Witherspoon comment

Witherspoon board expresses concern about the Moderator's proposal for a study commission

[5-28-01]

We must express our regret that Moderator Syngman Rhee has publicly endorsed the substance of an overture coming before the 213th General Assembly. To make such endorsements is not the function of the elected leadership of the church, and appears to minimize the possibility for the working of the Spirit in the Assembly itself.

The Moderator's proposals are very similar to those contained in the overture from the Presbytery of John Calvin (01-33), which calls for the appointment of a "theological commission" to study "the present spiritual condition of our church and the causes of unrest" and report to the 217th General Assembly in 2005; in the meantime, all governing bodies would be urged to take no action on G-6.0106b, or on the authority of sessions and presbyteries in matters of ordination, and that no judicial cases be filed during this time.

While we can understand the feeling of many in the church to avoid another divisive vote in the presbyteries on issues related to sexuality, and their hope that unity might be found through prayer and mutual discussion, we must respectfully disagree with them.

First, the adoption of such a measure would lead to more of the same delay that we have seen before. During the study period urged by the General Assembly between 1993 and 1996, only 5 percent of congregations actually conducted any study. A so-called "moratorium" between 1998 and 2001 was declared with the expectation that there would be productive discussion in the presbyteries and in other ways. While there was indeed some dialogue, many presbyteries did nothing to promote it. (We do not yet have reports on this round of discussion.) Even where dialogue occurred it often involved "the usual suspects," people whose commitment to dialogue had already been manifested in other ways.

Second, the very idea of a "theological commission" is open to serious question. A commission is given delegated authority, which seems unrealistic in the present case, and certainly excessive. The Reformed churches have thought of all ministers as "teaching elders," who are responsible for doctrinal reflection on a week-by-week basis in encounter with the real needs of a Christian people. Several years ago the General Assembly rejected a suggestion that the Book of Order be amended to create a "theological advisory commission" with formal advisory capacities. To many, the very idea of such a commission smacks of elitism. To others, it is suspiciously close to the Roman Catholic "magisterium," whose watchdog is the Holy Office.

Third, the rationale for the John Calvin overture cites the precedent of the 1925 General Assembly, which, at a time of similar controversy over ordination standards, "necessary and essential articles," and the authority of governing bodies, appointed a commission of fifteen to "study the present spiritual condition of our church and the causes making for unrest." It is always useful to explore the past for useful precedents. At the same time it is important not to find false similarities or to expect a similar outcome. One difference, in the view of some commentators (including the editor of Presbyterian Outlook), is the decreased willingness of the church to follow the suggestions of a commission, no matter how wise its members, its deliberations, and its final recommendations may be.

Fourth, the success of such a project would seem to necessitate a moratorium not only on judicial cases but on public agitation and diatribes by partisan groups. It is questionable whether either of these hopes is realistic. Of course such a "moratorium" could not be required or enforced, and the language of Overture 01-33 is that the Assembly would "earnestly entreat (the governing bodies) to take no action ..." The General Assembly cannot prevent those who feel aggrieved from filing judicial cases, nor can it forbid others from efforts to change the church's current position, when they believe in conscience that it is erroneous. Both sides will resent anything that looks like a "gag rule." Even more disturbing, the overture does not even mention the threats of some in the church to withhold funds from the General Assembly budget and eventually to leave the church if they do not get their way. Threats like this will not go away during a four-year period; if anything, they will only increase as a new deadline draws nearer.

Finally, before undertaking a project like the one proposed it is important to "sit down and take counsel" (Lk. 14:31), asking what its goals are and whether these can be achieved. What, indeed, is the intended outcome? Is it further delay in dealing with controversial questions? Or is it a recommendation that our doctrinal and disciplinary standards be strictly enforced? Some might hope for a determination of "essential doctrines." Others may hope for some way of affirming the unity we already have in the midst of our diversity.

For all of these reasons we must urge the General Assembly not to adopt the John Calvin overture. We continue to advocate the removal of G-6.0106b from the Book of Order. The overture from the Presbytery of New York, which calls for a new definitive guidance by the General Assembly and the removal of Amendment B by vote of the presbyteries, would give us a clean slate for genuine dialogue. Adoption of the New York overture would not bind any person or session or presbytery to do anything with respect to ordination, thus giving full respect to conscience.

Certainly it is good to engage in prayer, study, and dialogue, seeking the mind of Christ. But the work of a study commission should be undertaken along with, not instead of, action on Amendment B. If, after prayerful discussion, the Assembly should decide that some kind of commission ought to be appointed, the nature of its work must be carefully spelled out.

If a study committee is established, what might help make it successful? A few thoughts from Witherspoon.

The Presbyterian Forum agrees with Witherspoon?!? [5-31-01]

On their "update" web page, the Presbyterian Forum, which was founded in 1997 with the goal of achieving political change (toward the Right) in and through the Presbyterian Church, announces that "The Witherspoon Society Is Right."

We'd like to hear what you think!! Please send a note, and we'll share it here unless you tell us otherwise. (We'd appreciate it if you could identify yourself in some way, too.)