|
| |
|
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.)
|
|
| |
| |
|
If you like what you find here,
we hope you'll help us keep this website going ... and growing!
Please consider making a special contribution --
large or small -- to help us continue and improve this service.
Click
here to send a gift online, using your credit card, through
PayPal.
Or send your check, made out to
"Witherspoon Society" and marked "web site," to our Witherspoon
Bookkeeper:
Susan Robertson
9650 Clover Circle
Eden Prairie, MN 55347 |
| |
|
An index of
our reports
from
BECOMING NEIGHBORS:
An Invitation
to Global Discipleship
A Witherspoon conference
on global mission and justice
September 16 - 19, 2007
Louisville, Kentucky |
| |
|
Check out our report from the
Conference
on
Terror, Torture,
and Security |
| |
|