Once Defining, Now Defined

The history of the Presbyterian Church and the American political landscape are inescapably intertwined.  For a church our size, the PC(USA) and its predecessor denominations have had an incredible influence on the political and social life of the United States.  At times that influence has been wielded with wisdom and at times it has not, but there can be no argument that Presbyterians have always had a seat at the political table.

For generations the relationship of the Presbyterians to the national political scene was one of leadership.  From John Witherspoon’s advocacy for the Virginia Declaration in the summer of 1776 to Lyman Beecher trying to navigate the various schools of abolitionists; from William Jennings Bryan and populist morality to Woodrow Wilson and the grand vision of a world community in opposition to war, for better or worse Presbyterians helped define the political conversations of their times. 

As I have watched the 220^th General Assembly unfold and listening to the debates and language used in the debates, it strikes me that we are in a new day for Presbyterians.  Gone are the days when Presbyterians helped define the great debates of the nation and in their place we have become a church divided along similar ideological lines as the nation at large.  In other words, where we once defined politics we are now defined by them.

Issues such as GLBTQ rights, freedom to marry, reproductive choice, globalization and global capitalism and foreign policy, especially Israel/Palestine, have become litmus test issues for politicians and the populous alike.  It is rare to find a politician who is pro-GLBTQ rights, anti-choice and pro-Palestinian.  Or for that matter an anti-marriage freedom, pro-choice, globalization fan.  These issues have become knit together to form firm ground on either side of a rarely bridged political divide and deviation from the script is not allowed for either side.

We live with the same divide in the church.  As I reflect on the debates at GA, I find myself defined by these very divisions.  I read the Layman [the dominant conservative voice in the PC(USA)] and find its advocacy defined alike (although with different positions on most issues).  And far too often deviation from the script is not allowed in the church. We are defined by the politics of our times.

I don’t have a particular solution to offer, but as they say the first step is admitting the problem.  And this is a problem for us. 

Presbyterianism is rooted in, as Calvin said, “a firm and certain knowledge of God’s benevolence toward us.”  It is that hope that gives us the courage and strength to face the unknown future with confidence and hope.  We have to recapture that sense of the faith; the faith that drives us toward a better tomorrow.  That is the natural posture for Presbyterians and we need to recapture that part of our heritage and legacy.  As Niebuhr said, “Nothing worth doing is completed in our lifetime; therefore we are saved by hope.”

To be sure, culture has changed monumentally and it is no longer a given that the voice of the church will be heard.  That does not mean that we need to sit down and be silent.  We need to step up and make ourselves heard.  In the end we may end up right where we are along the same ideological divide.  If we do, so be it.  But let it be the result of a denomination out in front on the issues of our day and not a matter of regression to the political mean.