Can We Stand In The Middle?
January 7th, 2009 · Posted in Christianity, Church Polity, Practical Christianity, Practical Ministry · 2 Comments Bruce Reyes – Chow – Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, USA — poses a question about finding a “middle way” in the theological debates around homosexuality, ordination, and the issues around such things on his blog yesterday.
He states that he does not feel we can ever “agree to disagree” on these issues — but he asks if we can ever find a “middle way”:
I guess the big question is, when it comes to the pressing and crucial theological questions of the day especially around issues of homosexuality, “Is there a middle way?” Is there a “healed” place where two sides can meet and find common approaches to theology and institutional life? What does a movement towards this look like? Does one side have to give into the other becoming winners and losers? Does one side have to simply swallow an interpretation and live with it in faithful disagreement? Do we have to make some kind of “final decision” as a signal towards gracious separation? Does someone simply have to decide to leave this part of the family? Are these not even the right questions?
As much as I would like to think that there could be a “common voice” in the church on these issues, I am not sure that there can be. I do feel, however, that there are so many other issues to address that are more important in God’s eyes — such as poverty, hunger, violence, and reaching out to those who do not know Christ. The more time and energy we spend arguing about ordination and homosexuality, the less time we spend on these more important issues.
While there may not be a “middle way”, there should be a way to work for God’s will in the world — regardless of how we feel about other issues.
You can read Bruce’s post here.
What do you think?
January 7th, 2009 at 11:11 am
Bill,
I have consistently voted in the past to honor the historic Presbyerian precedent of letting the appropriate governing body (Sessions for Elders, Presbyteries for Ministers)discern the will of God through the Holy Spirit as to whom God is calling to ordained service. This means I find “Amdendment b” an un-Presbyterian abberation I wish would go away. Having said that, I believe the Peace, Unity, and Purity Task Force was the most important Christian endeavor undertaken by the denomination in my 26 years of ministry. I chafed under it’s slow, deliberate process, but I was truly moved by the testimonies from committee members from both ends of the theological spectrum when they made their final report. I believe that their work and their report is clearly a product of God’s Holy Spirit. This is what makes me regret the actions of our recent General Assembly calling for a vote on Amendment b at this time. This is not a time to push for an answer. This is not the time to designate “winners” and “losers.” To do so would be to dishonor the work of the Peace, Unity and Purity task force. Therefore, I plan to promote the idea of “no vote” in my presbytery. This will, of course, mean that we will be stuck with the odious amendment b awhile longer. I regret that. But that’s what I think is best for Christ’s church.
January 7th, 2009 at 11:27 am
David — Like you, I have always felt that Sessions and Presbyteries should have the final word on ordination — or discerning who God calls to minister / elder. However, I have also felt that we need some guidelines. That being said, I am not sure if Amendment B is not too restrictive. I like your point about needing to be open to God’s call.
As I said in my post, my fear is that continuing the debate only keeps us from doing what is really important — and is a bad witness.
Thanks for your comments!