Mutual Forbearance

The Presbyterian Church in the USA (PCUSA) has long boasted of their “big tent” approach to faith. To this end, the PCUSA has settled on a policy known as “mutual forbearance.” In a denomination where there are widely divergent theological ideas, “mutual forbearance” remains an almost universally accepted principle.

As divisive issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, ordination of gay clergy, and extramarital sex arise in the denomination, leaders issue statements like this one, which was issued by a North Carolina Presbyter: “One of the core values of being Presbyterian is the mutual forbearance that we can agree to disagree and still remain family.”

And in orderly Presbyterian fashion, the exact definition of mutual forbearance has been written into church’s Book of Order:

F-3.0105 Mutual Forbearance That, while under the conviction of the above principle we think it necessary to make effectual provision that all who are admitted as teachers be sound in the faith, we also believe that there are truths and forms with respect to which men of good characters and principles may differ. And in all these we think it the duty both of private Christians and societies to exercise mutual forbearance toward each other. Mutual forbearance means accepting differences and continuing to work together. Unity is of paramount importance. Not Fear! The Bible is not constricting but liberating. Study of God’s Word leads to the recognition that the WORD of God is larger and wider than any printed word. We should not, can not limit the power of God to bring love to all the world, to do less is to deny our basic Christianity.

Last month, when the last of the PCUSA presbyteries voted in favor of gay marriage, the PCUSA again demonstrated its adherence to mutual forbearance by including language in the Book of Order that would allow proponents of traditional marriage to avoid participating in same-sex weddings:

Likewise, the determination by a Session as to whose weddings a congregation will host remains solely with the Session. There is nothing in the [gay marriage] amendment to compel any Teaching Elder to conduct a wedding against his or her judgment, nor a Session to host one against its judgment.

The irony, of course, is that while the doctrinal tent poles of PCUSA continue to stretch the tent larger, there are less and less people in the tent: In the last 20 years the denomination has lost over half its membership.

Occasionally, though, leaders in the PCUSA appear to forget the denomination’s guiding principle. For example, after the recent Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage, the PCUSA’s Office of Public Witness released a statement, which began as follows:

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is celebrating the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that same-gender couples have a constitutional right to marry nationwide, striking down bans in 14 states.

How exactly does it demonstrate mutual forbearance to assert that the entire PCUSA is “celebrating” same-sex marriage, especially when last year’s General Assembly vote demonstrated that around a third of PCUSA congregations are still uncomfortable blessing same-sex unions? Later in the same statement, the Director of the Office Public Witness, Rev. Dr. J Herbert Nelson, suggests that bridging the theological divide just a matter of education: “Our task now is to educate congregations and address how the church is to engage society and our differences.”

Rev. Dr. Nelson appears to suffer from the same fatal conceit as many in the American Left who believe that ideological differences will be overcome when enlightened leaders are able to “educate” the opposition. Condescension masquerading as tolerance for traditionalist dinosaurs is nothing new to anyone who follows the mainstream media coverage of politics in America. In the end, this is just another example of what Fred Bauer at National Review has aptly called the Left’s “discriminating tolerance.”

To Rev. Dr. Nelson and many others in the PCUSA, excluding gays from the covenant of marriage is an injustice—not unlike the sin of racial segregation. To these activists, it is not enough to simply agree to disagree. Excluding homosexuals from marriage is a sin for which the PCUSA’s leaders must repent. As leaders of one presbytery recently noted, “[Our ministers] believe that turning away same-gender couples harms gay and lesbian persons and their families, creates injustice, hinders evangelism, and violates their understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”

Will same-sex marriage be the issue that stretches the “big tent” PCUSA too far?

If history is any indication, the PCUSA will not have a sudden implosion. Rather, it will most likely continue to slowly lose members, as it has every year from its founding. As the denomination becomes more and more liberal, many (including me) speculate that the General Assembly will take up a vote on the exclusivity of Christ as a means to salvation. (And not just for those groups that tend to be the theologians’ favorite hypothetical demographics, like babies and isolated Amazonian tribes.)

To many, this seems inconceivable. How can a church still call itself Christian and believe that there is the possibility of salvation apart from Christ?

On the other hand, there are some who think the writing is already on the wall. After all, if a denomination is guided, above all else, by the core principle of mutual forbearance, how can it not, eventually, accept some divergence on the central tenants of the faith?

Peter Johnson is the external relations officer for the Acton Institute. He is a member of a PCUSA church in Grand Rapids, Michigan.