Task force decision-making process eluded observers

Task force decision-making process eluded observers

By John H. Adams, The Layman Online, August 1, 2005

When the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity issued some of its draft reports in Dallas recently, there were no votes, no discussions of the weightier issues – including ordination standards – and no debates.

After tweaking the documents with relatively minor editorial changes, the task force members assented to the content of three draft reports without any objections. But there was not a formal vote or a noticeable nod. As far as observers could tell, those documents arrived – as theologians like to say of creation – ex nihilo, out of nothing.

On August 24-25 in Chicago, the task force will reveal two more documents – a summary and recommendations. Unless there is a sudden shift to openness and individual accountability, those conclusions, too, will be the aftermath of behind-the-scenes negotiations and writing.

The Mile-High General Assembly (2003 in Denver) made the secrecy possible. It voted 276-219 to exempt the task force from the denomination’s “open meeting policy in order to go into closed session solely for the purpose of exchanging views on sensitive theological issues in cases where it is determined by 2/3’s vote of the members of the Task Force present in a duly called and constituted meeting.”

At that time, task force leaders said they did not seek the exemption. But once they got it, they invoked it repeatedly, mostly without objection. At their July 18-21 meeting in Dallas, they went into executive session for six and one-half hours for “discussion of theological issues” and four and one-half hours for “theological discussion of teaching papers.” That was a total of 11 hours of closed meetings.

The task force spent five hours – less than half of the time used in the executive sessions – reviewing its first three reports and making minor changes. It released each of those documents to the media and other observers at the opening of those reviews.

There was no description of how consensus was forged or whether the task force took any votes during its executive sessions, which would have contravened the General Assembly’s requirement that closed sessions be used “solely for the purpose of exchanging views on sensitive theological issues. …”

But the documents themselves seemed to indicate that decisions were made during previous closed meetings and followup telephone and e-mail exchanges.

The documents include many statements that might have spawned a public discussion – perhaps a Biblical debate. And the task force acknowledged that there were disagreements among its 20 members.

“We were asked to consider how the peace, unity and purity of the church might be built up because many had concluded that these elements of church life were compromised and in short supply,” the task force said in its draft document titled “I. The Plan and Progress of the Work of the Task Force.”

That statement continued, “At that early point, we, the members of the Task Force, shared a tendency that is widespread in the church: to blame others, especially those with whom we disagree, for the church’s troubles. Our process, however, and the Covenant we drafted to guide our work together emphasized careful listening as much as self-expression. In the course of our work we began to understand that our own actions as much as others’ have offended God, wounded the body of Christ, and caused pain to other Presbyterians.”

The “process” has been the task force’s proudest product. From the outset, the task force members nestled into a group that emphasized building relationships and consensus. The consensus did not travel the full distance of the four-year assignment – the draft reports said the members could reach no consensus on the ordination question – but its reports repeatedly affirmed the denomination’s “unity in diversity” plank.

What Presbyterians were not privy to is the cogency of the arguments on all sides and the reason the task force reached a united impasse.

There were several other statements in the first three documents that might have raised questions about how the task force concluded that unity was the priority in a denomination that has gone through decades of searing battles over ordination, the person and work of Jesus and the authority and interpretation of Scripture.

Even so, the unity language in the final report drafts was toned down from the task force’s interim report to the 215th General Assembly in 2004. That report included the statement that, “Christians cannot even entertain the notion of severing their ties with sisters and brothers in Christ without also placing themselves in severe jeopardy of being severed from Christ himself.”

That “severance clause” was in a section of the interim report that declared that Jesus is the church’s peace, purity and unity – based on the first three chapters of Ephesians – without any reference to chapters 4-6, which specify sexual and other sins that Christians should avoid.

The clause drew criticisms from some observers, who said it came close to suggesting that Presbyterians could lose their salvation by switching churches or denominations. The final draft stopped short of making a similar assertion.

Many of the other statements in the final drafts got less scrutiny during the declining open portions of meetings following the interim report:

To name a few:

From: “Prologue: The Theological Basis of This Report”

Lines 105-111 “Therefore we can no longer accept a hierarchical or patriarchal view of how divine power makes itself felt among us. Our relations to others are transformed and reoriented, because the love of God is not confined to the people of one religious perspective, or of one social or economic class, or of one race or ethnicity, or of one gender or gender orientation. Such is the love of God that for those who are in Christ ‘there is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Jesus Christ.'”

Lines 243-247 “Because controversies over sexuality and ordination have been a special focus of the Task Force’s work, the Task Force has become aware of how much alienation and contempt many have experienced. The Task Force has heard a call to seek God’s forgiveness for our sin and divisive attitudes and actions. In gratitude for the good news of the gospel, the Task Force prays that God will grant the whole church the grace of reconciliation, especially with those who have been wronged.”

From: “I. The Plan and Progress of the Work of the Task Force”

Lines 348-370

• “Those of us associated with the Anglo traditions that have dominated the PCUSA came to understand how much alienation and pain we have caused by past oppression of other racial and ethnic groups and by currently maintaining barriers to the full inclusion of those groups’ members and cultural gifts.

• “Those of us who identify our views as liberal or moderate came to understand how alienating it is for conservative evangelicals when their passionate commitment to holy living and upright conduct is labeled rigid and judgmental.

• “Those of us who identify our views as conservative or evangelical came to understand how alienating it is for liberals and moderates when their passionate commitment to justice and compassion is labeled unbiblical.

• “Many of us came to understand how alienating it is for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons to be so regularly identified as a major threat to the peace, unity and purity of the church.

• “Many of us also came to understand how alienating it is for those who support a ban on the ordination of sexually-active gays and lesbians to be accused of prejudice.”

Lines 407-417 “[I] is still it is a fact that all of us have been greatly enriched and changed by our work together. Our experience of Christian faith and life has been extended and expanded. Our trust in other Presbyterians and our respect for differing perspectives has deepened. Most of all, our joy in believing has been greatly increased by the work of the Holy Spirit. Our gratitude for the church has grown because of the honesty, humility and faithfulness of the other members of the Task Force. As a result, our hopes for the future of the church have been confirmed … Over our time together, a common conviction has grown among us: different as we are, God has called us all to be part of the body of Christ as it is manifested in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).”

From: II. The Issues Before the Task Force

Lines 60-67 “We found wide and deep common ground in our study of the church’s confessional tradition concerning the person and work of Jesus Christ. We have given voice to our shared convictions in the Theological Reflection that heads this report. We have seen the reflection of Christ’s glory in one another. Our growing awareness of this common faith in Christ has become the basis of our unity and of our fear of the consequences of losing each other. This faith gives us hope, indeed, assurance that we should hold on to each other and bear with each other as we grapple with the other difficult issues before the church.”

Lines 114-121 “Each of us became firmly convinced that all the members of the Task Force honor the authority of scripture, embrace it as ‘the unique and authoritative witness to Jesus Christ in the Church universal’ (G-14.0207 b.), and seek earnestly to be faithful to that witness. The fact that we who disagree on some matters can learn so much from each other as we mine together the scriptures we love is further reason for Presbyterians, who share such rich traditions of Biblical interpretation, to continue together in fellowship. The Task Force is convinced that scripture has the power to shape and transform us as the community of faith.”

Lines 141-149 “The theological and biblical literature on human sexuality in general and same-gender sexuality in particular is diverse, subtle, and complex. It could not readily be divided into the two categories – either approval or disapproval of same-gender relationships and practices-that are assumed to anchor much of the conflict in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) today. In one session the Task Force studied a typology of six positions offered by one of our members. Each position conveyed a distinctive view of sin, reconciliation and redemption. We acknowledged that other analysts might approach the material differently and provide alternative interpretations.”

Lines 195-203 “[S]scripture does not provide a thoroughly developed theology of ordination in scripture, and a theology of ordination has not been clearly and consistently articulated in the development of Reformed and Presbyterian doctrine. As one might expect, then, ordination has been a source of some confusion and a matter of controversy in our history. From the outset of American Presbyterianism to the present, denominational conflicts have often centered on matters of fitness for ordination. The current controversy regarding issues of human sexuality and ordination is the latest example of this recurring pattern.”

Lines 212-224 “[W]e found we could reach ready agreement on several points:

1. “It is a grave error to deny baptism or church membership to gay and lesbian persons or to withhold pastoral care to them and their families.

2. “Those who aspire to ordination must lead faithful lives. Those who demonstrate licentious behavior should not be ordained.

3. “It is damaging and dangerous to teach that sexual behavior is a purely personal matter that is not relevant for Christian discipleship, leadership and community life.

4. “Sexual orientation is, in itself, no barrier to ordination.”

Lines 226-235 “The foregoing agreements left the Task Force with a wide range of theological views and positions before it, all of which seemed to have some grounding in the theological affirmations that head this report. Members of the Task Force reflect this range of views personally. Some strongly support the church’s current position; others strongly question it or want to change it; others are still forming their thinking about sexuality and ordination. Many believe that, instead of beginning with the question of ordination, it would be more profitable to frame the question differently: ‘How are baptized gay and lesbian persons in exclusive, covenanted relationships called to participate in the church in God’s gracious drama of creation, reconciliation and redemption?”

Lines 244-252 “[W]e were all able to agree: given the richness and complexity of perspectives on these subjects and the evident sincerity, faithfulness and biblically-based convictions of the members of our fellowship who hold them, the church should seek constructive, Christ-like alternatives to the “yes/no” forms in which questions about sexuality, ordination and same-gender covenantal relationships have been put to the church in recent decades. In the next section of this report, we recount our search for models of constructive engagement in the history and polity traditions of the Presbyterian Church and in the practices of decision making of other communities that seek peaceful and righteous life together.”