Listening to sister churches

How do we listen to sister churches from overseas?

Parker Williamson has recently published an article, "How Christians around the world see the PCUSA," on the Layman web site. In it he quotes a number of conservative church leaders overseas to argue that any move toward accepting gay and lesbian people as full members of the PC(USA) would lead to a break in relations with many sister churches.

Gene TeSelle offers an analysis of this "strategy of the Presbyterian Right for passage of Amendment O," pointing to the selective right-wing voices he cites.

Doug King adds a few more thoughts about the need to be faithful to God's love in our own situation, even as we respect the ways in which other churches have been faithful in very different situations.

Responding to the statement by Korean Presbyterians in support of Amendment O, More Light, Shower of Stoles, and That All May Freely Serve call for dialogue with National Korean Presbyterian Council. [2-24-01]

How do we listen to churches overseas?

OR (to borrow an old CIA term):

BLOWBACK FROM THE MISSION FIELD?

by Gene TeSelle

[1-25-01]

Part of the strategy of the Presbyterian Right for passage of Amendment O is to argue that same-sex relationships are overwhelmingly condemned by racial ethnics in the PC(USA)--African Americans, Hispanics, Koreans--and by Presbyterian churches in the Third World.

This argument surfaced in the Presbytery of Middle Tennessee in mid-January when Harry Hassall brought it up during a "dialogue" on the upcoming amendments. Now it's public with an article by Parker Williamson in the Layman, posted on their web page on January 24.

Williamson quotes a number of Latin American and African leaders, who express shock that Christians in the U.S. could even think about giving any recognition same-sex relationships, state that "there can be no compromise" on this issue, and threaten to "break relations."

All of this should come as no surprise. At the Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops in 1999, bishops from the Third World voted overwhelmingly to condemn ordination or recognition of gays and lesbians. In January 2000, bishops from Singapore and Rwanda, in violation of Lambeth's rules, consecrated two priests as missionary bishops to the U.S. to signal their dismay at the condition of the church in this country. The United Methodists last summer heard a similar message from related churches around the world.

What should we think about this phenomenon?

First, we must always ask who is speaking and under what auspices. The statements quoted by the Layman were made at a conference held at the Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, on the occasion of the organization of a new parachurch organization, the World Reformed Fellowship. The person quoted most prominently in the Layman article is the president of a seminary in the Yucatan. Another is an official of the Presbyterian Church of Brazil (the IPB), often called the "dictators' church" because of its cozy relationship with the military during the Seventies; the PC(USA) is in communion with the church organized by those who were expelled from the IPB, the United Presbyterian Church of Brazil (IPU). It is my understanding that the old PCUS stayed in communion with the IPB and that the parachurch Outreach Foundation cooperates with both churches; but the IPB is not currently related to the PC(USA) and continues to be a conservative force in Brazil.

We've just received a note from a Presbyterian mission co-worker in Brazil, reminding us that this discussion omitted a third Presbyterian church in that nation, and one worthy of our attention. Thanks to Archibald Woodruff for this addition! [4-11-01]

Second, we should not be surprised if fundamentalist missionaries produce fundamentalist converts. Presbyterian missions in Latin America were heavily influenced in past generations by the Moody Bible Institute, and more recently by the Fuller Theological Seminary. At the same time, these conservative voices are not the only ones speaking for their churches. Just recently we have heard that a document on the mission of the church in Latin America had to be withdrawn after objections that it was "exclusive and racist," was written by people who "consider their white power structure to represent the Evangelical movement in Latin America," and represented a "Pentecostalization" of the ecumenical movement.

Third, we should not overlook issues of power. Anyone who has been to Latin America has seen the way North American money can change the dynamics of a local community, disrupting efforts at self- sufficiency and introducing new kinds of economic advantage which also carry dependency with them. That is why the policy of Worldwide Ministries is to work with indigenous churches, respect their priorities, and watch out for unintended consequences of North American largesse. When money flows through parachurch organizations directly into the Third World, we always have the obligation to ask how it is linked with the positions being taken by local leaders.

Fourth, it should not be a surprise to learn that many Third World cultures have negative attitudes about same-sex relationships. Religious leaders may be sincere in their belief that they are following the teachings of the Bible. But they should also ask themselves whether they are reinforcing rather than questioning the patriarchal and macho traditions of their cultures.

What this controversy indicates is that we cannot assume that any culture, whether Western or indigenous, First World or Third World, has a privileged and authoritative point of view on the sexuality issue--or on any other topic, for that matter. We need to hear from every perspective. In recent decades, for example, we have had to pay attention to the perspective of those who are on the receiving end of First World economic, political, and military policies. But we must still make our own doctrinal and moral judgments after we have heard a variety of perspectives.

These Third World spokesmen (and the ones quoted in the Layman article are all men) have every right to suggest that Christians in the U.S., and the West in general, have forsaken the biblical message. But they also have the obligation to listen to what Christians in the West have been saying and the reasons they give, on the basis of Scripture and experience, for questioning the punitive stance that has traditionally been taken on sexuality and the often hypocritical way it has been enforced. We in the West may be the last to catch the point about some issues. But at times we have been ahead of the rest of the world, for example in the condemnation and eventual abolition of slavery, and it could be that more light can come from the West on this issue, too.

Doug King adds a few thoughts about listening to and learning from sister churches -- and about being faithful.