By Brian Ellison
Long before I came to serve as its executive director, through generations of leadership and mission statements, the Covenant Network of Presbyterians has always had two goals: inclusion and unity. We have long believed the church will be stronger when LGBT people are given full opportunity to participate in its life and leadership, and that the church in which they are fully accepted should be a church that demonstrates unity and wholeness. We want everyone to be welcome, and we want to get to that place together.
As you might have noticed, these ideas are sometimes in tension.
This summer’s General Assembly was uniformly portrayed in the media—and even sometimes by those of us who were there—as having taken “controversial” actions. And clearly that was true; matters of great importance on which Presbyterians have serious disagreements were decided, sometimes (but not always) with narrowly divided votes.
But a funny thing happened in the vast halls of Detroit’s Cobo Center. For the commissioners, advisory delegates and observers who were there, General Assembly did not feel like a house divided. Particularly on matters of same-sex marriage, participants showed grace and mercy to one another, spoke with integrity, listened with intentionality, and at the end of the day—while still holding serious disagreements—were able to move forward believing the church’s work of discernment had been done faithfully, at least for now. Contrary to how some media reports might have made it seem, the Assembly was largely at peace with its decisions and left the Assembly energized about the future of the church.
Now, the vote on an amendment to the church’s constitutional language about marriage faces a vote in all 171 presbyteries. The need for 171 repetitions of the debate was one reason some across the theological spectrum hesitated in their support for the amendment. Is it really possible for each of these microcosms of the church—some large and some small; some rural and some urban; reflecting different cultural, geographic and legal contexts—to all have civil, meaningful, Christ-centered conversations that leave the church in their community stronger rather than torn apart?
I believe it is. And for a model, I offer the General Assembly itself.
Intentional efforts at community
Let us be frank: General Assembly conversations around homosexuality and marriage have not always been models of civility and thoughtfulness. Speeches have not always avoided references to the motives of the other side. Suspicion and mistrust, as much as theology and careful argument, made appearances in floor debate and hallway conversations.
That seemed less true at this year’s Assembly as planners and leaders made intentional efforts at building community. In events before the Assembly convened, in the committees handling difficult business, and even during plenary sessions before the actual “controversial” business came to the floor, commissioners and delegates were invited to join in small group conversations in which they heard one another as people and not just as nameless faces making an argument on the big screen. Rather than disembodying the difficult issues, they were intentionally attached to the people from pulpits and pews whose faith and ministry was at stake in the outcomes. The result, it seemed was an openness to engage and a satisfaction by all that the Spirit was speaking through one another.
In presbyteries, the dynamics around community have a longer shelf life than in the one-week-long General Assembly. But it’s never too late for a presbytery to work on cultivating and enhancing the sense of interdependence, friendship and covenantal connection among its members. Pre-presbytery events, mealtime gatherings, and “cluster” or regional conversations that focus intentionally on difficult issues can go a long way toward reducing the heat and generating authenticity and forbearance when it comes time to talk about hard things at presbytery.
Preparation by advocates … on both sides
One of the most important things that happened before this General Assembly was unseen by participants, but its evidence was everywhere: Those who hoped the church would take a particular position worked in advance to set a tone of respectful, thoughtful conversation.
I am here to testify: There is not much fun to be found in long conference calls or crowded hotel rooms for the purpose of wordsmithing group presentations. (Can I get an amen?) But the result was worth it. A clear debate is a healthy debate. Moderate language makes for non-anxious discernment. And the result for the church is all the better when advocates across the aisle can agree together, at least informally, that to the best of their ability, they will encourage their colleagues to focus on the critical issues at stake and not the extraneous matters that sometimes cloud the conversation. This year’s Assembly, for the first time in recent memory, did not contain references to bestiality or polygamy as part of a fear-based slippery-slope argument; neither were opponents of same-sex marriage characterized as bigots or out-of-touch monsters.
At the presbytery level, a similar sort of preparation can take place by groups and by every individual who thinks they might speak. When we set a tone of respect and trust, it is usually met by respect and trust from our colleagues across the aisle. Sometimes you plan for it, and sometimes it’s as simple as a quick side conversation or a deep breath, realizing that how we say it really is as important as what we say.
Excellence in procedure and process
Presbynerds rejoice! Part of why the Assembly’s actions on same-sex marriage were received as fair was the excellence with which Moderator Heath Rada and Stated Clerk Gradye Parsons handled the discussion, including the introduction of minority reports and some complicated questions about polity and constitutionality. Not everyone agreed with the rulings along the way, but they were clear and fair, and the body reaffirmed them or did not challenge them.
In some past years, advocates for one side or another were able to change the outcome of the debate through parliamentary shenanigans, such as calling for a vote before substantial debate had taken place, or forcing lengthy debates on extraneous matters (such as the length of speeches), exhausting the Assembly before a substantive vote. This year, through both the restraint of participants and the skill of the moderator, those barricades to discernment were never raised.
In our presbyteries, we can and should expect a similar level of fairness in the process. Robert’s Rules are not a bludgeon to be used by those familiar with them; but when we are all familiar with them they are an essential instrument of fairness and equity. All of us should be on our best parliamentary behavior. And most of all, moderators and stated clerks should establish a process that at every step moves the body toward clarity and peace, demonstrating a willingness to rein in those who would confuse, delay, or hurt with their words.
Graciousness in content
Perhaps the most significant moment in the conversation around same-sex marriage at this General Assembly came when John Wilkinson, a Rochester pastor who had stood for election as moderator, offered an insertion to the constitutional amendment to include “traditionally a man and a woman” after the new description of marriage as “between two people.” Quickly, a leader in More Light Presbyterians went to the microphone to say she supported the insertion as a way to reach out to those who would feel hurt by passage of the amendment. A pastor who had once been a leader in the conservative Confessing Church Movement rose to say this insertion would make it easier for him to remain in the church should the amendment become part of the Book of Order. The addition easily passed.
That spirit—of gracious hospitality rather than pressing for victory—was the very model of what a church council can and should be. It was met with gracious replies after the Assembly, including one from the leadership of the Fellowship of Presbyterians and Presbyterians for Renewal, who (while grieving the decision) urged their supporters “to refrain from actions, attitudes, and language that would mar the image of Christ in your response to the Assembly’s actions.”[1]
In our presbyteries, these very same actions might be recited in presbytery debates: the efforts in the final language of the proposal to be inclusive of various views, and the gracious spirit of advocates on both sides to continue seeking to be church together. Indeed, we might model similar actions in our presbyteries on other matters that divide us, always reaching out for the outcome that the greatest number can support as we continue to work together toward the unity that is God’s gift to us in Jesus Christ.
It is possible
It is possible for presbytery debates to be a source of unity in the church. To achieve this we will have to overcome some fear, worry and misgiving. Sometimes, outcomes will not go as we might hope. But this is what it means for our Constitution to direct our councils to “seek to find and represent the will of Christ.”[2] How we reach decisions is as important to our future as the decisions themselves.
[1] Pastoral letter from PFR and Fellowship of Presbyterians, accessed online September 26, 2014 at https://www.fellowship-pres.org/pastoral-letter-pfr-fellowship-presbyterians/
[2] Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Book of Order, F-3.0204
__________
Brian Ellison is the executive director of the Covenant Network of Presbyterians. This essay was originally published on Ecclesio.com.