Trust—Theological Vision Part Four
by Howie Donahoe
We are continuing to expand and explain AMR’s Theological Vision, offering a closer look at each of its core commitments. as it shapes the church’s pursuit of renewal, faithfulness, and mission amid fear, cynicism, and cultural uncertainty.
Because we, Christ’s body, are united in our Head, and because Christ is alive and actively preserving and deploying all his body for service, we commit to pursuing a communion of trust. Though Satan sows seeds of suspicion among us—through evil deeds done in darkness and bad-faith actions; through slander and false rumors; through uncharitable assumptions and quickness to judge—Christ calls us to charity. We will respond to such suspicion by choosing to honor and submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Because Christ exerts his prophetic work through his Church, we will listen to each other and receive correction with humility and charity. As fellow priests in Christ, we will confess our sins and offer our forgiveness to one another. Because we share in his kingship, we will actively guard against all sinful behavior that breeds distrust.
(from the Theological Vision)
“Trust is the glue of life. It’s the most essential ingredient in effective communication. It’s the foundational principle that holds all relationships.” Stephen Covey
“To be trusted is a greater compliment than being loved.” George MacDonald
“The best way to find out if you can trust somebody is to trust them.” Ernest Hemingway
Trust is a hard thing to define, and there’s no single universally accepted definition. Trust includes aspects of vulnerability, expectation, honesty, reliance, etc. And trust can be fragile. In the AMR Theological Vision section titled Posture, the short paragraph on Trust says, “we commit to pursuing a communion of trust“ and goes on to say trust can be damaged by “slander and false rumors“ and “uncharitable assumptions and quickness to judge.” Indeed.
Respect is also a large component of trust, especially among men who disagree with each other. The saddest but perhaps most helpful book I’ve read in the last few years is Dr. Tim Cooper’s When Christians Disagree: Lessons from the Fractured Relationship of John Owen and Richard Baxter (Crossway, 2024). His foreword tragically observes: “The failure of Owen and Baxter to get along to some degree as fellow pilgrims to the same heavenly city had dire effects on the earthly fortunes of their respective communities.” Those two good men—heroes of mine—had very different upbringings, education, experiences, and personalities. Nonetheless, they were never able to develop and demonstrate the trust and respect we should expect from church leaders.
There are many wonderful examples of trust and respect between people with opposing views. The 1998 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded jointly to John Hume (Irish Nationalist/Catholic) and Richard Trimble (British Unionist/Protestant) for their efforts on the “Good Friday Agreement,” which contributed to achieving a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Northern Ireland. The two men saw peace as more important than their respective views. Ronald Reagan and Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill fought energetically over taxes, spending, and many other things during the 1980s. But after hours, they often shared beverages and stories. O’Neill famously said, “After 6 p.m., we’re friends.”
I just rewatched the film Remember the Titans, released in 2000, about the 1971 football team at T.C. Williams high school in Alexandria, VA. It’s a movie about earned trust and human connection across deep divides. The players began divided by race and hostility, but winning football games (i.e., the mission) forced them to depend on one another in many ways, and the mission was achieved to a degree that could not have been achieved if they had continued to focus on differences.
Perhaps the most beautiful example of “trust” among people who hold very different views is the relationship between Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. It’s one of the best modern examples of ideological opponents deeply respecting and genuinely liking one another. They disagreed sharply on constitutional interpretation and often wrote strong dissents against each other’s opinions. Yet they vacationed together, attended the opera together, celebrated New Year’s Eve together, and openly admired each other’s intellect and character. They knew each other’s children; she knew the names of his many grandchildren. They trusted each other enough to be completely candid. One subtle but important aspect of their trust, and perhaps of all trusting relationships, was that they did not walk on eggshells around each other. They teased each other openly. They argued intensely. They could predict each other’s reactions. Neither feared personal betrayal from honest disagreement. Their friendship became so famous that an opera was written about them, titled Scalia/Ginsburg. The refrain in the main duet is: “We are different, we are one.” A major theme of the opera is that unity does not require sameness, and suggests disagreement can coexist with affection, truth-seeking can survive conflict, and friendship can deepen through honest opposition rather than despite it.
Dr. Cooper concluded When Christians Disagree by saying that Owen and Baxter “inadvertently supplied us with a checklist of questions we might use as we adapt our response to discord when it begins and as it proceeds.”
Do I really need to respond to the initial provocation?
How much of the conflict can be traced back to personality rather than theology?
Am I overlooking all the things I have in common with the other person and seeing only the small number of differences?
How are my own faults contributing to a poor relationship?
Am I showing the humility, generosity, gentleness, and kindness to which I am called?
How much pride is mixed up in my emotions and actions?
How much damage will be inflicted on those around me and the cause of Christ by my continued conflict with the other person?
Is there anyone in my Christian community who can help repair our relationship or manage our differences?
Below are a few other practical ways we might foster trust in the PCA.
Look to the Scalia-Ginsburg relationships some men currently have in the PCA and be jealous for it, strive for it, and enjoy it.
Be curious about men with whom you disagree. Schedule a meal with them, perhaps at the Louisville Assembly. Learn about their backgrounds, experiences, and families. Tell them about yours. (While serving in the US Senate, Joe Manchin of West Virginia lived on a boat in the Potomac. He would frequently host dinners on the boat but insisted that invitees from Party A had to bring someone from Party B with them to the dinner. Priceless.)
Remember four magic words: “Pick up the phone.” Before criticizing a man publicly or privately, call him to see if you understand him correctly. Be brave enough to at least do that (Proverbs 11:13).
Try to increase your trust in our institutions: Permanent Committees, Agency Boards, other Presbyteries, fellow churches, etc. We should at least consider them innocent until proven guilty, instead of vice versa.
Guard our tongues and our keyboards better. We shudder to think what the Owen-Baxter situation might have been like if they had the internet. Post the exposition of the 9th Commandment from Larger Catechism 144 and 145 above your computer and maybe make “9th C” your phone’s lockscreen.
In conclusion, it was interesting to learn that the Scalia/Ginsburg opera was just performed a month ago at the Kentucky Opera, a mile from the Convention Center where our General Assembly will meet in June. What a happy “coincidence.”
Howie Donahoe is a retired airline pilot. He’s been in the PCA for 44 years, and a ruling elder for 40 years, currently at Boise Presbyterian Church. He’s been a member of the SJC for 28 years and was Moderator of the 47th GA in Dallas in 2019.