Joining our High Priest’s prayer

I heard a sermon once on Matthew 9:38 where Jesus calls the disciples to pray to the Lord of the harvest for workers.  The preacher exhorted us to pray the same prayer with Jesus, and then offer ourselves as an answer to that prayer. 

As our national church is grappling with ordination and marriage, I’ve been thinking a lot about how we Presbyterians in Canada can join Jesus in his high priestly prayer for unity (John 17), and then offer ourselves as an answer to that prayer. 

There are many reasons for the current divides and others have written far more eloquently on them, but what’s become clear is that ours is becoming a polarized national church.  I don’t believe difference of opinion is a bad thing.  Our ability to navigate difference is part of what I love about The Presbyterian Church in Canada. I learn a lot listening to the viewpoints of others. 

However, we’re now at the place were we need to make some decisions.  Are there possibilities for us that won’t demand uniformity, but still preserve our unity?

I think so.

1.   Are our creeds descriptive, or prescriptive?

While in seminary and studying church polity, I remember the instructor describing our creeds as snapshots of what the church believed in different periods and contexts.  They remained authoritative for we Presbyterians because they anchored us in how God had spoken within each epoch.

The writers of Living Faith seem to affirm this:

"[Our] confession must at one and the same time be the ancient faith of the church and yet spoken into the mood and questions of its own time." 

A clergy friend reflected, “It seems pretty clear that LGBTQ marriages, etc., are part of the mood and questions of our time and to respond using only silence seems to me at least to be contrary this goal."

Living Faith continues, "In writing this document the authors have tried to be in contact with people where they are today." My friend reflected, “That connection now includes gay elders, ministers, and Christians who believe in affirming a wider variety of marriages.”

And again, "In the end the document is our own [belonging to The PCC], reflecting our own needs and experiences."

My friend asked, “How does it continue to do so without an open robust recognition of the portion of the church seeking an affirming stance?”  How could it do so without recognition of both stances we Presbyterians hold?

The writers conclude with a George Wishart, 16^th C translator of a Reformed Creed: “It is not our mind to prescribe a certain rule of the faith to all churches, for we know no other rule of faith but the Holy Scriptures; and therefore we are well contented with those who agree with these things although they use another manner of speaking.” They then conclude: “It was our pleasure to use these words at the present time, that we might declare our opinion in our religion and worshipping of God. The truth will have the upper hand (emphasis added).”  

It seems both Wishart and the drafters of Living Faith saw the document as a description of The Presbyterian Church in Canada, rather than a prescription.  And there lies the rub.  If we say something of the whole church when a significant portion doesn't say it, then we leave each other with no option except to choose whether this church can still include all of us. 

If we accept Living Faith as descriptive of our church, including it’s variety, perhaps we can find a way forward together.  What prevents us from including other opinions when it comes to marriage but remaining unified in the rest of what it proclaims: salvation through Christ?  

What prevents us from simply adding a line to Living Faith around marriage, describing what many among us believe.  Since The PCC currently has two functional views of marriage, why don’t we simply describe that?  We don’t need to change the whole definition, simply to add a definition that includes those who understand things alternatively. 

Currently, Living Faith 8.2.3 says

Christian marriage is a union in Christ
whereby a man and a woman become one in the sight of God.

It is the commitment of two people
to love and to support one another faithfully for life.
God's law forbids adultery.
Loyalty is necessary for the growth of love.
Disloyalty destroys the union of marriage.
Sexual union in marriage is intended to provide
mutual joy and comfort as well as
the means of creating new life.

What prevents us from adding as 8.2.3.1, something to the effect of:

“In the spirit of grace we affirm that there are occasions

when two people commit themselves to live faithfully,

as one in the sight of God and others.  

For these, this is also marriage.”

Since our creeds can only ever be snapshots of the church family, let any new snapshot be of the church in its current form, including its diversity.  Then none might look a the picture and wonder where they are in it.

2.   Leave it with the courts

Within The Presbyterian Church in Canada, marriage has been an issue for the local court of elders, the congregation’s session.  Since opinions on same-sex marriage vary widely from congregation to congregation, what prevents us from making the change to Living Faith described above and then reaffirming that marriage is the purview of the session?  Should John and Jane get married within the church?  That’s the decision of the session.  Should John and Jack get married?  That’s also the decision of the session.  There will be differing opinions, for certain, but courts will handle it the way they always do: through prayerful discernment and due process.  Together, they will discern the will of Christ whether the couple is straight, or same sex. 

Similarly, unlike some denominations, we aren’t ordained by the national church but by a local Presbytery. Most Presbyterians I speak with agree that committed, monogamous relationships are the only alternative to chastity for our ministers.  However opinions on who should be involved in those committed and monogamous relationships change from region to region.  What prevents us from leaving it with the Presbyteries to decide who is fit for ordination?

3.   Non-geographical Presbyteries

We may not be able to simply leave it as a local option.  I'm hearing many among us concerned that a freedom-of-conscience-approach will not provide the legal protections for individual clergy who cannot, in good conscience, act contrary to the church's official position.  The addition to Living Faith (above) may help remedy this.  I'll leave that to brighter minds than mine.

Whether this is the case is less important than whether it is a cause of anxiety for our brothers and sisters.  If my wife is scared, simply saying she shouldn’t be is of little comfort.

So what prevents us from creating parallel, non-geographical presbyteries?  We have already done this with our Korean sisters and brothers.  Additional Presbyteries will allow us to leave ordination with the courts (see #2 above).  They will provide a safe space within our church for congregations who struggle with the decision of Assembly, whatever it might be.  They will prevent the “winner” from bullying the “loser” through retention of buildings and assets.  And, like Roman Catholic Orders, these presbyteries can exist because of their shared experience of Christ, but still be part of the larger framework that is The Presbyterian Church in Canada. 

4.   A parallel national organization

Perhaps there’s already too much water under the bridge, and we can’t envision a big tent like that described above.  It breaks my heart, but we are human.  Even so, we can still be proactive in an attempt to let God answer our high priest’s prayer through us.  Instead of simply waiting for the great schism to occur, let’s see it coming and plan accordingly.

For example, what prevents us from creating a parallel national organization, a sibling national church that shares staff and resources and that meets together regularly to discern Christ’s will.  It would be a monumental task, but not impossible.  And being proactive would allow us to reduce anxiety and think things through well.

In 1989, after the rule of the Communist party of Czechoslovakian ended, the people’s representatives took a brave step.  They parted ways.  It became known as the velvet divorce because there was no violence or bloodshed.  While over the next four years both new countries had to come into their own, they now enjoy a good relationship as partners and members of the European Union.

Two parallel national churches in partnership with an agreement on sharing resources wouldn’t be my first choice, but we are human.  If feelings have escalated so that we can’t envision being in fellowship with those who disagree with us, then what prevents us from planning for this by planning for a partnered church that furthers the goals of both?

* * *

I love how we Presbyterians value hearing Christ speak through other people.  I would hate to lose that because we can’t find a way forward together. 

We are exhorted over and again to live peacefully with each other. In Romans 12:18, “If it is possible, as far as it depends on you live peacefully with everyone.”  Jesus said, “Happy are the peacemakers for they will be called the children of God (Matthew 5:9).”  He prayed, "That they may all be one.  As you, Father are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us (John 17:21)."

What prevents us from offering ourselves as an answer to our high priest’s prayer?