The Rev. Donald Smith, a member of the
staff of the
Synod of Southern California and Hawaii, sent this open letter to John Detterick,
Executive Director of the General Assembly Council. In it he
supports not simply Ficca's right to say what he said, but also the
content of his address on interfaith dialogue.
Check out a more recent comment
following discussion by GAC in February, 2001.
December 8, 2000
From
Rev. Donald L. Smith
Synod of Southern California and Hawaii
1501 Wilshire Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90017
To
John Detterick
Executive Director, General Assembly Council
100 Witherspoon Street
Louisville, KY 40202-1396
Subject: Ficca Peacemaking Address
Dear John:
I write you as a friend and colleague in the
denomination we both care deeply about. Count me as one of many who
attended the 2000 Peacemaking Conference at Chapman University and found
tremendous value in the theme address by the Rev. Dirk Ficca. As leader
of one of the discussion groups following that presentation, I can
testify that he made a substantial positive impact on those in my group.
One woman pastor from Iowa confessed to me privately at the end of the
session that followed Ficca's address, her eyes brimming with tears,
that perhaps she could remain a Presbyterian after all.
I have been increasingly dismayed by the escalation of
the controversy this address has spawned in our denomination as I have
seen us fall into a pattern that appears all too sad and familiar. I
have the text of the address as well as the audio tape and have returned
repeatedly to give it closer scrutiny as this debate has progressed. It
appears to me now that I need to speak up. Regrettably, I believe some
in our church seem to have found a useful "weapon" in this
address to further a rather narrow and exclusionary agenda. Unfortunate
remarks you reportedly made on October 31, 2000 before the Presbyterian
Coalition characterizing this address as "out of bounds" were
a great disappointment to me. I honestly do not believe they have served
us well.
Prior to the recent creation of the General Assembly
Committee on Ecumenical Relations, I represented the Synod of Southern
California and Hawaii on the Synod Section of the Advisory Committee on
Ecumenical and Interfaith Relations for five years. You know me best as
the staff to the Stewardship and Mission Rally in this synod. I am also
currently President of the Southern California Ecumenical Council, Chair
of the Theology and Ecumenical Relations Committee in the Presbytery of
the Pacific and a board member for the Interfaith Coalition for
Immigrant Rights here in California. In addition, I serve as a Parish
Associate for United University Church on the campus of the University
of Southern California - a union congregation of United Methodist and
PCUSA partners. My history of ecumenical and interfaith work spans the
last twenty years, particularly as I have worked in refugee resettlement
and immigration ministries in close association with Church World
Service.
With the passage of time, I am more and more convinced
that Dirk Ficca delivered an important and difficult message that our
church needs to hear for the challenging times in which we
live. I don't refer to the "What's the big deal about Jesus?"
remark lifted out of context in some articles written by persons who
never actually heard him speak. More central to the message was Ficca's
controversial observation that persons of other faiths often experience
sincere Christian evangelism to be a kind of religious "ethnic
cleansing." This is actually a far more challenging
assertion which, I submit, we need to examine thoughtfully, with
humility and prayer.
This is especially true in a denomination
that holds "evangelism" as a primary goal and measures the
value of programs by how well they fulfill that goal. As you and Cliff
Kirkpatrick travel around the country, lifting up ways in which our
times resemble those in which the early church found itself, do we
forget the Christian history that followed? Indeed, there were numerous
times when devout Christians did practice religious "ethnic
cleansing." Even John Calvin, in the "justice" he meted
out to Servetus in Geneva, left himself open to charges of that kind of
intolerance. The people of other faiths we increasingly encounter today
may be much more aware of that history than that of the first century
Church. Some may well have strong reasons to distrust our Gospel.
In light of Ficca's observation, it is urgent that we
give attention to issues of the meaning of "pluralism" and
"dialogue." After hosting a conference in 1999 which explored
the person of Jesus under the theme "Who Do You Say That I
Am?," the Peacemaking Conference in 2000 did an exemplary job of
exploring these issues in depth. One of the most eloquent contributions
in this regard came from Dirk Ficca as he spoke out of his deep and
many-faceted experiences of interaction with other faiths in his
capacity as Executive Director of the Parliament of World Religions.
As he discussed the differing lenses through which we
view "truth," (i.e., relativist exclusivist, inclusivist,
reductionist, culturalist, humanist, synchronist, pluralist and
particularist) many in the audience developed new understanding for
approaches they had not previously considered. How many had even
previously imagined how to open dialogue about faith issues with persons
of other faiths? Starting from a Christian "particularist"
perspective, Ficca helped the audience to envision how that might take
shape with integrity and respect on both sides. The alternatives of the
"instrumental" vs. the "revelatory" streams for
interpretation of Scripture, of Jesus Christ, and of salvation were
especially illustrative of ways in which the door is opened or closed
to genuine and meaningful dialogue with persons of other faiths.
Not too many years ago we used to see bumper stickers
that read "God said it. I believe it. That settles it!"
Nothing could be further from the spirit of genuine "dialogue"
than that. Many in the PCUSA, however, are faulting Dirk Ficca and the
planners of the Peacemaking Conference today because what Dirk said does
not embrace that kind of approach to truth. By contrast, The Office of
Ecumenical and Interfaith Relations of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
in its publication Handbook for Ecumenical and Interfaith Relations
states, "Dialogue respects the other. It therefore has no prior
motives or imposed goals brought by one side to require of the other. It
is based upon mutuality, even mutuality in witness." (p. 25
"Guidelines for Interfaith Dialogue and Relationships")
What I think would better serve our denomination than
what we are seeing today is a return to a more balanced, responsible and
tolerant discussion of these issues and the persons who have in good
faith tried to advance our understanding of them. They should be applauded
for rising to a difficult challenge in a thoughtful, creative and
entirely responsible way -- not maligned and abused. I trust that when
General Assembly Council meets in February, we will see more of that
model of leadership from you.
Respectfully,
Rev. Donald L. Smith
Director for Regional Ministries
