There are additional issues that must be addressed beyond the Confession of Belhar (see the previous two posts) from the last (April 18) Presbytery of Chicago Assembly meeting. I’d like to begin by positing the following scenario.
The publicly held, commercial corporation XYZ has been accused by PCUSA leadership of behaving in diametric opposition to their social responsibilities on issue ABC. The CEO of XYZ addresses this criticism by publicly stating that, for the past 30 years, every officer of the corporation signed a policy statement that they will support the PCUSA’s stated position on social responsibility ABC. The PCUSA leadership, upon hearing this statement, meekly drops the accusation, stating that “If the officers of XYZ have all signed this policy statement, we have no grounds upon which to proceed.” The issue is thus settled, and the PCUSA leadership never again raises it with XYZ.
What’s your reaction to this scenario? Do you find the CEO’s response to be credible? Is the response of PCUSA leadership believable?
Again, you must be wondering what this made up scenario has to do with the April 18 Presbytery of Chicago Assembly meeting. I will make it clear next week.