An InklingRiding the horse of this Hatfields and McCoys metaphor a bit farther, let me offer another reason why I believe our denomination has crossed a line with its decision to change our ordination standards: the primary motive of the revisionists. They have said that it’s for the sake of justice.
What does that mean? It means that however well-intentioned the McCoys (who won this round) were in offering to stand by the Hatfields, who for conscience’s sake cannot abide this change, the McCoys’ sentiment won’t stand for long in the PCUSA. It can’t. Why? Because if it is really a matter of justice, then forbearance with those who don’t agree can only go so far. The pull of justice is just too strong.
We’ve seen this before. Back in the 70s the McCoys were trumpeting the importance of justice for women who were being excluded from ordination. A Hatfield (named Kenyon) said that he could not affirm that mandate by the Assembly. Presbytery said that he had to if he were to be ordained. So the contention worked its way up through the church courts, and finally the ruling was that yes, he had to affirm women’s ordinations if he were to be ordained. Why? Because it was a matter of justice, and justice trumped room for conscience. That was one of the issues that led to the creation of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church.
Many of the McCoys, who wanted this change in standards, don’t want the church to split. They say they want us Hatfields to be a part of the church, and that the church will be less without us. They even took out a full page ad in The Presbyterian Outlook to tell us that they would stand by us. Bless ‘em. They know that many of us Hatfields believe that we would be disobedient to God if we affirmed the ordinations that they believe are a matter of justice.
I trust that the McCoys are sincere in telling us that they want us to stay, and that they will advocate for us to have room for conscience. I just don’t think that their sincerity and good intentions will finally carry the day. Justice for those “excluded” trumps room of conscience for “excluders” every time – if not immediately, then eventually.
I myself believe that the Kenyon decision was right. Women’s ordination is a matter of justice, and it is biblically founded. And while I believe others can make a decent case for a different reading of scripture regarding women, I do not believe that there is really room for both positions in the same fellowship over time. At some point one of the clans needs to find a different room in the household of faith. Why? Justice trumps room for conscience.
So maybe this time the denomination will find a way to offer genuine protection to the Hatfields for their freedom of conscience – non-geographic presbyteries, or some such. But I’m not betting on it for the long haul. Having made their claims on the basis of justice, eventually the McCoys won’t be able to tolerate exceptions, and we Hatfields will be run off the mountain.
May the God of the Hatfields and the McCoys have mercy.
Blessings,
Keith
