What Way Ahead? Part Two: Initiating the Case for Realignment

Written by Michael R. Walker

Saturday, 20 September 2008 11:39

In the first article of this series I outlined three options that traditional Christians have taken and might take now as we face the challenges of life today in the Presbyterian Church (USA). The three options were the long-term approach of renewalists, to “defect in place,” or to leave the denomination. I suggested none of the three options presented a hopeful future for the unity and witness of the PC(USA), nor would they help unify evangelicals, nor do they anticipate the impending challenge of relations with the Ecumenical Church. In this piece, I will outline the basics of a fourth option, which has been dubbed a “reshaping” of the PC(USA) or a “realignment” within the denomination. It is this fourth option that holds the most promise for responsibly facing the theological and institutional challenges before us.

As a reminder, the approach I am taking in this series may strike some as backwards: outlining practical approaches first, followed by more in depth engagement of theological and historical rationales. This approach is by design and request. To begin outlining the nature of and need for a realignment within the PC(USA), I will begin looking at some of the deeper issues involved below.

The Basic Approach of Realignment

Put simply, to move forward by way of realignment would mean that congregations who share deep commitments on the most controversial issues in the PC(USA) would be free to align with and govern one another within the institutional structure of the denomination. For instance, on the issue of the day, congregations shaped by traditional Christianity would be free to join presbyteries and synod(s) that are themselves free to maintain the historic standards of the church regarding sexual ethics. In the same way, those congregations who wish to be in a presbytery and synod that favor a new kind of moral diversity would be free to do so.

The PC(USA) would still be one denomination with one General Assembly. The responsibilities and authority of the General Assembly would be modified, to allow some decisions currently made at the GA level to become the domain of lower governing bodies. We would need to articulate carefully the continuing basis of denominational unity. We would also need to set out a pattern of intentional engagement across the alignments, including but not limited to the meeting of the General Assembly, a pattern that has the potential to address the divisions that ail us with dignity and with theological and moral clarity, which has become all but impossible in the present arrangement.

Realignment would not be a panacea, and I do not believe it offers a healthy permanent solution to the divisions within the denomination. However, it does offer a more faithful step forward than the alternatives of forced participation in the present theological and moral revisions, the scattering of Presbyterians to various other denominations, or the prospect of widespread litigious departures of congregations. More than avoiding the negative consequences of inaction, however, the intent of realignment is unitive, as it would require extraordinary forbearance, and it would offer a new context in which constructive engagement in the life of the denomination would be possible for everyone. In addition, it holds out the possibility of Christian reconciliation.

The Nature of Current Divisions and Its Consequences

At an internal institutional level, the most basic question for the PC(USA) is whether or not we wish the future of our denomination, in all its diversity, to include as active participants those whose beliefs and ethical commitments are shaped by traditional Christianity. The other option is to embrace a revisionist form of theological and moral diversity as the guiding rule across the PC(USA).

The flashpoint of our current division in the denomination is, of course, sexual ethics, in particular the blessing of same-sex unions, our understanding of marriage, and whether to ordain persons who are sexually active outside of marriage. Religious pluralism, a bigger issue, is close behind. Just beneath the surface of these, as most also recognize, are different views of how the Gospel intersects western culture, biblical authority and interpretation, the meaning and requirements of the Gospel, and the nature of Christian unity.

Despite the existence of many nuanced positions on the issue of the day, when faced with decisions about what direction the church should take, the options are few. As theological ethicist Oliver O’Donovan has put it: “In practical decisions there comes a point at which the multitude of options are reduced to two.”

Revisionists believe the Gospel requires we revise Christian sexual ethics to make sexual activity outside of marriage, especially homosexual practice, morally and canonically permissible for ordained officers of the church. Traditional Christians believe the Gospel requires that we respect the basic boundaries God has given in Scripture, as received by the church for the last two millennia. In this case, sex is understood as a gift of God for the context of marriage. Each position offers distinctive, mutually exclusive norms. In the nature of the case, proposals for “compromise” involve a new form of moral diversity and are thus a de facto embrace of the gay-inclusivist position. For this reason (and others), appeals to unity-in-diversity on this issue devolve into appeals to embrace incoherence.

Ultimately, the pursuit of Christian unity in the PC(USA) is not about how to manage the co-existence of these two positions. Ultimately the choice is how we respond to the risen Lord, the Head of the Church, as he is revealed to us in Holy Scripture. Christian unity is formed and maintained as the Spirit enables us to respond to the Gospel of Jesus Christ in faith and joyful obedience. This is part and parcel of a basic Reformed understanding of the nature of the church. And yet it also presents a serious difficulty for the PC(USA) today.

We have clouded the vertical character of discernment, decision, and unity. The controversy over sexual ethics has made this abundantly clear, in a way that previous debates that resulted in change – over women’s ordination, for instance – could not. Previous matters of debate were such that we could study the Scriptures and the Christian tradition and find precedent for change. The gay-inclusivist position of today asks the church to embrace a new moral teaching and canonize a sexual practice that has no scriptural precedent and no historical precedent in the church prior to the second half of the 20th century. More than that, we are told the Gospel requires the PC(USA) to embrace this change. The resultant controversy over contrasting visions of Gospel requirements, which cannot now take place on the basis of a shared understanding of how the Lord guides his church, has reduced us to the level of political factionalism, mimicking secular politics. When critical theological and moral issues are discussed within the church as though we are debating the relative superiority of one set of human opinions over another, we are no longer in a context in which Christian charity can take root or Christian diversity has any meaningful frame of reference. Fueling this character of debate is the fact we are always moving into votes on the very issues of contention, which inevitably promotes rhetorical sledgehammers and manipulation of church polity, which further damages any semblance of Christian unity, diminishes the deeper issues involved, and is devastating to our Christian witness.

Given this reality, we cannot discern together what Lord confronts us, or cannot discern together what it means to respond in faith and obedience, or both. And so, we cannot together answer the question perpetually before us: “on what basis unity?”

An Opportunity for Grace, Dignity, Clarity and Forbearance
It does not seem possible to continue holding these tensions together indefinitely, and we have demonstrated that it is not possible to resolve them in the midst of the thick cloud that now covers the PC(USA). It is safe to say that the recent General Assemblies have pushed us to a point of decision. In the wake of the recent GA, some are expressing deep pain – and some great joy – that the PC(USA) appears determined to embrace revisionist theology and ethics across the denomination, and appears determined to do so through regular use of irregular polity maneuvers that disenfranchise evangelicals.

To many, it appears inevitable that traditional Christians face either participation in the revision or a journey toward a new home. If we do not choose a different path, then we must admit that we will have chosen “to walk apart.”

The PC(USA) has a narrow window of opportunity to move in a new direction characterized by grace, dignity, theological and moral clarity, and forbearance. While these virtues are consistently under-cut in the present context of the denomination, realignment offers a way to live into them.

Forthcoming
In this piece, I have but scratched the surface of the case for realignment, looking at it strictly from the angle of internal divisions within the PC(USA). I will explore the theological character of these internal divisions more deeply, examining particular proposals for the future of the PC(USA) emerging from the Covenant Network of Presbyterians. I will also explore issues of particular interest to evangelical Presbyterians and how realignment would intersect the dispositions of traditional renewalists, those who would “defect in place,” and those who are considering leaving the PC(USA). Finally, I will explore the potential for realignment to address the growing tensions between the PC(USA) and the Ecumenical Church.

The Notebook

Calvin quotes

Here are a few quotes from Calvin's Institutes that I selected for inclusion in a church magazine to reflect the basic posture of Calvin's piety, oriented as it is toward magnifying the glory of God and subordinating self-concern. Unfortunately these don't convey the Christological centered-ness of his piety, but they convey where Christ leads us by the Spirit:

"We are consecrated and dedicated to God in order that we may thereafter think, speak, meditate, and do, nothing except to his glory."

"We are not our own: let not our reason nor our will, therefore, sway our plans and deeds. We are not our own: let us therefore not set it as our goal to seek what is expedient for us according to the flesh. We are not our own: in so far as we can, let us therefore forget ourselves and all that is ours. Conversely, we are God's: let us therefore live for him and die for him. We are God's: let his wisdom and will therefore rule all our actions. We are God's: let all the parts of our life accordingly strive toward him as our only lawful goal."

"We ought to we seek not the things that are ours but those which are of the Lord's will and will serve to advance his glory. This is also evidence of great progress: that, almost forgetful of ourselves, surely subordinating our self-concern, we try faithfully to devote our zeal to God and his commandments. For when Scripture bids us leave off self-concern, it not only erases from our minds the yearning to possess, the desire for power, and the favor of men, but it also uproots ambition and all craving for human glory and other more secret plagues. Accordingly, the Christian must surely be so disposed and minded that he feels within himself it is with God he has to deal throughout his life. In this way, as he will refer all he has to God's decision and judgment, so will he refer his whole intention of mind scrupulously to Him. For he who has learned to look to God in all things that he must do, at the same time avoids all vain thoughts. This, then, is that denial of self which Christ enjoins with such great earnestness upon his disciples at the outset of their service."

Ecclesiology and the Cartesian Turn

Janos Pasztor offers a packed summary of some of the ecclesiological consequences of the so-called "Cartesian turn" - the rise of the anthropological starting point -- and often endpoint -- in the pursuit of knowledge that became dominant among philosophers in the 18th century and has characterize "Modern" thought):

"Theology itself was very considerably influenced by this development. It was a 180-degree turn: it began losing its theocentric character and became more and more anthropocentric. For these kinds of theologies it was not God who would come to man addressing him in his life-giving Word, but man would make attempts to approach God by means of an intellectual enterprise. A late twentieth-century representative of this trend of thought says: 'God is the object of my consciousness which I perceive in so far as I perceive something, that is I allot him a place within the framework of a sign-system, in order to be able to talk to others about this matter.' Consequently, the church is the people, who, by virtue of having accepted the common sign-system, are seeking common answers to the meaning of existence.

"These trends of thought, however respectable they might have been otherwise, have rejected most of the things the Reformers stood for. The divine Logos, the eternal Son, 'true God from true God, begotten not made, of one Being with the Father,' became the Logos of the philosophers, a principle and idea, or a set of thoughts. As Blaise Pascal put it, here one has to deal with the God of the philosophers instead of the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jesus Christ. Instead of listening obedience to the Word of God, one meets the rule of reason in rationalism; instead of the freedom of God's liberated children, one gets the freedom of the individual thinker in liberailsm. These ideas had a devastating effect on the field of Christology. They brought about what has been termed by Hungarian theologians, a Unitarian theology in everything but name."

"...the church is nothing but one of the many human organizations dealing with issues like religion and morals."

"....For people with that kind of idea, catholicity meant 'as opposed to confessional catholicity...the universal kingdom of spirit, but something other than the Holy Spirit,' if it meant anything at all."

Janos Pasztor, "The Catholicity of Reformed Theology," Toward the Future of Reformed Theology (Eerdmans, 1999), p. 29.

Recovering the Wounded: Healing a Church in Exile

Psalm 147:2: "The Lord builds up Jerusalem; he gathers the outcasts of Israel."

Commenting on this verse, Calvin expreses confidence that God would ultimately restore the Church from the ruinous state that formed so much of Calvin's own life:

"In calling God the former and architect of the Church, his object is to make us aware that by his power it remains in a firm condition, or is restored when in ruins. Hence he infers that it is in his power and arbitrament to gather those who have been dispersed. Here the Psalmist would comfort those miserable exiles who had been scattered in various quarters, with the hope of being recovered from their dispersion, as God had not adopted them without a definite purpose into one body. As he had ordered his temple and altar to be erected at Jerusalem, and had fixed his seat there, the Psalmist would encourage the Jews who were exiles from their native country, to entertain good hope of a return, intimating that it was no less properly God’s work to raise up his Church when ruined and fallen down, than to found it at first. It was not, therefore, the Psalmist’s object directly to celebrate the free mercy of God in the first institution of the Church, but to argue from its original, that God would not suffer his Church altogether to fall, having once founded it with the design of preserving it for ever; for he forsakes not the work of his own hands.

This comfort ought to be improved by ourselves at the present period, when we see the Church on every side so miserably rent asunder, leading us to hope that all the elect who have been adjoined to Christ’s body, will be gathered unto the unity of the faith, although now scattered like members torn from one another, and that the mutilated body of the Church, which is daily distracted, will be restored to its entireness; for God will not suffer his work to fail.

In the following verse he insists upon the same truth, the figure suggesting that though the Church labor under, and be oppressed by many diseases, God will speedily and easily recover it from all its wounds. The same truth, therefore, is evidently conveyed, under a different form of expression — that the Church, though it may not always be in a flourishing condition, is ever safe and secure, and that God will miraculously heal it, as though it were a diseased body."

The Feeds

Reflections Feed

Notebook Feed

Combined Feed