General Assembly thoughts

The Presbyterian Church has its General Assembly. As usual, we have some contentious issues, the definition of marriage, and the push to divest from a few companies whose products aid Israel’s policies in the west Bank. I am mulling over some cautionary points on such matters.

I taught government and politics for a while. I find church discussions dispiriting often. We speak to each other in ways that politicians rarely do. We pick up some of the worst behaviors form social media postings and trot them out in gatherings routinely.

Humility tops my list. I am concerned with the claim of expertise made by many when they have read a book or two on an issue. While I am delighted they have read; should we not cite our sources and notice also their sometimes unbalanced point of view from either the left or right? Can we casually dismiss expertise when we disagree with its findings?

Second, I hope we can speak for ourselves and our point of view without claiming to represent others. Further, we tend to try to ascribe motives and policy positions to others with whom we disagree when we do not have a basis for trying to tell them about their stance. It seems important to try to grasp another point of view, its assumption, its view of ends and means, the risks it is willing to take from the inside as much as possible. Civil discourse does not mean agreeing with what others say. it does not mean being silent on one’s perspective.

Third, religious ethical arguments tend to move toward a rule-based view of ethics as an attempt to be determinative. We can do better and use other ethical models to help us through the thickets of argument.

Fourth, religious ethical arguments tend to reduce complexity in a fallen world, and instead move toward polarities rather quickly. They then slide into a view that one point of view demonstrates both orthodoxy and orthopraxis, while contending views are pushed aside.