Column
Following the Way
Commentary by Forrest A. Norman III, The Layman, July 27, 2012
In June I spent two weeks backpacking in the mountainous wilderness of New Mexico with a crew of young men at Philmont Scout Ranch. We were immersed in pristine vistas of ponderosa pines and white barked aspens stretching across a wide and steep land, with a vast richness calling out its creator’s glory in every direction. It is easy to get lost in the immensity, dropping focus while enjoying the natural beauty, or simply by underestimating distances and elevation changes. The rugged terrain requires careful navigation, as even previously blazed trails can become tenuous with overgrowth, or subtly cross over another trail headed toward a very different destination. Each day a new scout is selected as navigator, given the compass and map, and trusted to take the crew to its intended site.
About five days into our trek a young scout, taller in height and demeanor than his 14 years would otherwise tell, was given the chance to lead. As good natured chiding is a necessary part of a teenage boy’s vocabulary, someone called him the “navi-guesser.” Not missing a beat, and with the kind of confidence that makes a father proud, the scout replied “Nope; I have a map, I know where I am, and I know where I’m going. I’m your navigator.” We stayed on track all day.
Not long after I returned, I followed a gathering of a different sort, deep within a different type of wilderness. The 220th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) sought to find its way through the thickets of 21st century theological relativism. How would it respond to a changing moral climate? Would it accommodate or confront the culture which is encroaching on its boundaries? Could the tent be stretched any wider to cover even more disparate viewpoints and still call itself “one?”
Honestly, I was surprised at the tack it took. With every indicator leaning leftward, including committee recommendations on redefining marriage, I fully expected the theological liberals to carry the day with bold resolve, maintaining the courage of their convictions. Having abandoned tradition, feeling entirely freed from the constraints of pesky word definitions, and embracing new philosophies of identity, inclusivity and universalism, re-imagining their religion to suit their needs seemed an entirely probable outcome. But they didn’t. A pervasive sense of institutional self-preservation took control as the body realized that a politicized voting majority in the midst of a polarized body does not constitute consensus, let alone the leadings of God for His people. Creative compromise resulted. Don’t “divest” – “invest in the other guys.” Neither affirm nor reject our current understanding of what constitutes marriage – study it. Do not follow one half of the constitution, re-translate the confessions, add more and relegate the parts you don’t like to a mere historical reference.
The General Assembly decided it is better to live in an ill-defined, angst-ridden, ambiguity laden denomination than to let people know who you are or what you stand for. The leaders did not lead. In confounding contrast to my scouts, it seemed as if the denomination wasn’t sure where it was or where it was going. Now before a bevy of institutional loyalists defend the GA’s skillful compromising ability and criticize my comparison by pointing out how much more complicated plenary polity is than trail treks, I suggest that Robert’s Rules of Order and procedural polity are not that tough to follow. Logic and order are inherent in the system. So the only problem is in the intended manipulation – the politicking of it all. Let me further suggest that politics should be at most tangential to a religious denomination if it is actually intent on upholding the faith with which it has been entrusted.
It is not too much to expect that the leaders of a Christian denomination uphold the faith once delivered to the saints. It is not too much to ask them to affirm what the denomination stands for. The Reformed faith has been solidly founded upon a few fundamental principles, clearly defined by the writings of the Reformers. Applying those principles to life in today’s world is not difficult if you simply recognize those principles, instead of trying to “retranslate” “redefine” or “re-imagine” them. Trying to follow principles as you redefine them is, of course, going to get you lost.
If the leaders won’t lead, don’t follow them. Follow the course laid out by the One who alone is the Way.
And while the trail-trek analogy may be simple, it works. Remember that Presbyterians do have a trail trek. The Way is clear. The path may be rocky at times, is usually uphill, and sometimes requires you to carry a burden, but is not beyond the ability of any single person to hike. There is no need to redefine anything.
Jesus is the Way. The Bible is our map. The Holy Spirit is our guide. Conformity to the will of the Father and His glory is the destination. All we need to do is follow the One who is the Way.
Forrest A. Norman III is an elder at Hudson Presbyterian Church (EPC) in Hudson, Ohio. He is chairman of the Board of Directors and chief executive officer of the Presbyterian Lay Committee.