Managing differing convictions: Deep problems

Southwest Presbyterian Church

Wed, 19 Jul 2006 12:00:00 +0100

Reflecting on the wisdom of the church as demonstrated @ GA, I think you might have missed the point of the PUP process. The argument for stating one's exceptions (scruples) is not founded on a system of doctrine or lack of one. It is based upon one foundational truth that binds the entire reformed church together -- that 'Christ alone is the Lord of the conscience.' The basis of this practice is rooted in the action of original protest against practices in the Catholic Church. These practices left the reformers with no other choice but to protest. Luther's famous 'Here I Stand' statement lays the rationale for stating scruples -- 'to go against conscience is neither right, nor is it safe ... ' The reformation teaches us to be courageously honest before God and others. This is especially true when disagreement within the body exists. When a candidate for ministry declares an exception to our stated Book of Church Order, that candidate tests the denominational claim to be part of the reformed tradition. Polity is based upon principle, not the other way round. Whether we agree or disagree with the candidate, the right to state honestly what one believes is essential to the reformed faith and in the best of its traditions. In fact, this principle is more important and larger than the specific issues of ordination we are now debating. When the right to take public exception is removed, the freedom of the conscience is threatened. In fact, one could argue that the right of complaint, appeal, the process of discipline and even voting are all informed by the freedom of conscience as a guiding principle. All of these are in place because the reformers knew that 'synods and councils do err.' Our own tradition began when the Scots of old decided to create a national covenant in part out of disagreement with the polity of the Church of England. The Church was increasingly constraining conscience by removing their rights to protest and take exception. How did they accomplish this? They used polity -- The Act of Uniformity as the tool to end all debate before it started. We risk doing the same by arguing that a candidate has to be in uniformity with the Book of Church Order before s/he is fit to be examined for ordination. Let us hear them and let us have a full and fair discussion on the floors of Presbytery. This is the reformed way. - Rev. Strother Gross

Associate Pastor, First Church of Royal Oak

Sun, 04 Jun 2006 12:00:00 +0100

font-family:Arial'>Jeff McDonald of Omaha, Neb., wrote recently (Outlook No. 15, April 25/May 1 issue) that the PUPTF was an elitist group whose recommendations were made "by a select group (PUPTF) to a select group (GA)" and that "ordinary Presbyterians in the presbyteries have been left out of the process."

font-family:Arial'>I don't know about his presbytery, but our presbytery has responded to the task force's continued invitation to join the process. Our congregation hosted a presbytery-wide dialogue using materials produced and provided by the PUPTF. My reading of the interim report, as well as the final report, makes it clear that the task force is, and has been, inviting presbyteries, churches, and individual Presbyterians into the process. I, for one, hope we all join in.

- Carl F. Eschenbrenner

Head of Staff Arcadia Presbyterian

Wed, 03 May 2006 12:00:00 +0100

Jeff McDonald from Omaha is correst in his note above. The PUP report has excluded local congegations and this is contrary to the motion passed in 2001 that established the PUP task force. The mandate for the task force that was passed by the 2001 assembly reads, 'and report back to the congregations..' it does not instruct the task force to report back to the General Assembly. Perhaps a subequent G.A. amended the mandate and I am unaware. - jim conner

...

Fri, 31 Mar 2006 12:00:00 +0100

One of the problems with the PUPTF report is that it has an elitist orientation. Its recommendations were made by a select group (PUPTF) to a select group (GA). Ordinary Presbyterians in the presbyteries have been left out of the process. - Jeff McDonald

...

Fri, 31 Mar 2006 12:00:00 +0100

I do not know Barry Ensign-George, who finds "deep problems" ahead for us Presbyterians, but I pray for him, because of his fear for the unknown in our future life together. I take one of the challenges of Christian life to be the embracing of unknowns that each day presents (though some may temporarily irk me). Lamenting what was not accomplished yesterday, as in what the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity did not do, may well be a sign of spiritual death.

The Apostles long ago, members of the Task Force more recently, and each of us each day are called to embrace the challenges of life in common. Ensign-George notes that we Presbyterians are now called to address "actual changes in the structure of our life together". I trust that our faith in the power of the Holy Spirit is sufficient to not cause us to willingly embrace the unknowns that the next General Assembly will offer, and instead become lost in deconstructing the past--my doxy is orthodoxy, your doxy is heterodoxy. Let us honestly embrace the remarkable gift that the Task Force has provided us, and use it to grapple with what is truly essential to achieving God's will for us as Christians today.

We totally deprived mortals are not likely to achieve absolute peace, total unity, or anything like purity in our lifetimes on Earth. Did those who previously participated in creating our governing documents, in which Ensign-George seems to place so much faith, believe that they had achieved such ends? Perhaps their objectives were more humble--

seeking a way forward together, flawed as it might be. What the Task Force report "fails to do" if we wish to view it that way, is now ours to do. With utter and complete humility, let us embrace all of the challenges our future together presents, including those presented by the continuing disenfranchisement of selected sisters and brothers from participation in governing our lives together in faith.

- Donald C. Dahmann

Greg Wiest, Pastor-Glade Run UP Church

Tue, 28 Mar 2006 12:00:00 +0100

I appreciate Barry's insight into the difficulties that will be encountered in emplimenting the PUP recommendations. In his analysis, he states the problem of a more-light church finding itself in a presbytery composed of mostly conservative churches and a conservative church finding itself in a more-light presbytery.(I am using labels for brevity) I agree that this will be a problem and already is a troubling issue. An answer to the pluralism and disparity of beliefs is an overture that comes to the General Assembly this summer. It is known as the elink overture or non-geographical presbytery overture. This overture allows flexibility in presbytery and synod membership. It allows a church by a majority vote of its congregation to move to a presbytery that is more in line with it's beliefs and mission. My sense is that the recommendations of the PUP committee may very well become a reality this summer. With the passage of the committee's recommendations comes a responsibility to give relief to individual churches on the local level. Allowing flexibility in presbytery membership is precisely the pressure release valve that is needed to keep our denomination on a level track. As we move into the future, pluralism is the reality of the day and we must find a way to get along together. I believe non-geographical presbyteries and synods could be the mechanism that allows us to go forward. gandlwiest@yahoo.com - Greg Wiest

HR

Tue, 28 Mar 2006 12:00:00 +0100

I have been following the debate on the PUP report. I feel overwhelmed by the unending and vituperative name-calling, the ingenious and convoluted exercises in self-justification.

Today, as I read Barry Ensign-George's article (Deep problems - March 27, 2006), I had to read the last paragraph several times. He wrote 'We cannot achieve peace, unity, and purity by proclaiming that as a denomination we're simply not up to the hard work of reaching a settlement of disputed issues that will enable us to move forward.' It appeared that both sides in the controversy could agree to that, from opposite directions. If we approve the PUP report, it means we have failed. OR, if we don't approve the PUP report, it means we have failed.

Then he wrote: 'The Holy Spirit is capable of better and so are we.' After almost thirty years of internecine battle, it seems to me that we have demonstrated more than adequately that we are incapable of doing better. And as long as we continue to fight, critique, argue, and self-justify, ad nauseum, we will continue to fail.

So the Task Force came up with a new approach, worked out by our brothers and sisters from both sides of the issue. But we continue to do our thing, picking it to death, and blaming the members of the Task Force, because they 'betrayed us.' They dared to come up with something new. Certainly that wasn't what we wanted. And we demand that they continue to play the game the way we have played it for almost thirty years!

Then there is the coup-de-grace: 'The Holy Spirit is capable of better...' Let's blame God for doing a 'New Thing!' How dare God do that! From our polarized positions of self-righteousness, we have all been blaming God!

And so, my brothers and sisters, it may just be that the report of the Task Force, in its entirety, is the best that God's Spirit can do in our midst at this time, given our prior decisions to tell God how to run the Presbyterian Church (USA). After all, how long can the Church last without love and trust? How long SHOULD it last?

- George H. McDonald

...

Mon, 27 Mar 2006 12:00:00 +0100

Thank you for the varied perspectives on the PUP report in the Outlook Forum. Barry Ensign-George's is especially helpful. He clearly has the spiritual gift of "cutting to the chase." His objections to Recommendation Five clearly show why this proposal must be defeated by the Assembly. I would venture to add another objection to Recommendation Five: it would put us in schism with 99% or more of the world church. Whence the percentage? It's a guesstimate formed by comparing the few small denominations that approve of homosexual practice with the burgeoning billions of the world church who do not. Revisionist voices for ordination standards and sexual ethics may sound loudly in the small halls of the PCUSA, but they are a minuscule minority within the larger church -- and even smaller when one considers our Christian forebears. While the PCUSA varies from many churches by ordaining women, almost all churches maintain relationships with us because we can make a strong scriptural case for our practices. Not so with a revisionist ordination policy and sexual ethic. How ironic that a report intended to facilitate unity would in fact put us in schism with the vast majority of the church. - Keith Hill