Open letter Archives of letters to the editor

Open letter on PUP meeting After 'dialogue,' some lingering questions January 24, 2006 On January 17-18, I attended the "Come to the Table Event" at Pasadena Presbyterian Church (Subtitles: "Conversations framed by Worship and Communion about the Peace, Unity and Purity of the Church …. The Dialogue Continues"). It was, in all, a 13-hour event (noon to 9:30 p.m. on Tuesday and 8 to 11:30 a.m. on Wednesday). There were four task force members present – Revs. Haberer and Demarest, Drs. Wheeler and Achtemeier. The event was also graced by presentations from seminary presidents Phil Butin and Rich Mouw, and by the moderatorial skills of Dr. Jack Rogers. Out of all those 13 hours, only two hours total were actually spent in interaction with one (1 hour) or all (1hour) of the attending task force members. Silly me, I thought conversations and dialogue meant questions and answers and such. But instead, there were many presentations and reflections from the platform. Need I say they were almost exclusively high praises for the task force and for the PUP report? And what did we reflect on in small group reflection/discussion? II Cor. 3:3-6 ("… the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life"). Small group participants were invited to "… speak in popcorn fashion only the 1-3 words that captured their thought at this time." I know it wasn't supposed to be a Bible study, but even for reflection and discussion, that seemed a very awkward format to follow. I guess I have to learn the true meaning of "mutual reflection." The small group discussion, after that, was to center only around two questions: What did you hear in the presentations of the two seminary presidents given thus far that you found hopeful? What do you want to think further about? The directions were clear that after the sharing of answers by all group members, there would be "no further discussion." To be fair: "If there is time," said the instructions, follow-up questions could be asked later. But the person asking another to expand on a previous answer could only listen, but not respond further. Again, I've never done "discussion" that way before. Is it old fashioned to want to discuss the actual content of a Bible passage … or of a highly important report (!) … rather than to reflect on whichever soundbites captured the attention of one's table partners at a certain time? Is it too much to expect that – during a 13 hour event – a panel of four task force members, most of whom had quite a journey to make to come to southern California, could be available for question-and-answer-type interaction for more than 1 hour in medium sized groups (with only one panelist per group), and barely1 hour (minus presentation times) of the whole panel before the whole audience? And is it really too naïve to think that during an event whose title included the word "dialogue," a fair share of time would be given to presentations from each of the sides of a very heated discussion that is already going on throughout the denomination right now, as a result of the PUP report's release, whether we like it or not? As one of five panelists on Wednesday morning (in addition to the four task force members), the Rev. Jerry Tankersley from Laguna Beach was, in fact, allowed to raise some criticism of the report. Ironically, however, his statements were scheduled to take up part of the time of the "town hall meeting with time for questions/answers and dialog between event leaders and the participants." Result? Maybe about eight people total got to ask their questions of task force members before the plenary audience. I was handed the microphone right when "time" was called. Many others, who had motioned to have a microphone come near to them, went unheard. I, for one, would still like to throw my questions out there, as I had them prepared during the "Come to the Table" event. Quotes attributed to task force members were, unless otherwise noted, heard during their presentations at the Pasadena Presbyterian Church on January 17 and 18. First question to task force members: What's the true way of love? Much has been said by task force members, especially Dr. Mark Achtemeier, about the "Way of Love." We should honor one another, they say, respect one another's integrity, forbear one another. And what Christian would want to disagree with the need for that kind of attitude? However, I want to object to the false dilemma that's been presented. Both the PUP report, and task force members in their presentations (especially Dr. Achtemeier), juxtapose what they call "The Way of Love" with an attempt "to bully … to subjugate … to alienate." Dr. Achtemeier even said, in effect, that to try to "convert" someone else is to treat them "as enemies!" He also used the expressions "to marginalize," and, "to throw pre-packaged positions at others across the table." In my understanding of the Christian faith, to try to convert someone IS an act of love, not proof that you consider them enemies. To acquiesce to what one believes to be sinful, self-destructive behavior is not love, but the easy way out of any neighborly obligation! My question for the task force members, therefore, is this: If, as the report itself says in line 950 (p.33), some on the task force still regard others' positions as "incorrect and even damaging to the church and the clarity of its (sic) message," how can you consider it loving to treat their positions as equal to all others? Is there any place in your thinking for the application of church discipline? God himself is said to use discipline on his children, out of love (Heb.12:5-11; Rev.3:19). Paul speaks of putting a man out of the church, even "handing him over to Satan" for a time, in order that he "might be saved in the day of the Lord" – and, in order to give a clear witness to the church! (I Cor.5:5) What place – if any – do the Rules of Discipline have in our Constitution, if insistence on behavior that has clearly been warned against as sinful in the Book of Confessions, in the Scriptures, and in the Book of Order (and you say the standards aren't changing) is not enough to warrant loving, and firm, administration of church discipline?? "Rebuke your neighbor frankly, so you will not share in his guilt." (Lev.19:17) Second question to task force members: Who's being schismatic here? Have you considered that the threat of schism is the task force's own doing? Something that has been clearly defined as sinful throughout church history, and still is defined thus in most of the Christian Church worldwide, has more recently been presented as a "valid alternative lifestyle" in many of our mainline churches, much to the consternation of the rest of the Church. Our own denomination has discussed, debated, dialogued about, and studied the question for at least 30 years. Repeated attempts to validate homosexual behavior as a legitimate version of the Christian lifestyle have been rebutted, however, by ever-increasing majorities of Presbyterians! And yet, the topic isn't left alone; for many activists, there is no "active concurrence" with the standards, nor "peaceable withdrawal" as an alternative, which the Historic Principles of our church themselves counsel (footnote 29 on p.25 of the PUP report). There is, instead, ongoing defiance of the Constitution, and of any attempts at church discipline. Is this not what constitutes schismatic behavior? And then your report recommends – in the name of Peace, Unity and Purity – to allow for further defiance of certain standards of our Constitution? I submit that, as we believe in our Reformed tradition, councils do err at times – and the Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity brings us no hope of peace with their report, but one monumental error. Rev. Katharina D. Brandt, member at large San Fernando Presbytery

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