General Assembly -- Prelude
As I get ready for the start of the 222nd General Assembly--a thought that in and of itself is astounding--American Presbyterians have been gathering for nearly a quarter of a millennium--a few thoughts come to mind.
First, I truly pray that this Assembly can be free of actions that will lead to painful discord and division. We have endured enough over the last thirty years. We have seen too many painful divorces as congregations separated themselves from their host presbyteries, leaving behind a wake of sorrow, hurt, and cracks within our community. The last Assembly, in particular, led to a great wave of such division. We have begun to heal, regroup, and find our way of being communions again, despite a diversity of theological perspective, ideologies of social justice, and philosophies of what the church is to be. Many presbyteries have begun to breathe in relief that their warfare is ended, and they seriously embark on redeveloping their inner bonds and connections. But they are so very fragile. As anyone recovering from surgery knows, those brand new scars are paper thin. It does not take much to break the skin. I pray that nothing will happen that will tear apart the newly healed bodies of our presbyteries.
Second, that being said, it does not mean that we should not address very real justice issues, theological issues, or any other items the come define who and what we are within the world. As recent events in Orlando, in Great Britain (the assassination of a lawmaker over Brexit), and in our own Presidential election, people of faith need to respond actively and strongly. However, how we respond needs reflection. Our default position is to litigate our responses to such issues--i.e., we write them into the rules, dictums, and directives of the Book of Order, feeling that power of law empowers our response. A couple of months ago, however, I had a wonderful time of conversation with my compatriot, the Transitional Presbyter for Foothills Presbytery in South Carolina, Gordon Raynal. Rev. Raynal is a thoughtful, progressive Presbyterian working in a more thoughtful, conservative presbytery. As he pastors that body, he has found that litigating justice issues ends in confrontation. He reflects that our national Constitution remains a fairly brief document, leaving interpretation of justice to the constituents themselves. He feels that the church should be the same. Yes, we address justice strongly and faithfully, but instead making more rules, enforcing a particular bent on issues, we should rather reflect on scripture and our theology, then allow each body within our fellowship to respond as they see fit in embodying the self-sacrificial, self-emptying compassion of Christ. Biblically, we discover Jesus doing this--he did not give his community a revised, or brand new, or recollected Torah of 635 commandments; instead, Christ reduced the Law to two simple guidelines--love God with one's whole being, and love one's neighbor as one loves oneself. How that happened was left to the apostles to define for themselves. Thus, the community rising around St. John looked very different from that arose around St. Peter and the Jerusalem Council which looked very different from the community arising around St. Paul and so on. The first "rules of orthodoxy" didn't begin until several centuries after the church began, which probably says something about us as human beings--we don't trust open-endedness.
Third, disagreement is inevitable. One of my personal dictums for work and life is that if there is more than one person in a room, there will be conflict (and sometimes the second person is not required). As we interpret what is a response rooted in Christ, we need to realize that there will be as many interpretations as there are people present. Yes, there will be times when we can sort through all of those interpretations and settle on a single consensual point; but more often, we will find that our allegiance to our responses needs to be relative--i.e., my experience leads me to believe this; your experience leads you to believe that; and that is all right--we will muddle through together on different roads. This stance puts us in a listening place. Stridency closes ears, then minds, and no one gets much of anywhere. Listening allows us to understand how another got to where they are. That understanding breeds compassion. Compassion breeds peace because no one person or view needs to be right; but instead we find a great creativity and imagination in addressing what needs changing as we find a diversity of means to solutions. We are able to walk alongside someone without needing to lead them or follow them, allowing each to follow what they find to be true for them, all the while remaining under the umbrella of Christ's grace, mercy, and love.
So, my prayer is that this will be a welcoming Assembly, wherein we find ways to deepen our fellowship and communion, walking together while walking differently, all the while helping to bring the kingdom of God to fuller fruition in our time and place. Doing so allows us to become ministers of grace and healing in a world broken by violence, bigotry, economic injustice, and extremism.
First, I truly pray that this Assembly can be free of actions that will lead to painful discord and division. We have endured enough over the last thirty years. We have seen too many painful divorces as congregations separated themselves from their host presbyteries, leaving behind a wake of sorrow, hurt, and cracks within our community. The last Assembly, in particular, led to a great wave of such division. We have begun to heal, regroup, and find our way of being communions again, despite a diversity of theological perspective, ideologies of social justice, and philosophies of what the church is to be. Many presbyteries have begun to breathe in relief that their warfare is ended, and they seriously embark on redeveloping their inner bonds and connections. But they are so very fragile. As anyone recovering from surgery knows, those brand new scars are paper thin. It does not take much to break the skin. I pray that nothing will happen that will tear apart the newly healed bodies of our presbyteries.
Second, that being said, it does not mean that we should not address very real justice issues, theological issues, or any other items the come define who and what we are within the world. As recent events in Orlando, in Great Britain (the assassination of a lawmaker over Brexit), and in our own Presidential election, people of faith need to respond actively and strongly. However, how we respond needs reflection. Our default position is to litigate our responses to such issues--i.e., we write them into the rules, dictums, and directives of the Book of Order, feeling that power of law empowers our response. A couple of months ago, however, I had a wonderful time of conversation with my compatriot, the Transitional Presbyter for Foothills Presbytery in South Carolina, Gordon Raynal. Rev. Raynal is a thoughtful, progressive Presbyterian working in a more thoughtful, conservative presbytery. As he pastors that body, he has found that litigating justice issues ends in confrontation. He reflects that our national Constitution remains a fairly brief document, leaving interpretation of justice to the constituents themselves. He feels that the church should be the same. Yes, we address justice strongly and faithfully, but instead making more rules, enforcing a particular bent on issues, we should rather reflect on scripture and our theology, then allow each body within our fellowship to respond as they see fit in embodying the self-sacrificial, self-emptying compassion of Christ. Biblically, we discover Jesus doing this--he did not give his community a revised, or brand new, or recollected Torah of 635 commandments; instead, Christ reduced the Law to two simple guidelines--love God with one's whole being, and love one's neighbor as one loves oneself. How that happened was left to the apostles to define for themselves. Thus, the community rising around St. John looked very different from that arose around St. Peter and the Jerusalem Council which looked very different from the community arising around St. Paul and so on. The first "rules of orthodoxy" didn't begin until several centuries after the church began, which probably says something about us as human beings--we don't trust open-endedness.
Third, disagreement is inevitable. One of my personal dictums for work and life is that if there is more than one person in a room, there will be conflict (and sometimes the second person is not required). As we interpret what is a response rooted in Christ, we need to realize that there will be as many interpretations as there are people present. Yes, there will be times when we can sort through all of those interpretations and settle on a single consensual point; but more often, we will find that our allegiance to our responses needs to be relative--i.e., my experience leads me to believe this; your experience leads you to believe that; and that is all right--we will muddle through together on different roads. This stance puts us in a listening place. Stridency closes ears, then minds, and no one gets much of anywhere. Listening allows us to understand how another got to where they are. That understanding breeds compassion. Compassion breeds peace because no one person or view needs to be right; but instead we find a great creativity and imagination in addressing what needs changing as we find a diversity of means to solutions. We are able to walk alongside someone without needing to lead them or follow them, allowing each to follow what they find to be true for them, all the while remaining under the umbrella of Christ's grace, mercy, and love.
So, my prayer is that this will be a welcoming Assembly, wherein we find ways to deepen our fellowship and communion, walking together while walking differently, all the while helping to bring the kingdom of God to fuller fruition in our time and place. Doing so allows us to become ministers of grace and healing in a world broken by violence, bigotry, economic injustice, and extremism.
Comments
Post a Comment