Lay Committee Responds to Theological Task Force and Calls for Dialogue

by Gene TeSelle, Witherspoon Society Issues Analyst
[6-24-05]

The Presbyterian Lay Committee on June 21, 2005, released a publication entitled "Can Two Faiths Embrace One Future?" The next day a discussion guide was issued.  

It contends that "pluralist" or "inclusivist" approaches to denominational unity, which it associates with the Theological Task Force and the Office of the General Assembly, are "both irrational and unfaithful." That's why "plural" really means "two" — the right way and the wrong way. That's also why the question of "schism" is raised, though it is not fully answered.

If you are serious about dialogue in the church, this is not the way to engage in it. It seems to imply that discussion partners occupy illegitimate positions from the start. And it fosters the suspicion that dialogue, by its very nature, is an attempt to lead true believers into paths of doubt and defection.

The "right" way is spelled out clearly: a certain understanding of Christ, of the authority of Scripture ("Listen for the Word of God" is regarded as a danger sign!), and of morality, specifically homosexuality. To safeguard it, the document champions a definite formulation of the "essential tenets of the Reformed faith," mentioning the lists prepared in 2003 by the Presbytery of San Diego and more recently by the New Wineskins Initiative.

On this assumption that there are two faiths in the church, the document looks critically at several "pluralistic" or "inclusive" approaches:

The last two are the most talked about.

But a number of conservatives say that the PC(USA) is "not a church but a corporation." They put forward another possibility,

The New Wineskins Initiative has already sketched an alternative form of church government, one which, it is claimed, would be less cumbersome and more suitable to the twenty-first century. After adoption by congregations, and perhaps by presbyteries, it would be set before the PC(USA) for approval. Its rejection could pave the way for an independent church whose constitution is already in place.

The document recognizes that "gracious separation" would involve an agonizing choice within many congregations, and the discussion guide asks (without expecting an affirmative answer) whether the "two synods" approach is a more satisfactory alternative.

This seems to be a realistic statement of the perceptions of many conservatives, who have expressed impatience at the length of time already taken on controversial issues and despair at achieving any kind of unity satisfactory to them.

The problem is that the document transmutes the issue of pluralism into one of polarization. That may be true of those at both ends of the theological spectrum, each of which, if General Assembly votes are any indication, amounts at most to about 30% of the church. But that leaves out of consideration the 40% or more who belong to the "broad middle," and the many others who hope to persuade, not break with, the "broad middle." If there were to be schism, many congregations, and many individuals, would find themselves deeply divided.

Actually the history of the Presbyterian Church in the colonies and the United States suggests a different trend.

There have indeed been schisms. But the broad trend is toward reunion — between Old Side and New Side (1758), Old School and New School (1869-70), PCUSA and Cumberland Presbyterians (1903), PCUSA and United Presbyterians (1958), and UPCUSA with PCUS (1983).

On each occasion there was mutual recognition of each other's doctrinal positions, even those that had been a cause of schism in the past. These reunions would not have happened without a spirit of flexibility in interpreting Scripture and the confessions. That does not mean that they were without limits and without basic beliefs. But they recognized the richness, indeed, the diversity of both Scripture and the confessions, and the impossibility of stating the faith adequately in any of their favorite formulations.

What do you think?
 We’d like to hear your comments on the Lay Committee’s "Two Faiths" statement, if you've read it -- or at least your response to this essay.
The question of schism in the church is no light matter, so some thinking together here could be a good thing.
Just send a note!