“…people came to an indoctrination, and a dialogue broke out.”

Even before General Assembly commissioners were installed, before the Assembly convened, already they and advisory delegates were being instructed on key issues by select voices chosen by the Office of the General Assembly.

Whereas some “Riverside Conversations” were one-sided, in the conversation about the Report of the Special Committee on Civil Unions and Christian Marriage, people came to an indoctrination, and a dialogue broke out.

This conversation was benefited by being led by a special committee whose moderator was fair and whose members produced both a majority and a minority report, so that listeners profited from two viewpoints. People heard both point and counterpoint, and were able to weigh answers to their piercing questions from two sides, not just one.

Special Committee member Clay Allard, pastor of Oak Cliff Presbyterian Church in Dallas, spoke of how the Special Committee just could not come to an agreement, much like the Presbyterian Church (USA).

“What, then, are we to do?” he asked, rhetorically. And then he answered his own question: “We need to draw near to the One who saves us…. Our call to the church, I think, is to find a more excellent way.”

Allard seemed unclear about that “more excellent way,” other than admitting that we have no agreement, and apparently leaving people to do whatever seems right in their own eyes.

Bill Teng, pastor of Heritage Presbyterian Church in Alexandria, Va., spoke for the Special Committee minority. He said simply that it is “not appropriate for each church and presbytery to have its own policy. Scripture is the anchor we hold as we work with sisters and brothers in this issue.”

Teng was joined by Tracie Stewart, a minister from Salem Presbytery, also speaking for the minority. She said of the minority report, “We wanted to clearly articulate the way our constitution speaks to this question.” In contrast, she noted, the majority report “makes no attempt to connect marriage with legitimate sexual expression…. The committee often seemed to hold up brokenness, rather than celebrate the power of Jesus Christ to heal us.”
Again, in contrast, Stewart proclaimed that the minority report had “radical inclusivity” to offer, the inclusivity that boldly states that all have sinned, all can confess, all can receive forgiveness, restoration, and sanctification. “The church should be a place of grace, repentance, and restoration,” she concluded with passion.

Penetrating questions
When the commissioners and advisory delegates were invited into the conversation, a man spoke out that “we cannot retreat to our bunkers and lob hand grenades.” The Special Committee chair, the Rev. Jim Szeyller, pastor of Carmel Presbyterian Church in Charlotte, N.C., picked up on the anguish, stating that “People of good character can gather around a table to talk,” which far excels fighting. But Szeyller then disclosed a revealing outlook: “And our fundamental commitment to the table is what binds us together.”

For that final statement to be true, the center of the church must shift greatly — from being Christocentric (centering on “Jesus is Lord”) to being unity-centered (centering on “let’s stay together and talk”). Many whose fundamental commitment is to Jesus Christ, would consider replacing Jesus by unity to be a poor exchange.

A woman from San Francisco quizzically keyed in on the minority report being described with the phrase “radical inclusion.” She asked about lesbian and gay persons not being included in marriage. “The Gospel is radically inclusive,” Teng responded, “but when we choose Jesus Christ, we limit our choices. Our freedom in Jesus Christ has certain boundaries.”

Stewart built on Teng’s foundation. “In Jesus Christ,” she declared, “there is radical transformation. Sin has separated us from God, and it is an unloving action not to be clear about sin!” She then spoke of the great possibility of growing in sanctification.

The mention of sanctification brought a question to the majority: “What does the majority report say about sanctification?” The majority representatives struggled with an answer. Sanctification seemed rather a foreign subject. After some initial stumbling in response, finally a majority member found a quotation from the majority report to offer.

As participants for the next session clamored to enter the lecture hall, Clay Allard quickly offered a summation: “The majority report seeks to report facts. We thought our job was to be descriptive.” In contrast, the minority report appears to be attempting to be redemptive. The difference is striking.