by
Deborah Milam Berkley, Ph.D.
When I first started paying attention to the issues that confront the PCUSA
today, I had no idea that Presbyterians have enormous differences in what
they believe. I expected that we all shared the same basic Christian
beliefs, but differed on controversial issues, such as abortion. But as time
has gone by, I have realized that I was naive. We do differ on issues such
as abortion. But we also differ on things that I had assumed would be
uncontroversial in a Christian church: who Christ is, what he has done for
us, and the reliability of the Bible as a guide for faith.
One reason that this was hard for me to notice right away was because we are
all speaking the same ecclesiastical language, using the same vocabulary.
However, I discovered that, although we all use the same words, those words
mean different things to different Presbyterians.
It is normal for language to change and evolve, and it is normal for words
to acquire specialized meanings when they are used by groups who have common
goals and activities. But these meanings often are not shared by other
groups. This is part of how, for example, languages such as French,
Romanian, and Italian all developed from one language, Latin. It is not
perversity that leads groups to give different meanings to terms; it just
happens naturally, because they have a different focus.
But this language difference among Presbyterians presents a few hazards. One
is that we can appear to agree. Everyone might be able to say, for example,
that they honor the Bible, but yet mean different things when they say that.
Why is it bad to appear to agree? After all, that could lead to more harmony
in the church. But the problem is, many of these words are very important to
how the church goes about its mission. So our different meanings for key
words can lead us to believe that church-sponsored programs or materials are
being developed in line with what we believe, when actually something very
different is happening.
In addition, because the words in question are often key to our theology and
our mission, the church needs to have shared definitions of the terms. When
part of the church begins understanding theological words in a way that is
different from the standard or historical understanding of those words, the
very mission of the church itself is at risk.
This is what is happening today. Presbyterians who call themselves
“progressives” understand the basic vocabulary terms of Christianity (and
the concepts behind them) in a very different way from orthodox
Presbyterians. Let me give some examples.
*Honoring the Bible *
The Rev. Laird Stuart, co-moderator of the “progressive” Covenant
Network, has said, “We do honor Scripture, but we also honor the process
Jack Rogers has taught us all about recently, that process by which the
church has chosen that certain passages will not be authoritative for
life or practice ….” It is difficult to know what he means by
“honoring” Scripture, while saying that parts of it are irrelevant or
not true. It seems more like being respectful to a dear elderly aunt,
who has some wisdom, but also some outdated ideas that we ignore.
By contrast, orthodox Presbyterians believe that honoring the Bible
means accepting its authority for our lives, even when we don’t really
understand it, or even when it is different from what seems right to us.
We trust God to be utterly good and utterly fair, and we realize that it
is the limitations of our small human brains that prevent us from
comprehending everything about God.
*Evangelism *
The Rev. Dirk Ficca, in his controversial 2000 Peacemaking Conference
address, said that when we want to evangelize someone who believes in a
different religion, “what we are basically saying is: Your religious
identity is not acceptable, and my job is to eliminate it from the face
of the earth.” His view is that it is an insult to, and even aggression
against, people of other faiths if we tell them that Christ is the only
way.
However, orthodox Presbyterians understand evangelism simply to mean
telling others about Christ and the salvation he brings. Our motivation
for this is not to force people into conformity with us, but rather to
give them the opportunity to live forever in joyful union with God.
*Christ’s presence in our lives*
Affirmation 2001 is a document recently put out by some “progressive”
Presbyterians. In it, the authors say that the source of the current
troubles in the PCUSA is “one faction’s inability to affirm Christ’s
presence in the lives and ministries of all faithful Presbyterians.”
They say this because orthodox Presbyterians believe that homosexual sex
(or any unmarried sex) is sinful, and do not want to allow sexually
active homosexuals to be ordained to the ministry. So “progressives”
evidently believe that if we state that a person is involved in some
sin, we have denied that Christ is present in their lives. Apparently
“progressives” believe that the presence of Christ in someone’s life
means that that person does not sin. Their understanding of Christ’s
presence in someone’s life seems to be as a sort of seal of approval of
that person’s conduct.
Like the apostle Paul, though, orthodox Presbyterians know that, despite
Christ’s presence in our lives, we are all riddled through and through
with sin. It is Christ’s presence that helps us to overcome it. Indeed,
the very fact that we acknowledge our behavior is sinful is evidence of
his presence, which helps us to see (and renounce) our sin. We therefore
have no problem affirming Christ’s presence in someone’s life, even
while that person is struggling with sin, and even though we encourage
that person to turn away from the sin.
*Sin*
“Toward a Liberating Faith,” a booklet written and sent to all churches
by the Presbyterian Women’s Program Area, says that the church needs to
redefine sin in accordance with women’s experiences, because what is
traditionally regarded as sin is mostly only sin for men. This booklet
says that, among other things, women’s sin is “underdevelopment or
negation of the self.” In other words, sin is defined by our experience,
not by the Bible, and it is an offense against ourselves. It is being
untrue to ourselves.
Historical Christianity, however, has always defined sin as offense
against God. It is doing anything God does not want to be done, and it
is not doing anything that God does want to be done. We use the Bible,
not our experience, as the primary way to know what sin is. And although
our sins may hurt other people and ourselves, they are always primarily
an insult to and a rebellion against God.
*Welcome *
True Christianity has always welcomed any seeker. But orthodox
Presbyterians and “progressives” do not mean the same thing when they
say someone is welcome. Orthodox Presbyterians rejoice when anyone comes
to church, and we welcome everyone by befriending them and encouraging
them to know and follow Christ.
“Progressives,” however, apparently believe that people are not welcome
unless they have all the privileges of the church, including ordination
to the various church leadership positions. They call for congregations
to become welcoming churches, which ordain sexually active gays and
lesbians as elders and deacons. This implies that, in their view, if a
church does not allow someone to be ordained, then, no matter how
willing that church is to embrace the person in other ways, still, that
church has made that person unwelcome.
*Tolerance*
There is a currently popular usage of the word tolerance that appears to
be shared by “progressive” Presbyterians. This usage seems to imply that
we are intolerant unless we say that what anyone else believes is just
as good as what we believe. And it also seems to imply that we are
intolerant if we say that something is a sin. In order to be tolerant,
we must adhere to the belief that nothing is better or worse than
anything else.
But orthodox Presbyterians have a more liberal understanding of
tolerance. We believe that tolerance means allowing other people to
disagree with us, without harming them in any way, and without forcing
them to agree with us.
These are just a few of the words that have different meanings to different
Presbyterians. In future issues, some of the words that are important for
today’s issues will be looked at in more depth.