Walk, Stand or Divide? by J. William Giles Executive Coordinator, Presbyterian Coalition November 2000 It does not come as news to most Presbyterians that the PCUSA is a house divided. There is nothing particularly unusual about that in a denomination that touts diversity and inclusiveness among its hallmarks. We might even expect such in our denomination. Historians point out that we American Presbyterians have suffered a number of internal disputes, and even schisms, in our almost 300-year history. They document such schisms as the Old Side-New Side (1741-58) and Old School-New School (1837-69) and subsequent withdrawal of the Southern constituency. It is to the Church’s credit that each of these schisms eventually ended in reunion. Closer to our own day we have the bitter disputes of the 1920s and 1930s that resulted in the formation of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Even closer to home is the formation of the PCA and EPC in the 1970s by dissidents of the PCUS and the UPCUSA. For the past two decades we have been involved in a dispute over sexuality and ordination standards, a dispute that grows more intense and bitter each year it continues. Our dispute seems to be based on differing views of sexuality and ordination. It is, however, more accurate to say that the dispute, at its very core, is theological. The Beaver-Butler overture (00-5), which was rejected by the 2000 General Assembly, identified eight theological issues over which they suggest we have reached an “irreconcilable impasse.” Others claim the dispute is a matter of polity with conservative and liberal groups vying with each other for control of the denomination. Is it not both? Our theology usually works itself out in our polity. Our theological differences are being expressed in the political battles to change our Book of Order regarding ordination, same-sex unions, local option and the like. We have reached an impasse. To suggest that its irreconcilable may be premature. To further exacerbate the problem we moderates on each side claim to represent the vast middle of the church; a middle that has no idea what is happening, doesn’t care and has chosen to ignore the dispute, has dismissed it as irrelevant to their needs, or all of the above. Throughout our history “conservatives” have emphasized precise theological formulation and an orderly and disciplined church government. “Liberals” have preferred a more fluid theology and polity with emphasis upon individual experience and adaptability. During most of our history we have been able to keep these elements in a delicate balance, or compromise, which has enabled us to “hang together” through disagreements with a minimum of animosity. However, after two decades of study, discussion and in-fighting, this current dispute threatens to destroy that balance. Accommodation is not working. Each side has locked itself into its own position and those “Unity in Diversity” conferences that have been held appear to have had little effect, serving only to point up our differences. For some, division seems to be the only way out of this maze. But is it? To “walk” is an easy way out of an unpleasant situation. To stay and take a stand for one’s belief is much more difficult. To divide is, of course, always an option, but one that comes only after all other solutions have failed. Beaver-Butler performed a great service for the PCUSA in suggesting we have reached an impasse. They have put the issue “on the table” for the whole denomination to deal with. We can no longer ignore the impasse hoping it will go away, or pretend it does not exist. It now deserves an official response from the denomination. I suspect the impasse will become even more evident, and a response will be offered, this next year as the presbyteries vote on the amendment prohibiting the “blessing” of same-sex unions.

Home · News · PLC Publications · The Presbyterian Layman Online Reviews · Archives · History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links