Second Presbyterian Coalition/Covenant
Network Bible study touches on divorce, women's ordination and biblical
authority
Opposing camps disagree on whether to continue meeting
[3-13-01]
by Eva G. Stimson, Presbyterian News Service
GLEN ELLYN, IL. - 13-March-2001 - After two days of
intense discussions in a church parlor here, 10 Presbyterians from
opposite ends of the theological spectrum packed up their Bibles and
commentaries and headed home - without evidence that anyone's mind had
been changed and without plans for a future meeting.
The March 8-10 meeting, hosted by First Presbyterian
Church in Glen Ellyn, a suburb west of Chicago, continued an experiment
begun in September when the same 10 people sat down together - a bit
hesitantly at first - to dig into the Bible in an open-ended quest for
mutual understanding. The March meeting continued the pattern
established in September: the participants prayed and sang hymns
together, shared several meals, and engaged in wide-ranging
conversations that always seemed to circle back to questions about
biblical authority and interpretation.
The group remained sharply divided on what the Bible
teaches about homosexuality - the issue that prompted their meetings and
loomed in the background of all their discussions. And in the end they
could not reach consensus on whether to meet again.
The Rev. Deborah Block, co-moderator of the Covenant
Network of Presbyterians, a group that supports the ordination of gays
and lesbians, said she would like to continue meeting. The four other
Covenant Network representatives also said they were willing to meet
again. But representatives of the Presbyterian Coalition, a group that
opposes gay ordination, expressed reservations.
"I'm questioning the benefit to the church of
continuing what seems like an interminable discussion," said Terry
Schlossberg, executive director of Presbyterians Pro-Life. "It
might be more fruitful for the church to engage in this discussion in
its deliberative bodies."
Noting that each person present represented a
particular interest group in the church, she suggested the constraints
of "operating in a political environment" might put a damper
on future conversations: "We're people who will be perceived as
betraying constituencies by any change we make in the positions we
hold."
"I understand that," said Block, "but I
feel I would be more faithful to my network by continuing to meet - with
no expectation that you would change your mind, but that I would better
understand your mind."
"We can't ignore who we are and who we
represent," responded the Rev. Parker Williamson, executive editor
of The Presbyterian Layman, an independent publication that
advocates theologically conservative points of view. "I guarantee
the church isn't ignoring it."
Williamson said he couldn't see much evidence that the
two sides had come any closer together theologically as a result of
their discussions. "We've found we can be civil and enjoy each
other's company," he said, "but if anything, I've seen the
lines between our positions become even clearer."
With time running out March 10, Coalition members said
they would make a decision later about whether they wanted to schedule
another meeting.
A model for the church?
Several participants expressed concern that the Glen
Ellyn meetings were being misunderstood by others in the church. They
feared some were interpreting the meetings as negotiating sessions in
which the two parties would try to reach a compromise on issues dividing
the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).
"There's a fear that there's going to be some
sort of negotiation or resolution," said Mitzi Henderson,
co-moderator of More Light Presbyterians, a group that advocates for the
full inclusion of gays and lesbians in the church. "That's not our
intent."
On a more positive note, Block commented: "We
have done the church an immense favor in terms of putting the Scriptures
at the center of our discussion, of modeling that."
Williamson sharply criticized a statement issued by
113 presbytery executives and officers last fall, which urges the
denomination to find a "third way" - a way that is not
legislative or judicial - to resolve debates about sexuality. "I
was troubled by that letter," he said, explaining that he
understood it to support "finding a political solution for a
theological problem."
He said he did not want the Glen Ellyn meetings to be
interpreted in that light. "What we agreed to do was come together
to share God's Word, not to cut a deal or find a political
solution."
But Schlossberg reminded the group: "Each of us
is involved in the politics of the church. When we come together, it's
natural to ask what political motivations we have, what is the hidden
agenda. ... I think we have to examine ourselves on this matter. To
pretend that there's purity of motive - I'm not quite sure that's
getting all our cards on the table."
"We have to remember the context," said the
Rev. Laird Stuart, co-moderator of the Covenant Network, "We're not
just meeting for Bible study. We're meeting for Bible study in the midst
of tremendous struggle."
Stuart said he did not believe the "third
way" proponents were arguing for a political solution. He
understood them to be saying that "The only way we're going to get
through this [stalemate over sexuality issues] is that God would offer
some deliverance."
Divorce and remarriage: how the church changed
its mind
In September participants had decided they wanted to
look at how the church has changed in its interpretations of Scripture
passages dealing with divorce and the ordination of women. Williamson
presented to the group in March a paper on "Marriage, Divorce and
Remarriage." He summarized the process by which the Presbyterian
Church went from a position that allowed divorce only in cases of
physical adultery and "malicious desertion," to an
interpretation of Scripture that recognized the possibility of an
"adultery in the heart" that could lead to divorce.
This interpretation led the church to conclude that
"there is no innocent party" in a divorce, but that
"God's forgiveness in Jesus Christ can apply to marital sin, just
as it applies to sin in other circumstances."
The Rev. Jerry Andrews, pastor of First Presbyterian
Church in Glen Ellyn and co-moderator of the Presbyterian Coalition,
noted that the church changed its policy on divorce in response to a
careful study of Scripture, not because of pressure from the growing
number of divorced people among its members.
"There were some social realities that prompted
the reexamination of divorce," he said, "but it was not social
realities that determined the outcome."
And although the church now allows divorced persons to
remarry, Williamson said, "at no time has the Presbyterian Church
celebrated divorce or ceremonially blessed it."
The ordination of women: a personal story
The Rev. Anita Bell, co-moderator of the Presbyterian
Coalition, walked the group through the process of biblical
interpretation that convinced her 21 years ago that it was God's will
for women to be ordained.
"I was 19 years old, a senior in college, when I
began sensing the first nudgings of the Spirit toward pastoral
ministry," she said. Growing up in conservative congregations, she
"had never seen a woman in ministry."
Bell added, "I never once questioned the position
women had in the church or wondered why men made all the decisions and
exposited from the pulpit."
Some of her evangelical friends urged her to drop the
idea of being ordained. But Bell was determined to seek God's will by
wrestling with the Bible's most difficult passages about women and
leadership.
Several observations led to her conclusion that women
could be ordained: the number of women whose leadership gifts are
celebrated in the Bible; the witness of Jesus, "who raised women
above the position they held in society; light shed on difficult
passages by study of the original Greek text and the historical/cultural
context in which they were written; a "fundamental theology of
equality" of the sexes that permeates Scripture.
Bell said she approached the task of biblical
interpretation with "fear and trembling," aware that as an
ordained woman she might let her biases influence her reading of
passages on women and leadership. "Our temptation is to make the
Scriptures say what we want to hear," she observed. "That's
the struggle we bring every time we go to the text. It's hard for us to
come with open ears."
Biblical authority and interpretation: the
bottom line
The group looked briefly at statements on biblical
authority and interpretation adopted by Presbyterian General Assemblies
in 1982 and 1983. While everyone agreed, as Stuart put it, that
"interpretation is a necessary exercise," Andrews was the only
one to stake out a clear position on biblical authority. He said he
believes the Bible is true in matters of history and science as well as
faith.
"I don't think we ought to make a distinction
between history and faith," he declared. "How can we believe
the Bible got the history wrong but got the faith right?"
But he said he would never apply the word
"inerrant" to a piece of literature, and "would never
characterize the Bible as a book of inerrant facts. ... Having said
that, I don't think I've discovered any errors in the Bible - just parts
that don't seem to fit in yet."
Andrews said he preferred the word
"infallible" to "inerrant," when talking about the
Bible. "Infallible means it will not fail us - in history, science,
or anything it presents."
Stuart reminded the group that "Scripture is
inspired not just in the initial writing, but in its transmission over
the years and the reading and understanding of it."
"The remembered words of Jesus are not eyewitness
news," Block added. "How the Gospel writers remember the words
of Jesus into a story makes a difference in how we interpret it."
Pam Byers, executive director of the Covenant
Network," agreed: "One of the reasons we keep going back to a
book that is 2000 years old is that we keep discovering new
insights."
"Sometimes I experience Scripture being used as a
lamp to illumine us," said Michael Adee, national field organizer
for More Light Presbyterians. "Other times I experience it being
used like a club by those of us who position ourselves as infallible
interpreters of Scripture."
"What I fear most," Henderson said, "is
the belief that there's only one interpretation of Bible passages, and
unless we agree with that we're not Christians."
Bell: "There are two ways to handle difficult
passages. We can dismiss them, or we can ask, What is the lesson
here?"
Stuart: "You don't have to be bound by the
literal specifics of a text - the issue is the message."
Williamson: "If you and I have different
interpretations of Scripture, it's incumbent on us to go to the Word and
engage each other."
Stuart: "If we go through that process and still
disagree, what do we do? There's got to be some way to resolve these
deadlocks about interpretations of Scripture. . . . One alternative is
for one person to say, 'I've got it and you're not there yet, but we'll
wait for you to get there.' Another alternative is to say, 'We're both
not quite there yet, maybe.' "
Bell: "What I struggle with in the church is when
we leave Scripture behind and use other means that aren't authoritative
for us."
Block: "When Pilate asked Jesus, 'What is truth?'
the great error of his question was assuming truth was a what and not a
who. I believe I stand under Scripture, but more importantly, I stand
under the Lordship of Christ."
Stalemate on sexuality issues
Williamson's paper on divorce ended with a section
refuting arguments in favor of same-sex unions. But Covenant Network
representatives said they did not want to discuss issues related to
homosexuality until after a thorough examination of women's ordination
and principles of biblical interpretation.
On the last morning Adee and Henderson said they would
welcome a study of the biblical passages related to homosexuality. This
prompted Williamson to direct a barbed comment to Henderson: "I
don't think you stand under Scripture. I think you make judgments about
Scripture."
Visibly shaken, Adee reponded: "I think you just
crossed a line, Parker, and I'm terribly disappointed in you."
After a moment of strained silence, Schlossberg said
she did not believe a discussion of the Bible and homosexuality would
produce any fresh insights. "I have a very difficult time imagining
that some new nuance of Scripture will emerge that has not already
emerged."
Can the church stay together?
The Rev. Bill Giles, executive director of the
Presbyterian Coalition, observed that Presbyterians are deeply divided
about sexuality issues. "Each side says they're standing under
Scripture and are not willing to back down or compromise. ... As we're
constantly tugging at each other, we're tearing the church apart. ... Is
it not possible that the will of Christ for the church today is an
amicable separation or divorce?"
Bell: "There's no such thing as an amicable
divorce."
Giles: "Certainly it's a sin to divide the body
of Christ, but there are times when an amputation has to take place for
the good of the body." [Click
here for a comment.]
Williamson pointed out that around the time of the
Council of Nicaea the church fought for 56 years over the issue of the
divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ. "I guess I'm really
thankful," he said, "that the faithful hung in there and that
the truth prevailed."
Henderson: "A lot of people in the church don't
feel called by God to make a choice on this issue. By splitting we would
force them to choose between two sides."
Adee: "It's important to ask, 'Where is the
church?' Lots of people at the local level don't care as much as we do
about these divisive issues, and they're out there doing mission. I
think the body of Christ is much more durable than we imagine."
