|
Written by The Presbyterian Outlook
|
|
Sunday, 07 March 2010 15:54 |
|
| | |
“How can two walk together unless they be agreed?” Amos’ question (3:3-KJV) seems rhetorical, the answer self-evident. But his question begs another: to what degree must the two agree?
Must they agree about all things? If so, then such pairings shall be insufferably boring. What if the two simply agree to synchronize their hiking route, allowing for some argument along the way? Or, might it be sufficient for them simply to agree to walk together, no matter where that leads, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health?
Throughout our national and ecclesial history we have bemoaned our lack of agreement, our lack of unanimity, our lack – dare I say it? – of control. We have argued that we need to maintain more or less control over bankers and politicians, over national borders and enemy combatants, over ownership of handguns and nuclear bombs, over taxation and tax evasion, over hosts of other things. More control makes life more predictable and secure. Less control disrupts and disturbs. Then again, excessive control stifles. Minimal control can liberate.
When inspiring writers like Amos to convey the divine will to us, God was aiming, at least in part, to liberate good service and to constrain injustice. The resulting Scriptures enumerate some beliefs to uphold and some behaviors to implement. Then again, some ambiguities resulted, since the writers used so many poems, stories, and symbol-saturated apocalypses to convey God’s word. In fact, the Scriptures seldom teach via summary formulas. So we followers of Christ have attempted to organize and articulate those teachings via creeds and confessions, and through church constitutions.
Our best intentions, nevertheless, have swamped us in regulations. And at a time when many Americans are calling for a less intrusive government, numerous Presbyterians are yearning for a less intrusive polity.
The Special Committee to Study Issues of Civil Union and Christian Marriage is bringing to the upcoming General Assembly a report that, happily, offers no new rules to follow. Frankly, the committee could not reach agreement on the question of whether the church’s policy limiting marriage to “a woman and a man” ought to be expanded to “two persons.” Then again, their commission invited them to suggest policy recommendations but instructed not to suggest any changes to the denomination’s definition of Christian marriage. They were asked to study the subject, and to report their learnings.
They learned a lot. They learned about the diverse ways the covenant of marriage has been consecrated among believers around the world and through the centuries. They learned about the difficulties experienced by families headed by same-gender parents. They learned that the consecration of same-gender “unions” leave such couples feeling like second-class members, while, at the same time, others take offense to any recognition of partnerships they consider sinful. They re-learned that our Historic Principles of Church Order state that “there are truths and forms with respect to which men (sic) of good characters and principles may differ,” and that “in all these we think it is the duty both of private Christians and societies to exercise mutual forbearance toward each other.”
In the light of all these learnings, they recommended the adoption of a covenant – a pact of promises to help us cope with our collective lack of control, and to help us to walk together even when we don’t completely agree on all things.
With this edition of the Outlook we say a sad farewell to Eugene March, who has provided our Old Testament exegetical work for the Uniform Lesson Series for nearly 20 years. Ever since his very first study on Psalm 1 in the May 14, 1990, issue till today, Gene has poured heart, soul, mind, and strength into helping church school teachers unfold the Scriptures to their classes. What a privilege to have the A.B. Rhodes Professor Emeritus of Old Testament at Louisville Theological Seminary demonstrate his love for God and the church by giving so much of himself to build up so many of us.
Gene, thank you so much for your leadership and service. Your study of Scripture has gone forth to thousands, inspiring faith, instructing understanding, and guiding lives. We are grateful for your service so generously and faithfully rendered.
—JHH
Trackback(0)
 |
|
|
| Join Our News Alerts Mailing List |
|
|
|
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
In Hebrew the required answer to Amos' question is an unqualified "NO". Any first year Hebrew student can affirm this. It is for this very purpose that we have such things as "essentials of the faith", and why we speak about certain theological positions as being non-essentials. This is so that ultimately we can agree on essentials and agree to not agree on non-essentials.
If we have indeed reached a stage in the life of the denomination where an essential (fidelity/chastity) is being "re-negotiated" or "re-visioned" to a non-essential, let us be open and honest about this. And let us also treat with grace and compassion those congregations that find this unconscionable and Biblically non-negotiable, by allowing them to no longer "walk together" with us (the removal of the property clause).