http://www.miamipresbytery.org/pdf/council/Witnessing-to-Christ-Church.pdf
Here is the statement itself, minus the rationale:
Witnessing to Christ’s Church:
Our Continuing Controversy over Ordination Standards
Introduction
Despite the overture’s defeat at General Assembly, our presbytery’s action underscored our desire to seek a better way, and by doing so, offered us the opportunity to witness to the whole church by voluntarily living into the proposals of the overture.
Fast and Forbearance
I therefore, a prisoner in the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all.
Ephesians 4:1-5, NRSV
Guided by scripture, we:
• Humbly acknowledge that division within the church obscures our witness to Jesus Christ.
• Humbly acknowledge that, regarding the controversy over ordination standards, the Lord has not blessed the church with a unity of conscience, that the church is likely to have a large minority on this issue for the foreseeable future (no matter which side is in majority), and that the church’s wrangling has unintentionally drawn us away from behavior readily identifiable as Christ-minded.
• Urge all members and officers to undertake a seven-year fast, abstaining from all legislative efforts to resolve the ordination standards controversy, AND to wait actively upon the Lord by pursuing untried strategies to resolve the controversy, especially strategies of humility, gentleness, patience and forbearance.
• Urging all officers (deacons, elders, and ministers of the Word and sacrament) to study Ephesians 4 and to apply it with specific voluntary efforts which draw us nearer to behavior readily identifiable as Christ-like.
• Urging all officers in the majority (those in favor of G-6.0106b and opposing gay ordination) to approach Presbyterians in the minority with efforts to encourage healing, respect, trust, and transformation.
• Urging all officers in the minority (those opposed to G-6.0106b and favoring gay ordination) to approach Presbyterians in the majority with efforts to encourage healing, respect, trust, and transformation.
We seek an even-handed, compassionate way to those on each side of the controversy, asking neither to sacrifice their conscientious convictions and asking each to extend forbearance voluntarily to the other. In this way we hope the church may rise to the Apostle’s call to “make every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."
[end of quote]
When I first read this, it blew me away! I think our sisters and brothers on the other side of the state might be on to something here. I urge you to download and read the whole document, including the rationale. What would happen if we didn't vote but instead listened to God and to each other?
Please respond and let me know what you think.
Just a note before I start reading, the link posted is broken. What worked for me as an address is:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.miamipresbytery.org/pdf/council/Witnessing-to-Christ-Church.pdf
Thanks, Doug! I'll fix it in the original post.
ReplyDeleteI read the whole proposal last night, and my response hasn't changed much from when I first heard of it. I think that I like the spirit of the proposal, but the problem for me is that the forbearance is not mutual as presented. That is, the majority gets more than it would get otherwise (maintain the status-quo *and* a guarantee of no more votes for 7 years) while the minority gives up a great deal (colleagues and parishioners, etc., who will have no hope whatsoever of being ordained for at least 7 more years, which is a long time).
ReplyDeleteWhat this is is a call for a great deal of humility and forbearance from the minority, and I just don't think that is appropriate. It is the kind of forbearance that Barth warns against - forbearance that one asks of another.
True forbearance would require a neutral position. I still think that Amendment 10A is much closer to a neutral position. Presbyteries each decide how to apply the standards of the Confessions and Scripture on what is not a core theological issue in the Reformed faith. In conservative Presbyteries, mutual forbearance would mean that the pro-inclusion group would have to forbear in the midst of not being ordained, since 10A does not raise LGBTQ ordination to the level of ordaining women (that is, Confessional status). They would have to show humility and honor the decisions of a majority of their peers in that Presbytery
In liberal Presbyteries, the anti-inclusion group would have to forbear watching people be ordained that they might not agree with - they would have to show humility and honor the decisions of a majority of their peers in that Presbytery.
Say, for example, we passed 10A on a limited, 7-year basis. At the end of those 7 years, we would be able to know much better what the impact would be on the denomination, and possibly make a much wiser decision. Would it rain frogs? Would there be rejoicing in the streets? Or, most likely by far, would our ministry and witness continue much as it does now, only with a few dozen more ministers and a few hundred more Elders and Deacons on the rolls? Granted, a number of people will not like these ministers, Elders and Deacons - which would call for forbearance on both sides, since it is not pleasant to be disliked and looked down upon (ask any female minister who has worked ecumenically with a denomination that doesn't ordain women), nor is it pleasant to see something happen that you disagree with.
If nothing else, after 7 years of trying out a new way, both sides would have much more solid things to say about why we should or should not become inclusive.
As it stands, the end result of this proposal is that the slim majority gets a full reprieve, and the large minority loses all hope of change for 7 years, which seems to be to be a long time.
So while I appreciate the spirit of the proposal, and agree that everyone involved in this decision should be praying and fasting and seeking God's wisdom, I can't support it because it would have a very unequal effect in it's application. The forbearance would be anything but mutual, in my view.
I think you're right, Doug, that the proposal asks more of your side than of mine. And I have to admit that it makes me a little uneasy. Forbearance does need to be mutual.
ReplyDeleteWhile I wasn't a big fan of the PUP report, I marvel at how that diverse and disparate group came together despite their differences. They proposed a forbearance and fasting similar to the Miami Valley proposal. It's like they joined in with John Lennon in singing "All we are saying is give peace a chance." But we haven't done that. Overtures are still flying back and forth. The rationale points out that even if your side were to prevail, it would mean merely the replacement of one slim majority with another, and one large minority with another. This is tearing the church apart.
If this issue is a justice issue for you, then you have no choice but to proceed aggressively. Justice delayed is justice denied. People like me are the slave owners of our time, and are akin to Lester Maddox, who kept blacks out of his store with an axe handle (and was elected governor of Georgia because of it). If we won't repent, people like me must be disciplined and expelled. The demands of justice seem at odds with forbearance.
I strongly disagree with the last paragraph, that justice must be sought aggressively and so on. I'll be preaching just the opposite tomorrow, in fact, looking at Isaiah 42:1-4, and how Jesus goes about pursuing justice without even raising his voice or breaking a bruised reed - images of profound gentleness.
ReplyDeleteNot aggressively but relentlessly, though? Yes, for any issue of justice. But there are degrees when it comes to these issues. "People like me are the slave owners of our time" - I hope you know I totally disagree with that. Chattel slavery in the New World was a horror that stands above many human horrors, worse by far than the slavery described in the Bible for example. Also, unless you drive LGBTQ folks out of your church with an axe-handle, the second comparison also doesn't stand up for me at all.
You're comparing clearly violent, abusive and reprehensible behavior to what I see as the honest disagreement of primarily intelligent, well-meaning people on a non-essential issue.
It matters how we go about this. It matters very much that we are fighting with words and overtures and Robert's Rules. In the past, far smaller Church issues were resolved with violent attempts at eradication, or torture. It is immensely important to me, a triumph in fact, that we are not doing that now.
This is a justice issue for me, no question. Justice delayed is most certainly justice denied. But all means of going about doing justice are far from equal.
It's hard to come up with a good comparison to the race issue, though homosexuality is closer to race than it is to a "lifestyle". I think the best comparison is to women's ordination - same issues dealing with scripture, similar arguments around capacity (though for women, not necessarily moral capacity) for ministry, etc. But even then, this debate is it's own animal in my view.
I honestly don't know how to address this issue without the church tearing itself apart in the way it is now. I personally think that a local-option solution is by far the most fair and mutually-forbearing one. Presbyteries that did not want to ordain LGBTQ folks (like MVP for example) would not, and they would presumably not vote to approve them for congregations in their Presbytery. They could also censor, etc., churches that ordained LGBTQ Elders in their Presbytery. This would not solve the issues behind the LGBTQ question, but it is the most 'mutual' one I can think of.