Task force settles on name; goals are peace, purity, unity
By John H. Adams, The Layman Online, December 11, 2001
DALLAS – The Presbyterian Church’s Theological Task Force by any other name is a … what?
The 21 members of the task force, holding their initial meeting in Dallas Dec. 6-8, raised questions about what their name should be and other basic issues – including what they should do in their four-year lifespan that will conclude with a report to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) in 2005.
“The problem is that this is a theological task force, but for what?” said Dr. Milton J. Coalter, professor of bibliography and research at Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary in Kentucky.
Several members of the task force seemed to agree that the name should reflect the purpose of the task force. They eventually settled on calling the panel the Theological Task Force on Peace, Purity and Unity — the language of the 2001 General Assembly that established the body.
But some members favored abbreviating the title to Theological Task Force. A slight protest was raised over including “purity” in the name.
In the process of discussing the name of the group, some slight tensions surfaced, but the first meeting produced no heated debate and no prolonged discussions of any of the major theological contentions in the denomination.
The General Assembly did set out some objectives for the panel: “to lead the PCUSA in spiritual discernment of our Christian identity in and for the 21st century … seeking the peace, unity and purity of the church.” The assembly called on the task force to address, “but not be limited to issues of Christology, Biblical authority and interpretation, ordination standards and power.”
Seeking a name and goals
While the task force first focused on what is often called team-building – sharing “faith journeys,” getting to know each other, promising to pray and encourage each other, discouraging acrimony, etc. – the questions of what to call the task force and what its objectives should be began to show that there are some divided opinions.
Coalter proposed following the General Assembly’s lead and calling the body the Task Force on Peace, Purity and Unity. “I’m not crazy about the title,” he said, “but it does generate that discomfort” that is obvious in the denomination.
“One thing is for sure – we need to name it something,” said the Rev. José Luis Torres-Milán, pastor of Tercera Iglesia Presbiteriana (Third Presbyterian Church) in Aguadillar, Puerto Rico.
The vision of ‘peace, purity, unity’
Elder Jean S. “Jenny” Stoner, a retired staff member at the Louisville headquarters of the denomination and chair of the committee that submitted the task force proposal to the General Assembly, said the words “peace, purity and unity” were important because they reflected the vision for the church.
“It’s not just taking the temperature of the church,” added Stoner, who is co-moderator of the task force.
The name would have some bearing on where the committee started, said Dr. Elizabeth R. Achtemeier, retired professor of Bible and homiletics at Union Theological Seminary in Richmond, Va.
“When you start with the issues,” she added, “all you’re going to get is what we have. People are locked into that.”
Achtemeier’s suggestion was that the committee should begin with theology, “to sort out what the church should be through the Scriptures rather than with the issues so that we can break this awful deadlock. Let theology lead.”
“I don’t disagree,” said Victoria G. “Vicky” Curtiss, co-pastor of Collegiate Presbyterian Church in Ames, Iowa. But she said there are approaches other than just doing Biblical theology.
“It seems to me that there are other issues … things we are hinting at. Have we not thought of the fact that mirroring the way we deal with each other could lead us?”
“On what basis do we decide where God is calling us?” Achtemeier asked.
Curtiss responded, “Prayer. Until we sense some direction.”
“I have a great deal of trust in prayer,” Achtemeier said. “I am also quite sure that prayer is not a substitute for our theological work.”
Evangelism v. sex issues
Torres-Milán added, “We have to define who we are. I think that’s important.” He expressed hope that the task force would define itself by emphasizing evangelism and not by continuing to debate sexuality.
Dr. Jong Hyeong Lee, pastor of Hanmee Presbyterian Church in Itsaca, Ill., identified one of the key issues in the denomination’s controversy as “isogesis” vs. “exegesis.” Isogesis, he said, occurs when people “put into the Bible what they think.” Exegesis is drawing God’s revelation from Scripture.
“Churches are dying and dying because of this kind of struggle” over Biblical interpretation, said Lee, whose congregation recently became one of the first Korean Presbyterian churches to join the Confessing Church Movement.
Dr. John B. “Mike” Loudon, pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Lakeland, Fla. – another Confessing Church – suggested that the discussion was calling for two directions at the same time: formulating a theological framework and listening to how people’s experiences shape their view of the church.
“Just how much money do we have to do all this?” he asked.
Stoner, co-moderator of the task force, answered, “If we come up with some proposals that are noteworthy, we can seek grants.”
Barbara Wheeler, president of Auburn Theological Seminary, summarized what she believed were the objectives being articulated by other members of the panel:
1. “Stating the Reformed heritage of the church.”
2. “I think the church does want us to study in some ways the causes of unrest and dissension in the church.”
3. “We need to recommend ways for the Church to move forward.”