Whether
we're choosing a president or shaping our church, the choice is between
...
Private
Fulfillment
or the Well-being of the Whole
by Jane Hanna, Witherspoon Society
president
revised version posted on 12-7-00
Click here for an
appreciative note
from an evangelical Presbyterian
When those who met at Lindenwood College in St.
Charles, Missouri in
February of 1973 to organize the Witherspoon
Society, it was a time of reorganization within the Presbyterian Church
and civil turmoil across the country. Those attending shared many
concerns about the priorities of both the Presbyterian Church and the
nation. Church structures were changing from the national level to
synods and presbyteries, ministry emphases were being debated and it
appeared that the social ministries, in particular, were in danger of
being downsized and muted at a time when the prophetic voice of the
church seemed most needed. Again, our church and nation are struggling
to define and decide the principles by which we should set direction for
the future.
In both the Presbyterian Church and society at large,
there is growing polarization of views about the values and priorities
that determine how we should live together. Comparison of the concerns
that were expressed in the first organizing meeting of the Witherspoon
Society and those we share today suggests that as a nation and
denomination, we haven't moved any closer toward reconciling very
different theological and philosophical beliefs. The rhetoric of
campaign speeches, advertising, spin doctors, editorials and letters to
the editor echo much of the controversy within the institutional church.
That the voting public is equally divided in its
opinions has become most evident with a presidential election as close
as this has been. We heard the candidates share their views about the
role of government. Despite the oft-repeated argument that there is
little difference between the two major parties, I perceive distinct
contrast. Although both major candidates clung as closely to the middle
of the political spectrum as they dared, they actually represent
political parties that differ substantially over whether self-interest
or public interest should drive legislative decisions.
In the presidential campaign mix was also the voice of
Ralph Nader. He attempted to clarify how both parties are in the
financial clutches and interest of corporate and individual wealth which
tend to control and subvert legislative decisions.
One political party favors a federal government with a
limited role in deciding public policy, believing that the rules by
which we live together are more appropriately left to individual
responsibility and autonomy, states, and the market place. Private
enterprise, a capitalist economy and foreign policy that looks after
these interests are of major concern.
The opposing party tends more toward a framework of
governmental policy in the public interest. Legislation should help
assure every one at least a minimum level of health care, educational
resources, and pensions. Some label this approach as "big
government" while others argue that the people are the government
and that together we establish some guarantee that "no one is left
out."
Both political and ecclesiastical opinions seem
equally divided over how we enable justice to reign. Some of the same
arguments we've heard during this election year are reflected in the
contrasting views within the institutional church about achieving a just
society. The measure of individual versus community accountability and
self-interest is a debate in both faith and secular communities.
Personal salvation and evangelism are the priorities of some while the
well being of the whole community seems more important to others. Within
the spectrum of interpretation, professing Christians agree upon the
biblical revelation of God's insistence for justice. The
difference lies in how we feel God's justice can best be achieved.
There is the view that societal justice will be
attained when individuals take responsibility for leading
Christ-centered lives. In 1966, J. Howard Pew, founder and benefactor of
the Lay Committee, expressed this conviction in a Reader's Digest
article titled "Should the Church 'Meddle' in Civil Affairs?"
Pew claimed that the church pushes itself into "fields far outside
its God-ordained jurisdiction" when it participates in "such
fundamentally secular concerns as federal aid to education, civil
rights, urban renewal, the nation's foreign policy, disarmament, higher
minimum wage, forcible union membership, etc."
Pew's position was described in a Christian
Century editorial response as "a segmented world in which
economic, civic, political and ecclesiastical parts are rigidly isolated
from each other and in which the church should address itself only to
things ecclesiastical -- such as man's internal well-being and his post
historical destiny." Instead, the editorial asserted "the
heart of Christianity is not concern for the soul but concern for the
world." It was this Biblical interpretation that motivated the
founders of the Witherspoon Society and continues to shape its agenda.
Holding up this understanding of justice for God's
creation is a primary concern as the General Assembly Council
prioritizes financial and staff support for programming through the
filter of evangelism and discipleship. Looking at the report of that
process is disturbing as many of the most effective justice ministries
and resources were ranked low in importance to the church.
Peacemaking, Self-Development of People, Church
& Society magazine, the Washington Office, Higher Education,
National Volunteers, Interfaith Relations, Theological Education,
Spiritual Formation and Conference Ministries were all given a low
priority for allocation of people, money, and resources. These are
denominational programs the Witherspoon Society considers essential to
the church's proclamation of God's love for the world
According to the minutes of the organizing meeting of
the Witherspoon Society, it began with worship and discussion of the
theological basis for forming the society. It was agreed that such
theological reflections would be shared whenever Witherspooners met. It
can be assumed that each of the independent organizations related to the
church also builds an agenda on Biblical understanding. Why then does
Biblical interpretation become such a stumbling block for dialogue
between the various perceptions about what God would have us do?
It is the Gospels and Jesus' life that most inform and
motivate members of the Witherspoon Society. While attending to the
needs, both spiritual and physical, of individuals who sought his
healing, Jesus confronted the institutions of authority that
marginalized and oppressed whole groups of people. The Witherspoon
Society seeks likewise to be engaged in one-on-one comfort to the
afflicted, but also to confront and oppose institutional injustice. Perpetual
charity is not justice.
The Reformed tradition we inherit from John Calvin is
one of concern for the whole world. Calvin operated on the assumption
that law, politics, economy, trade, health, education, all the aspects
of society came under the purview of God.
In the most recent issue of The Presbyterian
Layman, readers are reminded that one of the objectives of the
Presbyterian Lay Committee is "to encourage individual
Presbyterians to take their place in society and, as led by the Holy
Spirit, become involved in social, economic and political affairs as
Christian citizens." This seems very much like the goals of the
Witherspoon Society. Our organizations differ in how to interpret our
moral responsibility.
Can we be morally responsible personally without also
being morally responsible collectively? Calvin believed we must be both
and that God's gifts to the world are to be available to all, that
economic, political, cultural barriers should not deprive anyone from
access to life's basic necessities. This Reformed understanding of the
demands of being a disciple of Jesus is the basis upon which the
Witherspoon Society determines its agenda on behalf of the church and
our communities. Increasingly, W.S. seeks to strengthen "whole
gospel" congregations, those whose witness exemplifies sharing
God's love and gifts in both word and deed.
-Jane
Hanna
