Talking about A

Talking about A in our presbyteries

As the voting begins ...

How might we help our church move forward?

[11-14-01]

Reflections by Doug King
with thanks for very helpful thoughts from Tricia Dykers Koenig

As I write this at the end of October, we hear reports that 11 presbyteries have already voted on Amendment A. Two of them - Baltimore and Eastern Oregon - have voted in favor of the amendment to return our church to its situation prior to the Definitive Guidance of 1978, while 7 have rejected it. That comes as no surprise, given the efforts of opponents of "A" to encourage conservative presbyteries to vote earlier than normal - perhaps to create an atmosphere of inevitability about the voting, and perhaps to minimize the time for people to give serious consideration to the issues involved. The "Confessing Church" movement and other expressions and actions by conservative churches suggest that many opponents of "A" in fact see change as inevitable, but are striving to postpone it as long as possible, and to establish the groundwork for their own departure from the Presbyterian Church (USA) on the most favorable terms for their own interests.

We are confident that change will come, but we now have a chance to bring it about sooner rather than later. The voting so far, however, clearly challenges supporters of ordination to prepare seriously and prayerfully for the votes in their own presbyteries. How might we do this?

Certainly many people in our presbyteries feel that change will come, and are even eager for that to happen. But at the same time they fear the tensions that such change might bring. They fear division in the church and loss of support for our denomination. These are precisely the people with whom we need to be in conversation in our own presbyteries - sitting down with them face to face to address their concerns and fears.

What might we say in such a conversation?

	This vote is fundamentally not about sex - it's about how we do church, what it means to be Presbyterian. What kind of church do they want to be a part of? What kind of faith community are we called to be and become?
	More delay will mean more division, and will postpone the healing of our church. During the General Assembly debate that ended with the approval of Amendment A, most of the speakers against the action emphasized how approval would divide the church. Many of them called for further dialogue as a way to keep the church together. But calls for dialogue must be questioned when the two periods of dialogue since 1993 have had little participation from conservatives, and have yielded little mutual understanding. If we take seriously the rhetoric of the opponents of change, which view proponents of change as sinful and unfaithful, it's hard to see how fruitful dialogue can take place. So we need to keep asking just how more talk in this atmosphere will keep people in the church if they are convinced it is "apostate."
	We might also raise more questions about what kind of church we want for ourselves and our children: one in which everyone must agree (or be condemned), or one where there is respect for diversity of thought and faith. Do we want to maintain our Reformed heritage of respect for conscience, or dismiss it in favor of an imposed dogmatic uniformity?
	We must not let our church be dominated by threats of division. Reports from a number of presbyteries suggest that support for the "Confessing Church Movement," while it may seem broad, is also quite shallow. Some Sessions have taken the action without fully understanding it, and often without consulting the congregation at all; some of the congregations on the Lay Committee's website are in internal conflict because of their "confessing" status. [See page 30 for one example.] It's easy to sign on to simplistic statements that seem self-evident to many, but no one should assume that such a decision implies that congregations are ready to follow anyone out of the denomination. Conservatives know that loyal minorities will retain the property, and in most cases their threats are likely more bluster than reality. There comes a time when we have to stand up to these threats.
	On the other hand, let's be clear that our own principles demand that we do not withhold funds or threaten schism, even if this means we are more easily taken for granted. We intend to stay in this church in the confidence that the Gospel of divine grace prevails. Those who resist change will continue to resist, so there seems to be no reason to postpone change any longer.
	Delay will not help to settle the more basic theological issues that have been referred to the Theological Task Force for study.
	For those who acknowledge that God's gracious love is for all people, and God's will is for justice, we may ask what is to be gained by postponing our imitating of God's love, and obeying God's will.
	As James Hudnut-Beumler said in his address at the Witherspoon luncheon during General Assembly, and Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick said to the whole Assembly, legislation will not solve our problems. Minister Commissioner Ann Graham-Johnson said it eloquently during the GA debate: "There will never be enough laws to control our fears." We must do what we know is right, and let Jesus protect the church. (G-3.0400.)