Don’t darken discernment
The Layman July 2003 Volume 36, Number 3, July 1, 2003
Imagine this scenario and pray that it doesn’t happen.
After authorization by the 215th General Assembly to prohibit observers from its discussions of “sensitive” matters, the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity brings its report to the 217th General Assembly in 2006. The report concludes: Let every session and every presbytery do what is right in its own eyes in the matter of ordaining practicing homosexuals and adulterers.
That’s the broad “middle way” that the 213th General Assembly sanctioned when it approved the overture to establish the task force and gave it four assignments: to lead the denomination in discerning what to say about Christology, the authority and interpretation of Scripture, ordination standards and issues relating to who gets power in the Presbyterian Church (USA).
The 213th General Assembly also asked presbyteries to repeal the constitutional “fidelity/chastity” ordination requirement in the Book of Order and previous authoritative interpretation that stated unequivocally that homosexual practice is sinful. The presbyteries responded with a resounding no – nearly 75 percent – against repealing the ordination requirement. In other words, the presbyteries rejected a “middle way” out of Biblical ordination requirements.
But the task force itself is a middle-way creation. Instead of being comprised of 75 percent in favor of the constitutional ordination standard, it is split almost exactly down the middle: half in favor, half opposed. The 20 members of the task force have known from the outset that they were in a political stew. They have had five meetings without any debate of the hot-button theological issues. Members have complained that they hesitate to speak candidly about theological issues because of the press. So they have spent most of their time working on a “process” of getting along together, of stroking each other’s egos.
Now that process allows secrecy to deal with the “sensitive” issues that have been the core of their assignment. But such issues are of enormous concern to Presbyterians. They deserve more than votes taken after closed-door discussions. They need to see and hear the theological reasons behind those votes. They need to know whether the task force’s recommendations are grounded in Scripture and the church’s confessions. They need to know that in the “process” of working together, the task force members did not shun theological soundness for the sake of feigned unity. The task force’s obligation to the denomination is not to find compromises behind closed doors, but to witness publicly to the truth of God.
Many people are skeptical about the outcome of the task force’s work. Some others are probably overly optimistic. But none will be honestly informed if the task force exercises its option to shut the doors to a denomination on the verge of collapse. If and when the task force votes – a two-thirds majority is required – to bar observers from its meetings, it will have delivered to the church “discernment” darkened by its own unwillingless to stand in the light.
Whatever the task force says will never be the last word. Its recommendations would have to be approved by the General Assembly and possibly the presbyteries as amendments to the PCUSA Constitution. But if its proposals are merely the votes of an unrepresentative body, taken after private musings over “sensitive issues,” the outcome will be a great disservice to the denomination.