Confess what?

What should we really be confessing?

by Jane Hanna, President of the Witherspoon Society

Written for the Spring 2001 issue of Network News, and published here on 5-11-01

Living in uncertain times

Anxiety about the unknown future seems to be a universal human trait. We often feel more threatened by unpredictable crises than our ancestors, since life is more complex than during most of human history. Changes are rapid and global as the speed of scientific and technological information accelerates. We are deluged with more information in a month than people in the past were exposed to in a lifetime.

Our ability to adjust to rapid change is challenged because we've been given little time to evolve the necessary capacity to adapt to world events that are different from one year to the next. We are faced with increasingly complex systems that are difficult to understand and manage. Moral and ethical solutions are required for situations and developments humans have not encountered in the past.

We are given ways for tapping into that which sustains us, illuminates our understanding, and assures us of God's continuous love and care. To find our guides it is sometimes tempting to establish boundaries of belief, to find answers in a Bible that shelters us from all the confusion that surrounds us. Ambiguity is difficult. Clear-cut statements about what to believe, without room for inquiry or uncertainty, become a "safety net."

The Confessing Church movement

That may be why some congregations are joining a Confessing Church Movement described in a special report from the Presbyterian Layman. Judging from what has been written about it, some sessions in the denomination are so upset by differences in Biblical and confessional interpretation that it has become necessary for them to define precisely what all should believe. The insistence that every Presbyterian accept this definition of the basic tenets of our faith is a problem. If it helps congregations deal with "different understandings of theology that have been aggravating them," so be it. Just don't expect every Presbyterian to accept this narrow view as the extent of "truth" as revealed in Scripture and the Confessions. Were knowing the "truth" so simple, there would not be thousands of notions around the world about what "truth" is.

God is so immense that it takes all the human family even to begin comprehending the nature and intent of God. Jesus enlightens us about the nature and will of God, but we each understand that in different ways. Since God did not make us carbon copies of one another, that would seem to be God's intent. God did not make a "one size fits all" universe. The immensity and diversity of God's creation, visible for all to contemplate and celebrate, is further hint of God's delight in variety.

The dangers of simplification and distortion

Confining the essentials of Presbyterian belief to three tenets is simplistic and inadequate. They are not in agreement with The Historic Presbyterian Principles. That some Presbyterians may think them essential to our faith is one thing, but to ask for church employees to sign a "loyalty oath" in agreement with them is hardly Presbyterian. G-1.0305 states "we also believe that there are truths and forms with respect to which men of good character and principles may differ."

There is a legalism about the "Confessing Church Movement," which stands in sharp contrast to Jesus' way of teaching that demonstrated truth rather than imposing it. Jesus opposed the ecclesiastical hierarchy of his day and rebuked the Pharisees for following the letter of the law rather than its spirit. According to the Layman report, Dr. Mark Achtemeier goes so far as to call for an "authoritative teaching office." I was taught that the Reformers discarded that idea, allowing the freedom of conscience that God gives us freely.

The most disturbing element in the Layman's justification for the Confessing Movement is the manner in which Presbyterians who do not share this theological view are portrayed. The Layman consistently caricatures in false and derogatory ways people and organizations with which it disagrees, then attacks its perception of these groups. It is difficult to respect a "straw man" technique or the consistently negative tone of Layman publications. Congregations are encouraged to withhold per capita funding, while perceived opponents are accused of being responsible for the loss of income and members.

Women who do not conform to its image are labeled "radical feminists," whose theology the Layman defines and then attacks. The reality is quite different. It is these same women, their ancestors and the Presbyterian Women's groups to which they've belonged, who have consistently supported the mission of the church. Presbyterian women have never withdrawn their financial support from the church, even when they were not permitted to be ordained as elders, deacons or pastors. It was women in the East who financed the founding pastor of the church to which I belong in Santa Fe. It was the women's groups that supported the 40 schools in the small rural villages of Northern New Mexico. The Women's Opportunity Giving continues supporting the church in generous measure. Voices of Sophia is a continuation of that tradition with a mission inclusive of all people.

Jesus made some rather strong statements about falsely accusing others and about judging and condemning others (Matt. 7:1-5, Luke 6:37-41). He is critical of those who see the speck in another's eye, but pay no attention to the log in their own. The method used by the Layman to discredit fellow church members appears to be an unrighteous contradiction of Jesus' reprimands.

An authentic confessing church works for justice

The preaching, teaching and healing of Jesus are our clues to God's nature and intent for humanity. Love for one another because God loves us is the message woven throughout the Gospels. Jesus included all within the circle of his concern, even those declared unclean and sinful by the religious authorities of his time. The most important tenet of the church, it would seem, is that we love one another as both Testaments declare to be God's intent for our lives.

Jesus' parables were critical of the oppressive system under which people were living. He admonished the rich, warning that greed and excessive wealth were sinful. Jesus preached God's liberating word, resisting the systemic power and injustice of his day. They are many parallels today to the abuses of power Jesus spoke against.

To be a "confessional church," one opposing the "cultural accommodation" of our day, would require resistance to many things that are often accepted without question. The growing gap between the extremely wealthy and the masses of poor in the world must certainly be an affront to God. Our congregations find it easy to respond with charity to hunger, homelessness, and disease, and too rarely do they confront systemic injustice. Should we not confess our failure to question an economic system that excludes millions of people from access to the most basic of life's needs, to the very resources God gave to the world and meant for all to share?

The population of the United States comprises less than five percent of the world's people. We use about 25 percent of the world's resources, often inflicting unspeakable harm on people in other lands to obtain them. Our indifference to the destruction of the environment and misery of people left in the wake should be confessed. These policies may well deprive future generations of a livable planet. Surely, God does not bless our complicity and silence around these issues.

The only way we have in a democracy for addressing inequities and supporting the well being of people is through our political system. Yet when the church takes responsibility for doing so, there is a strident cry against religions getting involved in political, economic, and social issues. A presbytery has even written an overture to eliminate or weaken the ministries of the social justice agencies of our church. Is our faith meant just for us to save our own souls, while we ignore the social evils oppressing people? Isn't it wrong to go along with national policies that spend more on aggressive weapons for war than on the health and well being of people? When a family behaves this way it is considered dysfunctional. What about our church?

What could be more essential to the well being of others than for the church to support decisions that affect people's lives? Our Stated Clerk recently joined the National Council of Churches opposition to a tax-cut proposal that is "too large" and "too inequitable." Yet the Layman came down harshly on his participation in that act. How can a tax cut for the wealthy be supported when there are so many of our citizens suffering hunger, homelessness, and inadequate health care?

Those of us who claim to follow Jesus should be insisting that every working person be paid a living wage. Why should anyone's labor provide less than the most basic necessities for healthy survival? God created a world of bounty for all, but when some of us take more than our share, others are deprived of life-giving sustenance. The most important issues that affect communities are made politically, so how can it be heretical for the church to be deeply involved in political and social decisions? Our confessions for the sins of omission may be a more truthful witness than all the pious words we claim as the essentials of our faith.

Jane Hanna

One conservative views Hanna's essay as Marxist, not Christian

Jane Hanna's recent essay on "What should we really be confessing?" seems to have attracted some attention from friends on the Right side of the Presbyterian Church. Kenneth W. Boyer Jr., an elder in Pittsburgh, PA, has sent a lengthy comment which concludes that she and other progressives are living for an anti-Christian "dream of a comfortable, global, religious Marxism."

[posted here on 5-17-01]