Unity and Our Denominational DNA

At least two elements of our PC(USA) denominational DNA shape what we mean when we say "the unity of the church."  

One element (one gene, to follow the metaphor) of our denominational DNA is directed especially outward, to our place amongst an array of denominations in the church, each built around distinct and differing ways of living the Christian faith.  This element of our denominational DNA is embodied especially in our Full Communion Agreement with the Reformed Church in America, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, and the United Church of Christ.  

In our full communion agreement we acknowledge that the partner denominations adhere to and proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ, that they live that proclamation in valid sacraments and patterns of ministry.  They are in the church, the Body of Christ.  But at the same time, we acknowledge that we have differing understandings of that common gospel.  We have different ways of living that common gospel.  Indeed, our differences, lived out in our different denominations, are necessary, to provide multiple and different witnesses to the gospel.  Each witness is incomplete without the others. Our differences are not contradictions. There is an open generosity in our full communion agreement, acknowledging that we are but one way of living the Christian life, and that there is room within the church for different understandings to find their way in denominations that are distinct from the PC(USA). 

 Let us note: this gene in our denomination DNA represents our insistence that it is legitimate for us to exist as a separate denomination in the church, separate from the vast majority of Christians.  We make our own judgment about what justifies our existence as a denomination separate from all others.  We also extend legitimacy to those with whom we disagree (at least, to some of them).

 A second element of our denominational DNA that shapes our understanding of unity is directed more inward, to the kind of unity we expect the PC(USA) to have internally.  It insists on a high level of commonality.  This element of our denominational DNA is embodied especially in the way we settled the question of the ordination of women to all ordained offices of the church, a settlement reached in key Permanent Judicial Commission cases in the 1970s.  Given our strong affirmation of the ordination of women, it’s interesting to reflect on how we worked this out in our denomination, and what that tells us about what we think it means to be a denomination in the church.

Perhaps the most famous of these cases is the “Kenyon” case, named for Walter Wynn Kenyon.  Kenyon was a Candidate for ordination to the Ministry of Word and Sacrament in Pittsburgh Presbytery.  He objected to the ordination of women as a matter of conscience.  He would not stand in the way of ordaining a woman to ordained office, but because of his scruple on this point he would ask another minister to preside at the ordination.  The presbytery voted in favor of ordination.  This decision was appealed, and our Permanent Judicial Commission (Synod and GA) overturned the vote to ordain.  In the matter of the ordination of women, we decided, there is no room within our denomination for differing ways or views.  We decided against allowing room for significant difference of opinion.  We insisted that in this matter there will be like-mindedness internal to our denomination. 

This is not necessarily a surprise.  As a denomination we have to have agreement about some things.  We’ll never have like-mindedness about everything, of course.  But there has to be agreement about some things, enough things to hold us together as a coherent denomination in the breadth of the church.  There has to be enough gravitational pull from some gravitational center to hold us all together, to keep us from just drifting off from one another (I touched on this in “Why Be A PC(USA) Presbyterian?” and “The Unity of this Denomination”).

Faced with conflict in the present moment, one of the questions before us as a denomination is who we will be as we carry forward from our past.  Will we follow the vision of unity that recognizes the need for and legitimacy of a variety of ways of and institutional structures for living our common faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior?  Will we instead decide to add to the list of things about which we must have agreement? 

Or, will we fashion another way?  Denominational DNA need not determine our present or future.  Perhaps we will develop additional ways of being a denomination, combining some things that hold us together and allowing room for high levels of disagreement, and even forthright contradiction among us.  (The Middle Governing Bodies Commission and the GA Committee to Study the Nature of the Church for the 21^st Century are energetically exploring possibilities.)

Comments

[Matt Ferguson]

You wrote, "In the matter of the ordination of women, we decided, there is no room within our denomination for differing ways or views. We decided against allowing room for significant difference of opinion. We insisted that in this matter there will be like-mindedness internal to our denomination."

That view is why many of us who believe the ordination of persons in same gender sexual relationship is contrary to God's word believe we will soon be forced to comply with this change.

Do you believe that is valid concern? If not, why not given what you wrote about how things worked out (sometimes in some very grace-less ways) in the area of the ordination of women?

God's blessings to you,
Matt Ferguson, Hillsboro, IL

[Barry Ensign-George]

Hi Matt,

Thanks for your question. I know that others are asking the same question. The unity of a denomination is always open to change, always a matter to be explored.

If Amendment 10-A is approved by a majority of presbyteries, then we (the PC(USA)) will enter a time of figuring out what that change means for us as a denomination. It’s likely to take some time. When we worked through understanding our affirmation of the ordination of women to all ordained offices there were 20 years between first permitting such ordinations (starting in 1956) and settling the matter with the decision in the Kenyon case (1975), when we required affirmation.

My blog post seeks to draw attention to the fact that our PCUSA heritage and identity gives us a variety of ways of living out the changes that will happen should Amendment 10-A be approved. Demanding uniformity of practice, as an eventual outcome of sorting out what has changed, would accord with part of our denominational DNA. But I don’t believe that that is the only element of our denominational DNA that can shape how we would live out the changes approving 10-A would bring.

Barry

[Walter L. Taylor]

So, in effect, instead of maintaining a Reformed faith that trusts the teaching of Scripture above everything else, you would ask those of us who believe that 10-A is a deathly decision to wait and trust the "church" (i.e., the denomination) to see what happens? Is that the course of action you are asking of us?

Such a course of action, while perhaps in accord with the DNA of a mainline liberal American denomination (where institutional belonging seems to be the highest virtue, regardless of one's confession), it is entirely out of accord with the faith and teaching of the Reformation. This strikes me as a form of the "implicit faith" in the church itself that Calvin rejects in the Institutes, and a supplanting of the scriptures with the church itself.

[Barry Ensign-George]

Walter,

Thanks for picking up the thread of this conversation and moving it forward.

I affirm, as I believe you do also, that God alone is Lord of the conscience (others might be helped to have the references: W’min Confession 6.109, current FOG 3.0301, nFOG 3.0101). I trust you, and Matt, and all PC(USA) Presbyterians to reach decisions about whether the possible change in ordination standards puts one in a situation in which that person finds they can no longer follow Jesus Christ with integrity within this denomination. I trust you to make decisions about what to do in such a situation. I hope that all of us, all PC(USA) Presbyterians will be attentive to conscience, and will respect decisions of conscience made by others. If your conclusion is that reasons of conscience compel you to go, or to take some other particular stance of public rejection of changes that may be made, then I believe you are compelled to follow those conclusions. Should you wait? That’s not a question I can answer. I can answer only for myself. My prayer for you is the same as my prayer for me and for all of us: that we will be attentive to the leading of the Holy Spirit, and willing and able to follow that leading with joy.

As for putting our ultimate faith in the denomination, or pretending that institutional unity is the highest virtue, you are correct: there would be no Reformed tradition, much less a PC(USA) if those were our highest values. Faithfulness to Jesus Christ always takes precedence over commitment to any particular denomination. When those two come into conflict, then I believe there is no question which to choose: faithfulness to Jesus Christ. As our denomination’s Constitution makes clear, we affirm that at the end of the day such judgments are made privately. That’s their very nature. To repeat, I trust you to make those judgments. I hope you are finding good conversation partners as you work the issues through. I genuinely pray for you that you will have strength, peace, and joy as you follow Jesus Christ through this time. That’s what I pray for all of us – very much including myself.

The purpose of my blog post was to point out that our denominational DNA has some elements conducive to demanding uniformity, but also other elements that might help us build structures that enable us to find a way to hold together, in some fashion, even groups of PC(USA) Presbyterians with contradictory understandings of what the faith is and how to live it faithfully. I don’t know what the outcome will be any more than anyone else. I don’t know whether it is even possible, nor do I know whether we (the PC(USA)) have the will to do so. I also do not know how long anyone should wait to see what develops. Which means that I trust you and all other PC(USA) Presbyterians to make faithful judgments, in this as in other matters.