|
|
| Response from John Galloway to Layman questions about "A Call to Sabbatical" | |
| 1.
In your appeal to Presbyterians to "Honor and respect our
Constitution," what was the signatories' rationale for omitting the
word, "obey?" "Obey the Constitution" is not language from our tradition, and to the best of my memory we never seriously considered using it nor should we have. 2. In your appeal to Presbyterians to "Resist the inclination to provoke or initiate judicial confrontation" do you mean to imply that Presbyterians who witness a violation of the Constitution, e.g., a session's ordination of a self-affirming, practicing homosexual, are hereby constrained by the language of the appeal not to file a judicial complaint against that violation? We are calling on our brothers and sisters to resist the temptation to intrusive legalistic prying into people's lives and from making oneself a judicial martyr, in Camus' words, to climb a cross simply to be seen from a greater distance. 3. If one were to interpret this appeal as calling for a "stay of enforcement" regarding Book of Order G-6.0106b, do you believe that this would constitute a fair interpretation? The operative word is "initiate." We are calling on both sides of the aisle not to initiate. We ask the left not to initiate behavior that demands judicial response and we ask the right not to pry in search of opportunities for enforcement. 4. If this "sabbatical" becomes the standard for the PCUSA, what is the remaining significance of G-6.0106b? At its core our Call to Sabbatical asks the denomination to cool it. Editor's note: John Galloway responded to our four questions in the form of a copy of a letter that he sent to his congregation. We have arranged portions of the letter into the question categories where they seemed most appropriate. In order to ensure that no statement be considered out of context, we have attached the full text of Rev. Galloway's letter below. Letter from John T. Galloway, Jr. to the Wayne Presbyterian Church Dear Friends, As many of you know, I flew to San Diego May 4 for a meeting with five other persons including our former parish associate Roberta Hestenes and General Assembly Stated Clerk Cliff Kirkpatrick, a guest preacher in our pulpit last summer. Our reason for meeting was clear. We wanted to bring representatives of both sides together to see if we might not only build friendships, but have some wisdom to share with the church at large on the divisive issues of homosexuality, sexual fidelity, and ordination. I believe we achieved both goals. Enclosed you will find our "Call to Sabbatical." Also I enclose a letter to me from Parker Williamson, editor of the Presbyterian Layman, articulating his questions about what we did. A word of background would be helpful. You may recall our time of prayer for Roberta before she left for the General Assembly in 1996. She chaired a committee that brought to that Assembly what has come to be called "Amendment B." It reads: Those called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historical confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament. After lengthy heated and divisive debate across our denomination, "Amendment B" passed the necessary number of Presbyteries and became our policy. The majority of Presbyterians were tired of the wrangling and hoped the matter was settled. Feeling that the language was too exclusive and legalistic as well as missing the mark on some key issues of theology, the 1997 General Assembly proposed an alternative known as "Amendment A." It reads: Those called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Jesus Christ under the authority of Scripture and instructed by the historical confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to demonstrate fidelity and integrity in marriage or singleness, and in all relationships of life. Candidates for ordained office shall acknowledge their own sinfulness, their need for repentance, and their reliance on the grace and mercy of God to fulfill the duties of their office. After another year of continuous debate and rising anger, Amendment A was defeated, leaving the language of Amendment B as the official polity of our denomination. Over the past months persons on both sides of the argument have talked of a denominational schism. A few people unhappy with Amendment B have stated their aim quite openly to disobey it, while others who support B are looking for ways to "enforce" it. The tone of the conversation has been increasingly hostile. At its core our Call to Sabbatical asks the denomination to cool it. We are asking the vast, but largely silent, center to say, "Enough already!" We don't need test cases from the left or witch hunts from the right, and we certainly don't need another year of dragging Presbyterians through tired debates on amendments to the constitution. Let's just give it a rest. The overwhelming response to our effort has been positive. Calls, e-mails and faxes have been most supportive. But in the enclosed letter, we are quizzed about our failure to include the word "obey" in our sentence on honoring and respecting the constitution. While I thoroughly understand the sentiment behind such a question, we need to be careful lest we forget our tradition in an effort to fight some contemporary battle. The best course for us all is always to call all sides to affirm our tradition in times of crisis. We need to recall that persons ordained in our tradition promise publicly to fulfill their calling "in obedience to Jesus Christ, under the authority of Scripture, and continually guided by our confessions." We promise also to be governed by the church's polity and to abide by its discipline. One never takes a sabbatical from those concepts. But "Obey the Constitution" is not language from our tradition, and to the best of my memory we never seriously considered using it nor should we have. We certainly are not calling the denomination to a sabbatical from justice or morality or a constitutional form of government. We are calling for a sabbatical from paranoia and from actions that give paranoia credence. We are calling for a sabbatical from what Scriptures calls divisive party spirit. We are calling on our brothers and sisters to resist the temptation to intrusive legalistic prying into people's lives and from making oneself a judicial martyr, in Camus' words, to climb a cross simply to be seen from a greater distance. Some people have said to me that a sabbatical won't solve anything. Right. That's the point. In a sabbatical we suspend our efforts to solve it. We let it alone for awhile and concentrate on other matters. The operative word is "initiate." We are calling on both sides of the aisle not to initiate. We ask the left not to initiate behavior that demands judicial response and we ask the right not to pry in search of opportunities for enforcement. We are asking people to resist the temptation to "save the church." Efforts from both sides of the aisle to save the church have only made matters worse. Besides, we already have a Savior. Our hope is that a sabbatical might tone down our works righteousness and let the Savior lead. I want to thank all of you for your prayers as I have embarked upon this venture. I also want to thank our Session for its total support of meetings held here at Wayne as well as my trip to San Diego. Your ongoing prayers for our denomination continue to be needed. Sincerely, John T. Galloway, Jr. |
|
| Responses from signers of 'A Call to Sabbatical' to Layman's questions | |
| Press release from the Office of the General Assembly | |
| A brief analysis of 'A Call to Sabbatical' by Robert P. Mills | |
| Breaking News contents | |
