Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

This point of this post is to enter into dialogue, by first providing some information about myself and then asking some questions. My struggle is that you proclaim Jesus Christ as Lord, yet I cannot reconcile your stated positions with Scripture.

I am a sinner, saved by God's grace. I believe that Scripture is given by the inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life. I believe that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life; and that no one comes to the Father except through Him. I believe that life is sacred to God, and that God calls us to express our sexuality within the bounds of a marriage of one woman and one man.

Jesus calls on us to pray for not only our friends, but also those who persecute us. Shouldn't we also ask God to bless those people who are not our enemies (I hope) but with whom we disagree? Do you ask God to bless people like me -- those members and leaders of the PC(USA) who disagree with the Witherspoon Society's stands on various issues?

If you do ask God to bless me, why is it so important to you to change our ordination standards, given the risk of fracturing our community?

Friends, I cannot support making our ordination standards more permissive without so modifying the role of scripture in my life as to break it. I am not alone in this. This is not a position I take up due to mean-spiritedness, or something due to how and when my diapers were changed as an infant. :-)

When I read about your goal of changing our ordination standards, what I feel is that this is more important to you than being in community with me or others like me who have a high view of Scripture. Is this true?

Please accept that I ask these questions in the spirit of trying to understand my brothers and sisters in Christ with whom I disagree. We all are a stiff-necked bunch, and if we were not disagreeing over issues such as ordination standards, we would be disagreeing over other things.

In Christ,

keklamenos

These remarks typify the problem the Theological Task Force faces--how to listen to, and in practice accommodate to, a variety of "sincere" and "convinced" perspectives. All parties claim to have Christian love for each other, but they also have their "Here I stand" moments, in which they refuse to change their views and want to change others for their own good.

There are several levels of problems:

First, how do we approach the issue of authority? The correspondent seems to be troubled by an apparent conflict between the need for mutual love and the demands of Scripture which he/she regards as non-negotiable. At two points the correspondent seems to be saying that mutual love requires us in Witherspoon to stop trying to change the ordination standards, since any attempt to change those standards runs the risk of fracturing the community of the PC(USA). This, if I am not mistaken, is like saying, "If you love me, you will not try to change anything that I regard as unchangeable."

What, indeed, are we to do about our absolute commitments, especially when we are convinced that they are divinely based? This is a major issue today, in both church and society. Conflict is exacerbated when we feel that our convictions are not being respected or are even being violated. Especially when we have absolute commitments, we may feel that we are exempt from the usual rules of conversation and behavior; we may even feel that it confers the privilege of defining the rules of encounter. The difficulty, of course, is that many competing groups can claim the right to carry their "absolute commitments" into public discourse, and this encourages intolerance and eventually open religious warfare.

Cromwell wrote to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1650, "I beseech you in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken." We, like Cromwell himself, would rather say than hear such a plea, and a General Assembly (or any other body of Presbyterians) may be especially unwilling to heed it. But it is something that we must always think to be possible.

Is there an alternative mode of encounter? In the Christian tradition, one of the most dramatic episodes revolves around Cyprian in North Africa. In dealing with clergy who had "lapsed" during the persecution under Decius (249-51), he judged that any baptisms and ordinations they performed were soiling, not sanctifying, the recipients. Stephen, the bishop of Rome, decided in the opposite way, arguing that the sacraments are Christ's, not the minister's.

The Donatist movement continued to hold Cyprian's view of the sacraments and claimed to be the one true church, excluding all others, inside and outside North Africa.

But Augustine cited Cyprian against Cyprian. Even though Cyprian and his colleagues believed that their adversaries did not possess true baptism and were still under the power of sin, they nonetheless maintained communion with them, since the alternative would be separation from "the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph. 4:3).

Here community becomes more important than one's own certitudes, and in a dramatic way--even in matters where salvation was thought to be at issue. We can find all sorts of reasons not to maintain communion with others; but this dramatic episode is always food for reflection. One thing that made it possible was that the church was not yet a monolithic structure under ecumenical councils or the pope; it was a network of those willing to be in communion with each other despite their differences.

What kind of polity, then, is appropriate to this sense of community? My hope is that the Theological Task Force will find ways we can respect pluralism in the PC(USA), specifically on the ordination question, but on other issues as well.

Conflict has been exacerbated by the provision of the Book of Order (G-1.0400) that "a majority shall govern." In practice this has meant that one can advocate change but in the meantime must act in accordance with the decision of the majority. If one's conscience says otherwise, one must take one's conscience elsewhere. The ordination question might be one of those questions "with respect to which men [sic] of good characters and principles may differ" (G-1.0305).

This is not unthinkable. Our constitution already gives considerable freedom of movement to governing bodies in all matters that are not prescribed by the Book of Order. A presbytery or a session may have quite different views, for example, about issues of peace and justice than the General Assembly, and about statements made by the Washington Office, whose task is to carry out the General Assembly's policies, whether some Presbyterians agree or not.

It is the judgment of many of us that G-6.0106b, added to the Book of Order in 1996-97, was a mistake. A narrow majority, by abandoning what had been "guidance" since 1978 and imposing a rule which all were obliged to follow, increased conflict and confusion throughout the church. It was one of those matters (and there may well be others) in which a narrow majority has limited both the conscience of individuals and the responsibility of governing bodies to use discernment in gauging readiness for ordination. Since we have a representative rather than a top-down form of government, and since we state our faith in the mode of confessions rather than dogmas, it is always worth asking how we might achieve a more open-textured church that maintains mutual forbearance and respectful debate.

Now let me add a fourth, more positive point.
[Added on 8-2-04]

Diversity in the church is to be affirmed, not distrusted. It is easy to quote Paul about the diversity of gifts and the same Spirit (1 Cor. 12: 4-11) and the value of all the members in the body (1 Cor. 12:12-31); it is another thing to put it into practice.

We have trouble affirming and celebrating what others are doing, for a variety of reasons: a sense that "this is just not my calling" or "my priorities are different"; envy at others' accomplishments; resentment that we, in our situation, could not get away with what others, in their situation, can do; fear that others are using their accomplishments to build a power base in the church.

Why not feel grateful that we are not responsible for carrying out every task that is worth doing? When Paul wrote from prison he was probably the victim of internal Christian rivalries, and yet he rejoiced that in every way Christ was being proclaimed (Phil. 1:15- 18).

In response to the invitation to conversation from "Keklamenos," we've received two more thoughtful comments, both welcoming the chance for dialogue. One writer, from California, notes that our Presbyterian Church has always acknowledged the legitimacy of other Christians churches with which we may have great differences of theology and practice, and have also affirmed diversity within our own community. The second writer, from Michigan comments that change has always occurred in our church, and with it has come tension - but that we have also affirmed the possibility of coming to new understandings of Scripture.

Also, Gene TeSelle has added more thoughts to his earlier responses to Keklamenos' call for dialogue - affirming, as has Arthur Fullerton - our historic appreciation for diversity.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I read with interest the recent posting on your website from Anonymous. One phrase seems to be the key point, "that this is more important to you than being in community with me or others like me."

I highlight this phrase because it raises the appropriate term in this dialogue which is, "community".

If we can recognise the legitimacy of Roman Catholic, Baptist, and Episcopal ministers and ministries despite their vast theological differences from Presbyterian orthodoxy and accept that they are part of the larger community of Christ, then how or why should the ordination of openly GLBT people present a barrier to community?

It seems to me that we in the Presbyterian tradition believe that ordination comes from God and depends not on the acts of an individual, but upon God's grace. Trying to place human limits on the types of individuals God chooses seems to me to be both futile and perhaps even blasphemous. It is certainly presumptuous to declare that God could never call an openly GLBT person to ministry, but this is what the current ordination "standard" does declare.

We recognise the legitimacy of different religious traditions within the larger body of Christ. Each of these traditions has different ideas about ordination and the nature of God's call. Some ordain openly GLBT people, some do not; some ordain women, some do not; some believe in lengthy study, others do not. Still, regardless of their ordination policy, all are within the larger community of Christ.

Community is not uniformity.

Still community does require voluntary participation to be a member. If someone chooses to break the bonds of community, we can not hold them in. Community is not a prison, and a prison is not a community unless those held captive choose to be in community with one another. If Anonymous can not bring him/her self to remain in community with those seeking to recognize the awesome power of God's call, then he/she can opt out of the community. But the choice to do so is one made by Anonymous, not one forced by those seeking to change the Book of Order.

Grace and Peace,

Arthur Fullerton

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear keklamenos,

Thank you for writing this letter. Unfortunately, in our church today there often seems to be a lack of true and respectful dialogue. Too many people on all sides of these issues have resorted to name-calling, and personal attacks on faith, intelligence, and character. Everyone needs to understand that sincere, devoted, and intelligent Christians believe different things about homosexuality.

You write in your letter "why is it so important to you to change our ordination standards, given the risk of fracturing our community?" How would you respond when other Presbyterian denominations in our country and the world ask this question of the PC(USA) in regards to women's ordination? There are millions of Christians out there with a "high view of Scripture" that cannot accept allowing the ordination of women "without so modifying the role of scripture in [their] life as to break it."

There have been times in our denomination's history with issues such as slavery and women's ordination, when we have changed our denominational standards, not because we want to break community or not be guided by the Bible, but because we have come to understand Scripture differently. And although these decisions have made people angry or hurt enough to leave the denomination, it was felt that the issues were of such great importance that to not make these decisions would be unfaithful to God (and to the Bible). In our history, Presbyterians have written books and articles making the Biblical case for slavery and against women's ordination. Where would we be today if we had felt it was more important to be in community with pro-slavery and anti-women's ordination Presbyterians, than working for God given equality for all of our brothers and sisters?

I think part of your confusion comes from your apparent thinking that only people like you, who share your interpretation of the Bible, have a "high view of Scripture." I believe that I have a high view of Scripture. It may not be the same as yours, but I take the Bible very seriously and authoritatively. When I entered seminary in 1997, I believed that homosexuality was shameful before God and that homosexual acts (whatever those are) were sinful. Honestly, I wanted to believe different but my understanding of Scripture just didn't allow that. Upon taking classes in Old and New Testament for several years, the Bible came alive for me in a way it hadn't before. I learned it was much richer and more complex than I had ever imagined.

In this richness, through prayer, study, and dialogue I came to know that the Biblical understanding of homosexuality, much like the Biblical understanding of slavery and the role of women, is not cut and dried. As these issues are addressed in the Bible we must understand that some of the Biblical writings are products of the culture and times in which they were written. Who among us is going to read 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and insist that women today should be silent in church? Do we have a low view of Scripture if we do not take this passage at face value?

In closing, I understand your confusion, because it is confusion that your brothers and sisters (like me) with whom you disagree also feel. You are concerned about "the risk of fracturing our community?" Well, I believe that our community is already fractured and I am trying my best to be part of healing it. I believe that our denomination has, as part of its constitution, standards that exclude and hurt those who are gay. I believe these standards go against the Word of God. And I will continue working, with love, humility, passion, and respect, to change those standards. I realize that there are others who disagree with me and will not understand when those standards get changed. I will pray that God blesses them, just as I pray that God blesses me. I will pray that God may reveal to them more of God's word and will, just as I pray that God will reveal to me more of God's word and will. Then maybe together, we can discern a way that we can all work forward towards God's Kingdom.

Peace,

Shawn

Rev. Shawn Coons
Holly, MI

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Another contribution to the conversation ... about possibilities for staying together in the PC(USA)

[8-4-04]

We received this note from a pastor in Minnesota, expressing appreciation for the venture toward dialogue, and sober realism about the chances for achieving real community when we have become a "pseudo-community," in which "poisonous hatred and dehumanizing toxins" may make real change impossible "without radically altering the PCUSA."

It's refreshing to see that the desire for sensitive and thoughtful dialogue is strong enough to emerge apart from formally-developed, GA-approved procedures! Mr. Keklamenos (although a pen-name need not reflect the author's actual gender) has done a good job of simply stating how many people in the PCUSA feel, and Gene TeSelle gives a well-organized response also expressing widely-held sentiments. Both writers highlight the difficulty of experiencing "community" among people for whom fundamental agreement on matters of ultimate significance is either assumed or expected, but in fact do not agree and at times quite sharply so. For us as Christians in the PCUSA, the connections between fellowship and polity, or community and confession, are essential to our distinct identity. Tamper with those connections, or break them altogether, and we risk ceasing to be Presbyterian Christians.

Yet these connections are precisely where the dialogue takes us! Gene TeSelle sees a "conditional love" element in Mr. Keklamenos' fear that among those who seek to change our ordination standards, a particular ideology may have priority over scriptural integrity or the (PCUSA) community's well-being, and so Gene writes the hypothetical conclusion: "If you love me, you will not try to change anything that I regard as unchangeable." Was I the only one who hearkened to John 14:15 at that point? All those who sincerely struggle over our denominational divides really see the particular issues as rooted in questions of faithfulness to Christ and Christ's commandments. How is it that we, like the members of the current Theological Task Force, can agree on our common love for Jesus and desire to be his faithful disciples, yet be so far apart on who Jesus is and what being a faithful disciple looks like?

Because we all love Christ and want to be faithful followers, and because we have major differences at that very point, of course our confessions and polity derived from that love and faithfulness will take us different directions. With these different directions, are we not closer to a pseudo-community as described by Scott Peck in A Different Drum, and struggling more and more to maintain even that? The atmosphere created by such conditions understandably gets polluted with poisonous hatred and dehumanizing toxins. I myself struggle to avoid adding to the exhaust that contains phrases like "right-wing raca. It appears, however, that really improving these conditions means "changing the unchangeable," and I don't see how that can be done without radically altering the PCUSA.

Thanks to the Witherspoon webweaver for taking such great risks in opening up this forum, and I pray that the good dialogue which takes place here will bear fruit for God's kingdom!

Carl Grosse, pastor

First Presbyterian Church
Farmington, Minnesota

~~~~~~~~

More thoughts from Carl Grosse    [8-9-04]

Your WebWeaver responded to the note from Carl Grosse a little query of his own:

Carl --

Thanks for your very thoughtful contribution to the conversation! I'll be very happy to post it on the website -- later tonight or tomorrow, if all goes well.

I'm struck by your suggestion that we are (or are becoming) a "pseudo-community," and barely managing to hold on to that. If that's the case (and I strongly suspect you're right), then what do you see as the usefulness of the Task Force's call for more conversation, dialogue, and all that? Is there some way that path might really lead us toward restoring our community?

Carl Grosse answered with this thoughtful addition:

Doug, you certainly have a knack for targeting the strategic points of an argument! What can the Task Force's emphasis on dialogue and conversation do to move us closer to community? To be honest, I don't know. One possibility is that the discussion - first within the Task Force itself, and then in the larger church - will clarify the points of agreement and disagreement that matter most. Perhaps that hasn't happened yet because those types of discussions have been in contexts of active conflict: floor debates, hearings, PJC proceedings, and so on. With the Task Force, conditions for conversation and dialogue have been created that are intentionally more removed from these impediments. Even the biennial GA format takes a lot of pressure off! Furthermore, no decision or action is expected from the Task Force, only a report. That means the members are free to state what is, rather than what should be.

Where we as the PCUSA might go from there is the murky part. In the past, we have mistakenly believed that such dialogue in itself would "create" community, so we enabled them, celebrated them, and stopped there. Although it is an essential step, dialogue is a means rather than an end. [Emphasis mine. Your WebWeaver.] If the Task Force conversations do clarify the most important points of agreement and disagreement, we can repeat history and just accept the report while continuing our battles. Or we could design a next step involving radical changes in our constitution that would make the PCUSA flexible enough to accommodate the disparate constituents while maintaining an historic continuity that binds us together. Or we could kind of come unglued, recognizing that The Book of Order and The Book of Confessions cannot be so altered as to continue holding the PCUSA together given our diversity. In some ways, the last scenario may bring us closer to authentic community than the other two. Letting go of the constitution places the most attention on each other, fully recognizing our actual convictions and confessions and allowing us to relate to one another by means of shared dialogue and interaction rather than imposed cooperation. I think that has been the greatest lesson of the process so far.

Thanks again for your candor and good spirit, Doug. I'm curious, as no doubt you are, to see where this dialogue goes!

Carl Grosse

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Keklamenos responds    [8-13-04]

"Keklamenos," who invited progressives to engage him in conversation about his concerns as a conservative for the Presbyterian Church, responds with appreciation to the replies that we have posted, and offers some thoughtful comments of her/his own.

We encourage you to join in this conversation.
Just send a note to be shared here!

Doug,

Thanks for posting my questions, and especially for posting the thoughtful responses and replies from Gene, Arthur and Shawn.

If you are willing, here is a follow-on comment:

-------------------------------------

Gene, Arthur & Shawn,

Thank-you for taking the time to ponder the questions that I raised in my posting (and thanks to the Witherspoon board for agreeing to post it and to the Web Weaver for his work), and thank you for your articulate and thoughtful responses. Here are some follow-up comments in responding to the points raised.

First, I would like to thank Shawn for his words, particularly the final paragraph in which he writes, "I will pray that God blesses them, just as I pray that God blesses me. I will pray that God may reveal to them more of God's word and will, just as I pray that God will reveal to me more of God's word and will. Then maybe together, we can discern a way that we can all work forward towards God's Kingdom."

What splendid, excellent words. Thank you. I am reminded of the Society of Friends, when struggling with their position on slavery. While there were many harsh words spoken and many tears shed, the way they worked this out in the end was through love and prayers, e.g. the life of John Woolman. I am praying for you and hope others in the Witherspoon Society will pray for me and others like me. [This is so moving to me that I will not take up the other issue -- whether one can have a "high view of Scripture" and still support changing our ordination standards.]

More broadly, I would ask that those people who are working to change our ordination standards acknowledge that their efforts and words can cause pain for those who do not agree with them. I will acknowledge that my position causes pain to those who believe they are called by God to be leaders but are not able be ordained in the PC(USA) because of our current standards. But let's recognize that our respective positions and actions are each fracturing our community -- or perhaps have already fractured it.

Second, I would like to thank Gene for framing the issues well, and for the quote from Cromwell. It is, like the truth, a two-edged sword. Regarding his point on polity, where he rightly raises the problems of a controversial decision sustained by a narrow majority, I would encourage us all to recognize what problems might be caused by a second, controversial decision overturning the first decision, again, sustained by a narrow majority. As a note to Gene's encouragement that we celebrate diversity, I would suggest that we celebrate diversity within the bounds of Scripture.

Third, in response to Arthur -- he raises 3 points: what is community, what is ordination, and who decides to break community?

1. Re: community -- I enjoy being in Christian fellowship with my brothers and sisters who are part of the Baptist, Methodist, Orthodox, Catholic, etc. portions of Christ's church. To me, and I would presume to others, our community with these fellowships differs from our community with others in our Reformed tradition and specifically with those in the PC(USA).

2. Re: ordination -- I agree with Arthur that ordination comes from God, but as the Second Helvetic Confession points out, "let the ministers of the Church be called and chosen by lawful and ecclesiastical election; that is to say, let them be carefully chosen by the Church or by those delegated from the Church for that purpose in a proper order without any uproar, dissension and rivalry." Unfortunately it seems to me that we are in a state where the discussion over our standards is producing exactly the uproar, dissension and rivalry we are to avoid.

3. Re: breaking community -- Arthur's final point is perhaps the most interesting, as it calls out a key question. Just as I suggest that the Witherspoon Society and others are fracturing community by seeking to change our ordination standards, he suggests that I am breaking community if I choose not to stay in community with those who seek this change. One might call this the "train is leaving the station argument" -- get on board or be left behind. I believe that both sides should acknowledge the fractious potential of their words and actions.

Grace and peace,

Keklamenos

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What are your thoughts on the possibilities
of a civil conversation among Presbyterians who differ?
What do you see as the major issues?
Are they irreconcilable?
Can we make changes in our church governance
that might help us live together in some kind of peace?
PLEASE SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS!
Just send a note.