[5-28-01]



We offer a few thoughts about steps that might make a four-year process of study truly helpful to our church, rather than simply another period of delay and increasing tension and division.

	If the Assembly should take this path, its expectations must be focused not upon the wisdom of any "theological commission" but upon open hearings, held in various parts of the country, at which ministers and elders, theological professors, and advocacy groups have the opportunity to speak and offer their perspectives upon the alleged "impasse," the issues that are currently before the church, and how they might be resolved. And as noted above, it might be far more appropriate to designate this body as a "study committee" or something of the sort, which would imply a more limited grant of authority.
	Many of the disputes in our church revolve not around the "authority" of Scripture but about its "interpretation," and past General Assemblies have acknowledged the legitimacy of different approaches to the interpretation of Scripture. Special attention should be given to two documents, "Presbyterian Understanding and Use of Holy Scripture," adopted by the 1983 Assembly of the PCUS, and "Biblical Authority and Interpretation," a resource document received by the 1982 Assembly of the UPCUSA. (These are printed together in a document available from Louisville, DMS Order # OGA- 92-003.) All of us have the right to disagree with another person's interpretation of Scripture; but that does not give us the right to condemn that interpretation as erroneous, or heretical, or based upon selfish interests or upon "capitulation to the culture."
	The question before us is not how we can "accept" our diversity. That, by itself, is really a personal matter. Rather, the issue is how diversity can be given a more satisfactory institutional form. We have some guidance - though incomplete - in The Historic Principles of Church Order (G-1.0300-1.0400). These assert strongly the value of corporate discussion and judgment. But the concluding affirmation that "a majority shall govern" (G- 1.0400) has been a source of conflict for our church in recent years. While it acknowledges freedom of conscience - conscience informed by the Word of God and mutual discernment - it fails to accommodate itself to conscience. Rather it requires conformity with the majority; those who in conscience cannot submit may, as the 1758 reunion put it, "peaceably withdraw from our Communion, without attempting to make any Schism." In effect, they are invited to "take their conscience elsewhere." This has led to a "majority takes all" mentality that makes us lurch from one majority vote in the General Assembly to another, one amendment after another, and "amendment fatigue" and growing disgust in the presbyteries. Several alternatives have been put forward, including:

(a) The "waiver" overtures (from the presbyteries of Santa Fe and Hudson River) offer one kind of "third way." Majority government need not mean uniformity; the majority can permit exceptions of various sorts, and in fact it has done so in several different matters, including the election of women elders and "relief of conscience" for those opposed to abortion. In the case of waivers or exceptions, the majority spells out the procedures to be followed and the criteria to be applied, then allow a governing body to use its discretion whether to allow the exception.

(b) A more long-term resolution of the debates currently dividing the church is to acknowledge the tradition, begun with the Adopting Act of 1729, of allowing those being ordained to state their "scruples" concerning our doctrinal standards and leaving it to the governing body to judge what is within a legitimate range, without demanding "strict subscription." Among the overtures coming to this General Assembly it is important not to overlook those from the presbyteries of Mid-Kentucky and Western Reserve, which re-emphasize the unavoidable responsibility of the governing body, guided by Scriptures and the confessions. Both of them, using slightly different language, add one more sentence to G-6.0106(a), making it possible to delete the controversial paragraph (b), with its unclear and unenforceable language about "what the Scriptures call sin," which has been applied thus far in a discriminatory way to gay and lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons but to no others.

Just as we are called upon to seek the whole counsel of God through the Scriptures, we are also called upon to understand the full scope of the confessions of our church. These were formulated and adopted in different situations; they attempted to confess the faith as adequately and effectively and comprehensively as possible for their time and place. To pick out only a few articles of faith and life, especially when it is done for the purpose of setting other members of the church in a bad light, is especially misleading and potentially idolatrous. If a commission is appointed, it should consider the entire scope of our confessions. And it should be aware of calls for new acts of confession. Among these we would note especially the report on the World Alliance of Reformed Churches to this Assembly. At its meeting in Debrecen, Hungary, in 1997, the WARC called for a "processus confessionis" that would address the gap in wealth and power between the world's "North" and "South." Symposia on globalization have been held in Seoul and Bangkok. The "process," under the direction of Dr. Seong-Won Park, is now called "Covenanting for Justice in the Economy and the Earth." In this and other ways our church ought to continue to seek new and relevant ways of confessing the one faith and challenging some of the most seductive features of our culture.

Finally, if we are to avoid a do-nothing "moratorium" and minimize the temptation to continue filing suits and attacking those who disagree, this General Assembly, if it should decide to appoint a study committee, might well accompany such an action with a new definitive guidance affirming the role of governing bodies, calling for mutual forbearance, and urging a moratorium on judicial cases. As the Advisory Committee on the Constitution has pointed out, a definitive guidance would not remove earlier statements by the General Assembly, nor would it remove G-6.0106b. But it could give a strong directive on how those matters are to be dealt with during the period when the committee is seeking guidance on how best to deal with divisive issues.