GA commissioners had the opportunity Saturday morning to talk about several significant issues facing the church during the Riverside Conversations. The six topics were:
◗ Equipping the Church for Ministry with God's Diverse Family
◗ Reports from the Stated Clerk and Executive Director of the General Assembly Mission Council
◗ Confessional Statements
◗ The proposed new Form of Government
◗ The Middle East Study Committee Report
◗ The Special Committee on Civil Unions and Christian Marriage Task Force Report
We were able to attend two sessions and I sat in on the conversations about the proposed new Form of Government, which is important to our future as a vibrant denomination, and the Special Committee on Civil Unions and Christian Marriage Task Force Report, which is of particular interest to my congregation.
Here's what I heard and some thoughts.
New Form of Government
Form vs. function. Describes the house we live in, but doesn't determine how we arrange the furniture.
The committee describes the proposed new Form of Government this way: The mission of the Church is to participate in God's mission in Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. Polity is the architecture for mission. It specifies the dimensions of our theological foundation, the height of our ecclesiastical rafters and the pitch of the covenantal roof over all of our heads. What furniture occupies the rooms or what pictures hang on the walls is left to the discretion of those who will live in the house and make it a home. The discussion then is about one of form vs. function. We will have a constitution that describes who we are (form) or one that prescribes what we do (function).
The proposed new Form of Government is an architecture for mission that preserves standards for the whole church, provides flexibility to meet those standards in context, and connects what we believe about the church with how we live together as the church. It connects our beliefs with our actions.
It was noted during the discussion that since the 1983 union to form the PCUSA, the Book of Order has been amended 300 times. For those of us living in the state of Alabama, that is something to think about. The Alabama Constitution has been amended more than 900 times.
The discussion that ensued seem to encapsulate the concerns over the increased flexibility that would be vested in the new Form of Government and what controls or accountability would be in place. That in fact is what the task force was charged with: maximizing flexibility for sessions, presbyteries and synods in doing God's work while being accountable to the standards of the PCUSA. As one task force member, James Kim, said: The church, due to one or two bad cases, made rules for the entire church. His response was how can we have a Form of Government that models health rather than preventing disease.
It becomes an issue of trust, which the denomination is struggling with due to its divisiveness over several issues. This explanation of accountability by one of the task force members seems to me to be an appropriate one: We are accountable to one another by how we use the polity of our church. How can we trust one another and be accountable to one another so that we can construct a church that is vibrant and missional? Our polity is to further mission. An ethos shift from exceptions to acceptance.
My sense of the proposed new Form of Government is that it will allow the councils or governing bodies of the church (sessions, presbyteries, synods) to be adaptive to their specific needs while ensuring that they are accountable to the theological standards of our denomination.
The task force was charged with maximizing flexibility, One area is interim or associate pastors being able to succeed to installed pastor. The church due to one or two bad cases made rules for the entire church. What are healthy churches doing, what are healthy congregations doing. Allow flexibility for grooming our own leadership. No blanket statements. How can we model health than preventing disease (James Kim, minister member of task force),
Walking the dog on a leash vs. walking your dog within the parameter of an electronic fence. Keeping it between the hedges (football analogy). The hedges define the boundaries, but the game is played on the field within the hedges. How far do we let the leash go?
We are accountable to one another about how we use the polity of our church. How can we trust one another and be accountable to one another so that we can construct a church that is vibrant and missional? Our polity is to further mission. An ethos shift from exceptions to acceptance.
Civil Union and Christian Marriage
The committee's mandate was to study the history of the laws governing marriage and civil union, including current policy debates; how the theology and practice of marriage have developed in the Reformed and broader Christian tradition; the relationship between civil union and Christian marriage; the effects of current laws on same-gender partners and their children; and the place of covenanted same-gender partnerships in the Christian community. The committee was expressly prescribed to operate within the constitutional definition of marriage, which is between a man and a woman.
This is an issue that clearly is divisive within the denomination, and the discussion during the question and answer period demonstrated that. The committee didn't reach the same conclusion on all issues. A minority report is being offered that goes further than the majority report, affirming the traditional view of marriage. It's perspective is that marriage is the image of God's relationship with God's people.
The committee didn't set out to find a solution. It wanted to be descriptive rather than prescriptive.
Much of the discussion was about what Scripture says about marriage and the interpretation of Scripture. As one committee member noted, our core Presbyterian struggle is how we use and interpret Scripture. Do we take literally what Scripture says about marriage, or marriage (and infidelity) as metaphor for God's relationship to God's people and for our relationship to each other?
What the full committee ultimately determined was that we've got to find a new way to talk. We need to be able to declare our positions in such a way that the conversation doesn't shut down. Moral pride needs to be repented, that pride that declares "I'm right and you're wrong and you're going to Hell because you are wrong."
Here is the covenantal commitment that arose from the committee's work: Jesus Christ is strong enough to hold us together. A great witness that we pray for one another, love one another, even when we don't agree. Let's grant that both sides are both being faithful and that we talk about the lenses that we use to reach the position we hold. Let's not be afraid to have the conversation.
But this question still remains: What is the place of same-gender partnership within the Christian community?
No comments:
Post a Comment