Reflections on the faithful pursuit of discussion within the church – and generating the willingness to do so.
An open letter has generated equal parts curiosity and consternation within the Presbyterian Church in Canada over the past couple of months. Its appearing was a peculiar phenomenon, dropping as it did into the public sphere unsigned and on an anonymous website in the middle of summer – as if out of the ether. Apparently no one wanted to accept or claim responsibility for establishing the website or drafting the letter.
The only indication as to who had written the letter was a statement on the website which said it was composed by ministers, elders, members and adherents of the PCC. Who are they? Why did they not want to accept responsibility for the website? Why not take credit for drafting the letter? ‘Transparent’ and ‘open’ are not the adjectives I would use to describe this approach to theological exploration, discussion and debate within the church.
We are now well into September, and at this point a good number of members, elders, and ministers of the Presbyterian Church in Canada have apparently decided to sign this open letter. Though again, we cannot know whether all signatures have been posted or, for example, whether the names or comments of those who oppose the content and method of this appeal have been ignored. By definition there is no transparency or church oversight in the context of anonymous action.
The letter that fell from the sky, you may know, is a call for inclusion. It is a letter suggesting that the Presbyterian Church in Canada has excluded and marginalized and acted unjustly toward those who are lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender, or queer (LGBTQ). It calls for a change in the life and law of the PCC so that all who fall under this umbrella of identities may experience a full welcome in every dimension of congregational and denominational life.
Having reflected on this peculiar unfolding of events, particularly the procedural approach of the nameless initiators, my view is that all of this is far from innocent. In fact, I’ve come rather wearyingly to the conclusion that those who have penned this letter and launched this website (assuming ministers and elders are among them) have come very close to denying their ordination vows. Namely, the promise not to pursue a divisive course and the promise to submit to all lawful oversight.
Perhaps the unidentified drafters of the letter and creators of the website wonder, themselves, whether they are acting in contravention of their ordination vows. Is this part of the reason they have remained anonymous? Anonymous or not, however, their actions approach just such a contravention, for several overlapping reasons.
First and foremost, this is simply not the way that the Presbyterian Church in Canada has ever explored significant theological, ethical, or pastoral questions – or how it moves forward with proposals for change. Public or social media campaigns (particularly anonymous ones) outside of the normal channels of conversation and discussion in congregations, presbyteries, synods and general assemblies are highly unusual. In my years within the denomination, agitation for change outside of the context of church courts is unheard of – it seems contrary to the very identity of the church.
In this same vein, one has to ask why the anonymous creators of the website and anonymous drafters of the open letter didn’t do the obvious – namely, begin and continue the conversation within their respective sessions and presbyteries, with a view to drawing ministers and elders together locally for considered reflection and study and even argument. Rather, with this letter they appear to have taken a page from the playbook of the ideologically driven activists of contemporary culture (and from the playbook of the public relations firms) aiming instead for change by generating perceptions of momentum and by attempting to shame those whom they would label as insufficiently open and hospitable.
It is when the above procedural choices are tied to the substance of the letter that it becomes evident that their actions are divisive. The substance of this campaign is one that can only divide – this is because these anonymous Presbyterians have generated a framework that is defined by this attitude: “Either you’re with us or you’re against us.”
George W. Bush would be so proud!
This content of the open letter, and its invitation to sign, implies the following: “If you cannot sign this letter, then you are against Christ and his kingdom. If you have any hesitations about signing this letter, then you must be opposed to genuine hospitality and opposed to the justice of Christ.”
Good or evil.
Just or unjust.
Those who can sign the letter, and those who can’t. No middle ground.
For those who have written this letter there appears to be no imagining that others in the church, with different or more nuanced positions, could be interested in compassion and hospitality and justice. The letter implies: Either you throw the door wide for a total welcome (with no extensive explanation of what that means, mind you!) or you are, by definition, slamming the door on the marginalized and on Christ himself.
Dualisms are so easy, which is of course why we fall into them so quickly. Division is so easy, which is why these anonymous individuals have fallen into it. In an effort to generate support for their point of view and for the action they wish the church to take, they have taken a page from the culture warriors of the wider society, implying that anyone who opposes their point of view cannot possibly stand with Christ. I’m reminded of the “Christ faction” in the Corinthian Church, presumably made up of those who were quite convinced their sisters and brothers couldn’t really belong to Christ.
Some might protest in reply to what I’ve said, arguing that the open letter only suggests that the church “reconsider” the issue – that the letter is offered with a plaintive “We haven’t reached any conclusions.” But of course the use of the word “reconsider” is disingenuous, since the drafters appear not to be interested in a wide and careful conversation, at least as such conversations normally happen in the denomination. The letter can only be read as saying that the reconsideration has already happened, and that the only possible conclusion has already been reached.
That this is so (that the “invitation to reconsider” is disingenuous) becomes clear when one realizes that the anonymous group that drafted this letter is almost certainly the same group that wrote the overture that recently came before the Presbytery of East Toronto. The fact that the same group worked on both seems obvious, based both on the similarity of the language and the “strategic timing.”
And the overture from East Toronto is NOT an invitation for the church to have a meaningful or open conversation – it is NOT an invitation for the wide church to reconsider. Rather, the overture asks the 141st General Assembly to simply declare (as if by fiat – contrary, I would point out, to what a General Assembly is competent to do) the church’s change of mind, its expression of regret, and its new mode of hospitality. That is, the anonymous drafters of the letter, who are also the writers of the East Toronto overture, are not interested in the wider church discussing this question. They think the discussion is already over.
Of course the whole purpose behind shared conversation within the context of the church and its courts is its capacity to draw people together in Christ, rather than to label them and drive them apart. But the letter/overture writers don’t invite a conversation – rather, they demand that the church now stand where they stand: “General Assembly, make it so!”
Please do not misunderstand (whether intentionally or unintentionally) what I am saying.
I am not saying that this conversation cannot or should not happen.
I am not saying the church has nothing for which it must repent.
I am not saying that there is one right answer and we already know what that answer is.
I am not saying that those who anonymously launched this letter have betrayed their ordination vows simply by suggesting the church has gotten things wrong pastorally and theologically and ethically.
I am saying that the procedure adopted by these anonymous individuals, through the coordinated website, open letter, and overture, is divisive and disingenuous, and also disrespectful of the oversight of the courts of the church. It can only serve to drive people apart, rather than together for conversation and prayer and deliberation.
The basic point, here, is that the position they articulate, and ask General Assembly simply to affirm, is not one that the wider church has arrived at through referral to committee, study and report, or the Barrier Act. Within the PCC there has not been any recent theological or cultural analysis, no recent exploration of scriptural questions, no recent study of the pastoral issues at stake, and no recent consideration of the implications of our confessional and ecclesial heritage for such questions. Such processes and study are, of course, basic to Presbyterian community and conversation. They may be difficult, but you cannot simply leave them aside.
To summarize, here is what I hear the anonymous drafters of the letter/overture saying:
- It is appropriate to generate opposition between Presbyterians – “either you are with us or against us” – outside the church’s formal structures.
- If you claim to understand the challenges of hospitality, and if you think you understand the significant pastoral and theological issues at stake around these questions, and if you are interested in exploring nuanced approaches that represent anything less than a complete throwing open of the doors, your day is over. Jesus isn’t interested.
- The time for the conversation we haven’t had, is over!
- Anonymous action, which places elders and ministers outside of the oversight of sessions and presbyteries, is entirely acceptable.
I hope the anonymous creators of the website, and drafters of the letter, will have the courage to take responsibility for their actions. Even more, I hope that they will seriously reconsider their actions.
And (P.S.) I’m not asking anyone to sign this blog post.
_____
Post edited on September 22nd, 6:30 p.m.
