Thinking About Unity, Diversity,
And Boundaries
[9/6/00]
by Gene TeSelle, outgoing president of the
Witherspoon Society
Several years ago a group of concerned
African-American clergy and laity issued an "open letter"
noting the spirit of rancor and self-righteousness in our church and
challenging the 1998 General Assembly to convene a special conference on
"The Nature of the Unity We Seek in Our Diversity." The
Assembly accepted this challenge. It convened a conference in Atlanta in
the spring of 1999 and requested that presbyteries hold conferences on
the theme during the next two years. Materials for such conferences have
been supplied by PC(USA) agencies, by the Covenant Network of
Presbyterians, and by the Coalition. Anecdotal information suggests that
about half of the presbyteries have held such conferences, with mixed
results. A major reason for the three-year "moratorium" on the
ordination question was to give time for these conferences to work. They
may have helped. And yet the moratorium has already been broken by a new
move to amend the Directory for Worship to prohibit same-sex unions.
The PC(USA) has not dealt with diversity very well. We
are never going to achieve a comfortable uniformity. We must find ways
to continue to live with our differences. In the process, we can expect
conservatives to emphasize boundaries, moderates unity,
and liberals diversity. All three are worth affirming. The
question, of course, is how they are to be understood and how they are
to be related to each other.
1. Boundaries. At the
Atlanta conference on unity in diversity in 1999, several speakers
emphasized Christ as the "center." Conservatives in reply,
while they conceded the importance of the center, stressed the need for
"boundaries." All of us can agree that there are boundaries.
The question, of course, is which boundaries are important and what
use we make of them. It is painful to say it, but the boundaries
drawn by the conservative Coalition are boundaries which exclude
-- exclude not only actions which have been permitted by the
foundational principles of the church, but exclude entire groups of
people whose beliefs have been previously recognized by governing bodies
of the church.
The conservative strategy is to focus on "wedge
issues" like "the homosexual agenda" or "radical
feminism" -- but then to reinforce it by looking for anything that
can be depicted as a doctrinal deviation and raising accusations of
heresy. The ReImagining Conference, for example, which was intended to
explore new possibilities for spirituality, was re-framed in doctrinal
terms as "worship of the goddess Sophia." The accusation has
now evolved into a settled "fact," as the "ReImagining
theology." The attempt is constantly being made, then, is to narrow
the range of both moral and theological reflection. When we talk about
boundaries, let us hope that we are thinking of the PC(USA) as a
"big-tent church" which tries to deal with disagreements
through discussion, not front-end exclusion.
In the debate over "holy unions," gay and
lesbian advocates have been asking the church to place them under the
same expectations that it has for heterosexuals -- of committed
monogamous relationships. Conservatives, ignoring the topic under
discussion, have kept fantasizing about all sorts of other
possibilities. Daryl Fisher-Ogden, writing in the June 2000 issue of the
Presbyterian Coalition's newsletter, raised the specter of "worship
services with witches or other cultic activities." Another person,
long active in Presbyterians for Renewal, argued in conversation at the
General Assembly that services might be held for temporary
relationships, or for adult-child relationships. This is nothing but
scare talk, entirely beside the point. The Permanent Judicial Commission
in the Hudson River case, in ruling that same-sex ceremonies are
constitutionally permissible, at the same time drew lines, not only
limiting such ceremonies to consensual committed relationships but
declaring that these are not to be called marriages and are not even to
look like marriages. If further "boundaries" should be needed
they can be drawn, without this wholesale stereotyping and exclusion.
It is not only same-sex relationships that are
excluded. The beliefs of duly ordained ministers are being declared out
of bounds by the Coalition. The Presbytery of Beaver-Butler sent an
overture to the 2000 Assembly asking it to declare an
"irreconcilable impasse," listing eight issues of theology
concerning which there was a lack of unity. These are
Biblical Authority
Ethics
Biblical Interpretation
Leadership
Jesus Christ
Sanctification
Salvation
The Church
They are major topics, and if we are in essential
disagreement about them we are in big trouble indeed! But that is
precisely what we are being told. In the pre-Assembly issue of the
Coalition's newsletter, its president, Jerry Andrews, called on the
Assembly to acknowledge that "we are divided," that "we
do not any longer believe the same things." The solution proposed
by Beaver-Butler and advocated by Jerry Andrews is to permit those who
do not agree with them to leave the PC(USA), supposedly eliminating the
impasse and restoring unity. (If this were to occur, one result, of
course, might well be that conservatives would begin fighting among
themselves, as has already happened in the Presbyterian Church in
America.)
At the 2000 Assembly, the Committee on Theological
Issues voted 58-0-0 to reject the Beaver-Butler overture, then spent
three hours drafting an alternative statement which expressed
appreciation to Beaver-Butler for raising eight important issues of
theology but went on to say, "We choose rather to see differences
positively and believe that differences in fact have the potential to
make our unity in Christ even stronger." The Assembly later voted
453-71 (87-13%) to adopt this alternative. Let us hope that this
thirteen percent is a reliable indication of the strength of hard-line
conservatives in the church, and that the majority's position is an
anticipation of the spirit of the discussions that will be taking place
during the next twelve months.
2. Unity. Moderates are
typically concerned for the unity of the church. There are many good
reasons for this. None of us really likes disharmony; even when we
become argumentative, it is usually in order to achieve a harmony and
unity more to our liking. And then we are urged in many passages in the
New Testament to seek unity. The church is even called "the body of
Christ," as a reminder of both unity and interdependence. But how
are we to interpret this organic language? In actual practice it often
leads to totalistic, even totalitarian, conceptions of order,
subordinating the parts to the whole and especially to the
administrative head of the body. It is easy to forget, in other words,
that it is a figure of speech. When Paul used it in I Corinthians 12 and
Romans 12, he was utilizing a political metaphor to remind the local
churches not only of their unity but of their undeniable diversity.
Politics is the search for ways to live together despite our
diversities, and experience shows that the Christian church is no
exception to this difficult task.
This summer there has been much criticism of the two
major parties for the carefully orchestrated character of their
conventions, their avoidance of controversial points in order to appeal
to as many voters as possible (George W. Bush promotes the image of the
"compassionate conservative," and Al Gore for years has called
himself a "flaming moderate"), even the lack of major
differences between the two parties, suggesting that what we really have
is a one-party system with two teams. One corrective has been the
"shadow conventions" held alongside these large-scale media
productions, and even John McCain and his "Straight-Talk
Express" made an appearance at the first of them in Philadelphia.
It is good to seek unity. But secular politics this
summer has offered us some healthy correctives to facile notions of
unity. We have problems in the church, too. Some years ago I wrote a
short think-piece on what I called the "belligerent moderate,"
having observed the pattern frequently in presbytery meetings (Outlook,
June 3, 1991). This is the approach that says, "A plague on both
their houses," as though everything would be fine except for the
extremists on both sides. The subtext is often that the left must be
provoking the right, as though those on the right would never cause
trouble on their own initiative; and this perception is valid insofar as
the left is often pursuing new insights and calling for new judgments on
old questions, which the right then twists into "wedge issues"
to exploit for its own purposes.
Matters are never that simple. And when we look at
both Scripture and the history of the church we are warned against
simplistic notions of the process of making judgments, warned, then,
against premature conceptions of unity.
First, we are told that it is Christ who is the head
of the church, not any human being (such as the pope) or even any human
body (even the General Assembly or the presbyteries or the vocal
pressure groups that try to intimidate office-holders). Similarly we are
told to call no one father except God (Mt. 23:9). These are dramatic
reminders that the unity of the church is not immanent but transcendent.
Even the Epistle to the Ephesians, which makes use of the imagery of the
body of Christ to such an extent that it seems to encourage a mystique
of the church, tells us that the church's unity is constituted by
"one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us
all" (Eph. 4:5-6). Protestants have insisted from the beginning
that the one holy catholic and apostolic church is not fully embodied in
any earthly institution (note especially the trenchant point made in the
Second Helvetic Confession, C-5.126); and even Roman Catholics have
acknowledged the point in their dialogue with other Christian bodies.
Second, unity is not a simple matter on the plane of
human actions and interactions. Paul, called late as an apostle, was
given "the right hand of fellowship" by Peter and James and
John, the "pillar" apostles (Gal. 2:9) -- but only the right
hand of fellowship, indicating equality, mutuality, even a certain
degree of distance and healthy respect, but certainly not subordination.
As Paul acted out the gospel of justification by faith he discovered
further complexities. To those who were weak in faith he made many
concessions (Rom. 14:6, I Cor. 10:28-29); but when certain features of
the Law (circumcision, food and drink, feast days) were treated as
essentials he denounced them, since they made the Law a rival way of
salvation, demonic in character (Gal. 2:3-5, 5:1-12; cf. Col. 2:16; I
Tim. 4:1-2). Then he made it a point to flout these regulations and
offend those who insisted on them. This Pauline principle was adopted by
the Reformation confessions of faith; that's what the Second Helvetic
means when it says, "When things indifferent are wrested to the
confession of faith, they cease to be free" (C-5.242). Our witness
to the gospel is not likely to be a simple matter.
Third, unity can even encompass basic conflict. There
have always been struggles of bishop against bishop, church against
church. Perhaps the most dramatic instance was a dispute between North
Africa and Rome after the year 250. Cyprian of Carthage was sure that
Stephen of Rome held an erroneous view of the sacraments of the church
-- so erroneous, in fact, that the Roman church was not conferring
salvation when it baptized. But Cyprian did not break communion, for he
was convinced that "the unity of the Spirit in the bond of
peace" (Eph. 4:3) is more important than uniformity. This is very
much in the spirit of Paul, who said that tongues and prophecy, faith
that moves mountains and devotion to the point of martyrdom, are nothing
without love (I Cor. 13:1-4), and in the spirit of the statement (I
Peter 4:8) that "love covers a multitude of sins," which has
often been applied to ecclesial relationships.
If we want to talk about unity, then, we must recognize the full
complexities of a Christian understanding of unity.
3. Diversity. When our
church has taken time for reflection, it has often chosen to affirm
diversity and a more open-textured approach to its rules and procedures.
Precisely in affirming the authority of Scripture it has
defended the legitimacy of alternative interpretations. During
the debates in the coming year it would be helpful to have in hand the
statements adopted by the 1983 Assembly of the PCUS and the 1982
Assembly of the UPCUSA, published together some few years ago in a
56-page pamphlet (DMS Order Number OGA-92-003). The opening pages of the
first statement, and the closing pages of the second, will be especially
helpful. But where in the overtures and reports that keep coming to the
General Assembly has there been recognition of this official position of
our church?
We need to find ways to "institutionalize"
diversity and not encourage monolithic power, whether it is wielded by
the right, the left, or that vague "broad middle" that we
often talk about. Of course "diversity and inclusiveness,"
"participation," and "representation" are enshrined
in the Book of Order (G-4.0403). Conservatives, citing the language of
this paragraph, have often insisted on full representation of
"different theological positions consistent with the Reformed
tradition"; this is an understandable concern, but the result in
actual practice has been an attempt to move the range of diversity
farther toward the right, while campaigning to delegitimate other
Reformed positions and discredit elected or appointed leaders whenever
they do not hew to the conservative line. The result, as Lew Daly points
out [in an analysis to be published here in a day or two!], is that the
"center" in the PC(USA) has been shifting constantly toward
the right, and the authentic center, what our church has been for many
decades, is now located closer to the left side of the spectrum.
As we think about diversity we may be tempted to think
of it as an interim arrangement, to be accepted until we gain a majority
or can otherwise exert power. But that is not what diversity -- or even
unity -- means. It has to allow for a considerable degree of difference.
And not only that. It also has to include respect for those who differ
from us, observing charitable "rules of engagement" even in
the midst of controversy. As we learn to live with diversity,
furthermore, we are likely to experience continued disappointment, as
advocates of GLBT persons have done for years. As one activist said
after the vote to prohibit holy unions, "We work, and lose, and
sing; work, and lose, and sing." That is why conservatives and even
many moderates have trouble with those who are seeking change within the
church: we will not go away, not even with the blandishments offered by
the Beaver-Butler overture; we stay around, urging the church to
reconsider longstanding positions in the light of its even more basic
principles. But that is how growth happens. And that is the nature of
true unity in diversity.
