Witherspoon board expresses concern
about the Moderator's proposal for
a study commission
[5-28-01]
We must express our regret that Moderator Syngman Rhee has publicly
endorsed the substance of an overture coming before the 213th General
Assembly. To make such endorsements is not the function of the elected
leadership of the church, and appears to minimize the possibility for
the working of the Spirit in the Assembly itself.
The Moderator's proposals are very similar to those contained in the overture
from the Presbytery of John Calvin (01-33), which calls for the
appointment of a "theological commission" to study "the
present spiritual condition of our church and the causes of unrest"
and report to the 217th General Assembly in 2005; in the meantime, all
governing bodies would be urged to take no action on G-6.0106b, or on
the authority of sessions and presbyteries in matters of ordination, and
that no judicial cases be filed during this time.
While we can understand the feeling of many in the church to avoid
another divisive vote in the presbyteries on issues related to
sexuality, and their hope that unity might be found through prayer and
mutual discussion, we must respectfully disagree with them.
First, the adoption of such a measure would lead to more of the same
delay that we have seen before. During the study period urged by the
General Assembly between 1993 and 1996, only 5 percent of congregations
actually conducted any study. A so-called "moratorium" between
1998 and 2001 was declared with the expectation that there would be
productive discussion in the presbyteries and in other ways. While there
was indeed some dialogue, many presbyteries did nothing to promote it.
(We do not yet have reports on this round of discussion.) Even where
dialogue occurred it often involved "the usual suspects,"
people whose commitment to dialogue had already been manifested in other
ways.
Second, the very idea of a "theological
commission" is open to serious question. A commission is
given delegated authority, which seems unrealistic in the present case,
and certainly excessive. The Reformed churches have thought of all
ministers as "teaching elders," who are responsible for
doctrinal reflection on a week-by-week basis in encounter with the real
needs of a Christian people. Several years ago the General Assembly
rejected a suggestion that the Book of Order be amended to create a
"theological advisory commission" with formal advisory
capacities. To many, the very idea of such a commission smacks of
elitism. To others, it is suspiciously close to the Roman Catholic
"magisterium," whose watchdog is the Holy Office.
Third, the rationale for the John Calvin overture cites the precedent
of the 1925 General Assembly, which, at a time of similar
controversy over ordination standards, "necessary and essential
articles," and the authority of governing bodies, appointed a
commission of fifteen to "study the present spiritual condition of
our church and the causes making for unrest." It is always useful
to explore the past for useful precedents. At the same time it is
important not to find false similarities or to expect a similar outcome.
One difference, in the view of some commentators (including the editor
of Presbyterian Outlook), is the decreased willingness of the
church to follow the suggestions of a commission, no matter how wise its
members, its deliberations, and its final recommendations may be.
Fourth, the success of such a project would seem to necessitate a moratorium not
only on judicial cases but on public agitation and diatribes by partisan
groups. It is questionable whether either of these hopes is realistic. Of
course such a "moratorium" could not be required or enforced,
and the language of Overture 01-33 is that the Assembly would
"earnestly entreat (the governing bodies) to take no action
..." The
General Assembly cannot prevent those who feel aggrieved from filing
judicial cases, nor can it forbid others from efforts to change the
church's current position, when they believe in conscience that it is
erroneous. Both sides will resent anything that looks like a "gag
rule." Even more disturbing, the overture does not even mention the
threats of some in the church to withhold funds from the General
Assembly budget and eventually to leave the church if they do not get
their way. Threats like this will not go away during a four-year period;
if anything, they will only increase as a new deadline draws nearer.
Finally, before undertaking a project like the one proposed it is
important to "sit down and take counsel" (Lk. 14:31), asking
what its goals are and whether these can be achieved. What, indeed,
is the intended outcome? Is it further delay in dealing with
controversial questions? Or is it a recommendation that our doctrinal
and disciplinary standards be strictly enforced? Some might hope for a
determination of "essential doctrines." Others may hope for
some way of affirming the unity we already have in the midst of our
diversity.
For all of these reasons we must urge the General Assembly not to
adopt the John Calvin overture. We continue to advocate the removal of
G-6.0106b from the Book of Order. The overture from the
Presbytery of New York, which calls for a new definitive guidance by the
General Assembly and the removal of Amendment B by vote of the
presbyteries, would give us a clean slate for genuine dialogue. Adoption
of the New York overture would not bind any person or session or
presbytery to do anything with respect to ordination, thus giving full
respect to conscience.
Certainly it is good to engage in prayer, study, and dialogue, seeking
the mind of Christ. But the work of a study commission should be
undertaken along with, not instead of, action on Amendment B.
If, after prayerful discussion, the Assembly should decide that some
kind of commission ought to be appointed, the nature of its work must be
carefully spelled out.
If a study committee is established, what might help make
it successful? A few thoughts
from Witherspoon.
We'd
like to hear what you think!! Please
send a note, and we'll share it here unless you tell us
otherwise. (We'd appreciate it if you could identify yourself in
some way, too.)
