Theological task force eludes tough questions By John H. Adams The Layman Volume 35, Number 2 Posted April 8, 2002 DALLAS – The Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity studied Scripture, worshiped, sang hymns, prayed, hugged (a lot), fine-tuned the way it would communicate with the Presbyterian Church (USA), mapped data-collection strategies, etc. What it did not do to any significant degree during its meeting Feb. 28 - March 2 in Dallas was begin to come to grips with the controversies in the denomination. Those controversies are the reason the 2001 General Assembly authorized the task force and assigned it the responsibility of proposing by 2005 some means to stabilize the PCUSA’s peace, unity and purity. Toward the conclusion of the meeting, Gary Demarest, co-moderator of the 20-member panel, suggested that it needs to get on with the big picture. More than data gathering Expressing frustration that the task force had spent hours discussing data-gathering and other issues, Demarest said, “If we come across just as a group conducting studies, we’re dead. I just hope our big strategy won’t be too much in gathering data.” Rather than “taking our temperature,” he urged the task force to begin “grappling with its mission.” That mission, as defined by the 2001 General Assembly, is to address Christology, Biblical authority and interpretation, ordination standards and power. One of the task force’s committees (ecclesiastical and historical issues) began sailing into those issues – but its questions were quickly beached after some task force members opposed focusing on the negatives and offered numerous recommendations to change the tone and content of the questions. The committee had taken dead aim at the issues in a brief paper titled “How Shall We Proceed?” Committee members asked a series of questions that were framed around the issues before the denomination, including: the scope of Jesus’ salvation, the character of the denomination, interpretation of Scripture, the role of the denomination’s historic confessions, living together in a connectional church and diversity. After other members of the committee presented their questions, Milton J. Coalter, librarian at Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, told the task force, “Our discussion is intended to provoke your thinking as to when we start getting into the details of what we want to study.” Reaction of task force But quickly thereafter, the committee’s questions began to disappear through a barrage of recommended amendments and numerous comments that the very notion of division in the PCUSA may be exaggerated. Dr. Barbara Everitt Bryant of Ann Arbor, Mich., who directed the nation’s 1990 census, said reports she has heard from Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick and General Assembly Council Executive Director John Detterick about their visits to presbyteries and synods provide a different picture. “What you see is God working … very positive … literally hundreds of specific examples,” Bryant said. “Being involved in mission is a central focus of the church.” She also said there were “real positive” reports about diversity – “reaching out to establish Korean, Hispanic and Pakistani congregations. God is bringing in more and more diverse people.” Barbara Wheeler, president of Auburn Theological Seminary and one of the leading voices for liberal theology in the denomination, also suggested that division in the church is minimal. “I think the issues that divide us concern a small percentage of people,” she said. ‘Underlying problem’ But John B. “Mike” Loudon, pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Lakeland, Fla., a Confessing Church congregation, was wary of all the positives and taking too seriously the reports from the consultations by Kirkpatrick and Detterick. “I agree we should look at the results of these consultations,” Loudon said. “On the other hand, if there were not some underlying problem, John’s [Wilkinson’s] church would not be More Light and my church would not be part of the Confessing Church Movement.” Scott Anderson, executive director of the California Council of Churches, also minimized the value of the Detterick-Kirkpatrick consultations. “I heard last time that the purpose of these consultations is not to deal with the issues we are facing.” “And to what extent is the purpose of the consultations to justify what we have?” Coalter asked. What’s to communicate? While the task force was resisting using the committee’s questions as a launching pad for its serious work, spending hours discussing interpersonal relationships, discernment and communication to the church at large, Coalter interrupted: “We’re already under pressure to communicate and we’ve met only two times. What are we communicating, for God’s sake?” “I do not want us to be so focused on controversial issues that we forget that’s not the only way we can help the church,” Wheeler said. “There’s nothing holy about these six questions,” Coalter said, adding, “What is the mandate? What is it we’re supposed to do? Are we bringing peace to the world?”

Respond to this article

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