the rich. Going on to make a
comparison with the Truth and Reconciliation Commissions we have seen in
South Africa and Latin America, Rawlings commented that these debates
too often lack appreciation of the truth and its complexities.
Statistics on poverty, preventable diseases, and deaths are needed; and
the way they are used indicates not only advances and declines but also
the way society defines what is tolerable (what may look like
improvement may simply reflect a lower minimum wage or a lower measure
of the costs of living). Clearly we need increased ability to deal with
complex issues, she said, getting beyond stereotypes. But she did not
leave it there. The rich have been getting dramatically richer, and this
is not a benign statistic. She recalled a debate in which Henry
Kissinger asked in exasperation, "What do you want us to do?"
and William Sloane Coffin replied, "Our job is to tell you, 'Let
justice roll down like waters'; your job, sir, is to fix the irrigation
system."
Peacemaking
Donald Shriver, President Emeritus of
Union Seminary in New York and chair of many Presbyterian committees and
task forces, dealt with peacemaking. In a series of personal
reminiscences he noted the many intersections among political, personal,
and family issues and emphasized the importance of recognizing, as
Oliver Cromwell urged the Scots, that we may be wrong. A wise North
Carolina judge, he commented, said that in his own experience
"justice is the search for justice." Shriver's recently
published book on forgiveness in society emphasizes restraint,
understanding, and hope, for society means having to live with each
other, taking each other seriously by caring enough to argue with each
other. "We can't shrivel the scope of God's mercy to people like
us," he concluded.
Tensions in the church
The need to keep living and arguing with each other
over issues that go back to the Sixties and before was brought to us by Lew
Daly of the Institute for Democracy Studies, author of A
Moment to Decide. He traced the activities of conservatives in the
Episcopal, the United Methodist, and the Presbyterian churches, with a
total budget of $12 million annually. The conservative Institute on
Religion and Democracy has an explicit strategy of regaining control of
the mainline denominations, defunding the National and World Councils of
Churches, advancing the evangelical foreign policy agenda of emphasizing
"religious persecution" and muting attention to human rights,
encouraging a more unilateral approach to U.S. foreign policy, and
promoting marriage and the family while putting obstacles in the way of
same-sex relationships, domestic partner benefits, and any sexual
expression outside marriage.
C-67 and the Theological Task Force
Progressives and conservatives will doubtless
encounter each other -- or perhaps speak past each other -- during the
work of the new Theological Task Force on the Peace, Purity, and Unity
of the Church over the next three years. It has been charged to deal
with many issues, including but not limited to "Christology,
biblical authority and interpretation, ordination standards, and
power."
But we cannot abandon our responsibilities to the
Theological Task Force. The 35th Anniversary of C-67 -- and of the
entire Book of Confessions, as Ottati reminded us -- is an appropriate
time for us to reread the whole book, engage the confessions just as
they tried to engage the issues of their own times, and ask in fresh
ways what the Word of God is for us today.
We will not be looking only for what is new and
different, for we, like every scribe trained for realm of God, are
called to bring forth treasures both old and new (Mt. 13:52). But we are
expected to wrestle with that heritage as a whole and to do it in the
living present. There are many issues that we would like to forget, but
Scripture and the confessions keep drawing our attention to them. There
are many simple answers that we would like to affirm, but Scripture and
the confessions refuse to let us rest with simple answers. And we are
expected to do it not only with and for ourselves but with and for our
whole church, calling upon others to wrestle once again with our
confessional heritage and all that it means for the way we proclaim the
gospel in our time.
