GACC Packet 090115

CENTRAL WASHINGTON PRESBYTERY

 FPC Yakima

FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 9 SOUTH 8 AVENUE YAKIMA WASHINGTON 98902 509.248.7940 WWW.FPCYAKIMA.COM TH

Reaching those unconnected to Jesus and together, worshiping God and growing into Christ-like maturity, impacting our community and the world.

October 23, 2008 Dear Friends, Our session and I would like to keep you informed as to our continued response to the actions of the 218th General Assembly (GA). For more on those actions, please go to our church’s website http://www.fpcyakima.com/feature2.cfm or contact the church office (248-7940) to have a packet mailed to you.

First of all, the leadership of our church is committed to affirming the Lordship of Jesus Christ, the authority of Scripture, and the sanctity of marriage. While we are not presently taking steps to withdraw from our denomination, the Presbyterian Church (USA), we believe that certain actions of the GA are steps in the wrong direction, and we have entered into a season of discernment. As is the case with all who follow Jesus Christ, it is our responsibility to stand for Biblical truth. Thus, we have taken the following steps over the last several years in what we believe is a faithful witness to God: 1. The session of First Presbyterian Church of Yakima has aligned itself with the Confessing Church Movement.

The session’s desire for our church is to take a stand in these days of moral confusion. We want to declare that God’s Word has revealed to us matters of faith and lifestyle. As such, we have adopted and applied the Three Core Confessing Church Standards: That Jesus Christ alone is Lord of all and the only way of salvation.

“Jesus said, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, but by me.’” (John 14:6) “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men and women by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12) “No one who denies the Son has the Father; He who confesses the Son has the Father also.” (1 John 2:23) That Holy Scripture (the Bible) is the Triune God’s revealed Word, the church’s only infallible rule of faith and life.

“Thy word [O Lord] is a lamp unto my feet and a light to my path.”

(Psalm 119:105) “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in the things that please God.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17) That God’s people are called to holiness in all aspects of life.

This includes honoring the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, the only relationship within which sexual activity is appropriate.

“For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh” (Galatians 5:13) “Jesus looked up at the woman who had been caught in an obvious and serious sin and said to her, ‘Woman, is there no one here to condemn you?’ She said, ‘No one, Lord.’ And Jesus said, ‘Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again.’” (John 8:10-11) 2. Our session has voted to withhold our per capita payments to the denomination as a statement of our concern regarding the denomination’s direction. That money is currently being held in an escrow account. As always, those within our congregation who prefer their per capita be sent to the denomination continue to have that option.

3. Our own Curt McFarland served as a commissioner to the 218th General Assembly to provide our church and presbytery a voice in the matters of the denomination.

1

4. More recently, our church sent five staff and one elder to the Presbyterian Global Fellowship (PGF) Conference. PGF is a group of individuals, churches, and organizations within the denomination who are committed to renewal. The mission statement of PGF states their purpose is to transform mainline congregations into missional communities following Jesus Christ. The values of PGF are as follows: Christ-Centered - Demonstrated by a steadfast commitment to Jesus as the living and reigning Lord of all life and the only true hope for the world. We confess that we have neglected the source of all life and have chased other gods. This idolatry is particularly apparent in our context with regard to issues of wealth, poverty, and power.

Outwardly-Focused - Demonstrated by a conviction that Christ calls us not primarily for our own benefit but for the sake of others. We confess that we have become distracted from our primary calling of discipleship and love of neighbor.

Biblically-Reformed - Demonstrated by a loyalty to Scripture as God’s unique and authoritative message of salvation and as our guide for daily living. We confess that we have created standards of convenience instead of remaining true to God’s Word. This moral confusion is evident in our context with regard to the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman as God’s desire for human sexuality.

Globally-Connected - Demonstrated by our commitment to use relational networks and new technologies to build vital relationships with the global church. We confess our tendency to trust in our own culture and to confuse it with the gospel. We acknowledge our need for global partners, for their support, admonition, and example as we seek to be congregations that display the unity of the Church and “lead lives worthy of the calling with which we have been called.”

Locally-Empowered - Demonstrated by the reality that the local movement of the church is still God’s primary means of justice, mercy, and love in the world. We confess that our churches have become less effective in our local communities, and we pray that God will enable us to find strength and courage for Christ’s plan of redemption.

The strategy outlined by PGF includes these steps: Cast Vision - Pronounce the heart and character of the missional church and its imperative in the world.

Collaborate - Connect with one another to share best practices, exchange ideas, and provide inspiration for living as a missional community following Jesus Christ.

Coach - Provide support, leadership training, and encouragement to clergy and lay persons who are choosing to live and serve in a missional community following Jesus Christ.

Celebrate - Share and applaud when communities of faith live out the apostolic calling.

At our September meeting, the session voted unanimously to affiliate formally with Presbyterian Global Fellowship. This does not mean we are withdrawing from the Presbyterian Church (USA). By affiliating with PGF, we are committing to journey with brothers and sisters in Christ who are seeking to follow God at work in the world. We have come to realize that this is done better in community. We are choosing to be part of a movement, making a commitment to contribute to the fellowship, to receive from others in the fellowship, and to seek to be changed as the Spirit works in us, among us, and through us.

5. We have committed to be a part of the on-going conversation going with Presbyterians for Renewal (PFR).

The mission of PFR is to mobilize the leaders of congregations within the Presbyterian Church (USA) to be biblically faithful and missionally minded in their service to Jesus Christ. The values of PFR are as follows: Obedience - Submitted to the Lordship of Jesus Christ Faithfulness - Anchored in God's Word and the historic Reformed faith Conviction - Passionate about shaping the church's life and theology Engagement - Involved positively in the structure and politics of the PC (USA) Collaboration - Working with others who share our Mission and vision Servanthood - Committed to ministry that reflects the graciousness of Christ Prayer - Depending upon God's direction and power

2

The vision of PFR is that the Presbyterian Church (USA) will be a church that: • Boldly proclaims Jesus Christ the incarnate Son of God and the only Savior and Lord of the world • Confidently relies upon Scripture as the authority for our faith and life • Effectively equips disciples to live abundantly in Christ • Intentionally develops godly leaders for future generations • Consistently supports congregations as the primary agents of God's mission in the world • Willingly relies upon the healthy governing bodies for accountability, mutual encouragement, and shared witness • Courageously embraces action for social justice and evangelism as essential dimensions of our primary task, to proclaim the Good News • Faithfully lives with holy abandon in the power of the Holy Spirit, willing to risk all and serve all in order to show the love of Christ to all.

6. One of our active elders and I recently attended the gathering of the Presbyterian Coalition (PC) which coordinates the conversation of various renewal groups within the denomination. The PC is a movement of people committed to life and transformation in the Presbyterian Church (USA) by exalting Jesus Christ, the Head of the Church, energizing its congregations, and upholding historic biblical leadership standards. It does this by…

• Coordinating with all individuals and groups who share the convictions expressed in the Coalition's Declaration, "Union in Christ," and who are working for a revitalized church; • Reaffirming the Coalition's commitment "that this work of renewal be carried on, in, and through the existing structures of the Presbyterian Church (USA) whenever possible"; • Encouraging all individuals, groups and governing bodies who share our convictions, to act creatively and passionately to identify and implement strategies consistent with these convictions and purposes.

In regard to our own presbytery, Central Washington Presbytery has taken steps to ensure we are faithfully witnessing to God. 7. On Saturday, October 18, our presbytery voted to reject the amendment to our Constitution that removed ordination standards. I believe we are the first presbytery to vote. This is the fourth vote on the deletion of the ordination standards in the last twelve years. In each subsequent vote, the church has continued to uphold biblical truth and proclaim that those who are called to ordination must adhere to behaviors mandated in the Bible. In 1997, the vote of the presbyteries was 97 to 74 in favor of upholding the standards. In 1998, the vote was 114 to 57. Most recently in 2002, the vote was an overwhelming 127 to 46. This is good news and demonstrates that we are not alone and have increasing support in this denomination.

8. We also voted to approve a declaration of our concern. That statement is as follows: Jeremiah 6:14 - “They dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious. ‘Peace, peace,’ they say, when there is no peace.”

We believe that events at the 217th and 218th General Assembly have brought our PC (USA) denomination to a point of crisis. Actions of these assemblies have broken the connection and covenant that have existed in our church since the first meetings of our General Assembly.

Claiming that our unity is found in Christ or in mission, then removing every common element of belief or personal standard creates a false unity, as if what we believe and what we do has no bearing on our life together.

While we respect our General Assembly, we affirm with our Book of Confessions: “As we do not rashly condemn what good men, assembled together in general councils lawfully gathered, have set before us; so we do not receive uncritically whatever has been declared to men under the name of general councils, for it is plain that, being human, some of them have manifest erred, and that in matters of great importance. So far then as the council confirms its decrees by the plain Word of God, so far do we reverence and embrace them.

3

But if men, under the name of a council, pretend to forge for us new articles of faith, or to make decisions contrary to the Word of God, then we must utterly deny them as the doctrine of devils, drawing our souls from the voice of the one God to follow the doctrines and teachings of men. The reason why the general councils met was not to make any permanent law which God had not made before, not yet to form new articles for our belief…” (BoC 3.20) Thus, following our Constitution and Confessions, we make the following affirmations: 1. That first and foremost, the church is captive to the Word of God and that God’s Word is not subject to the whims of any council that drifts upon the winds of modern cultural norms. We are compelled to follow truth as it is revealed to us in Scripture and to see that truth is embraced by our congregations and our ordained leadership.

“That truth is in order to goodness; and the great touchstone of truth, its tendency to promote holiness, according to our Savior’s rule, ‘By their fruits ye shall know them.’ And that no opinion can be either more pernicious or more absurd that that which brings truth and falsehood upon a level, and represents it as no consequence what a man’s opinions are. On the contrary, we are persuaded that there is an inseparable connection between faith and practice, truth and duty. Otherwise, it would be of no consequence either to discover truth or to embrace it.” (G1.0304) 2. That we reject any action that allows any part of the church to modify or ignore any mandatory provisions of the Book of Order without the advice and consent of the Presbyteries. Thus, we declare that actions taken to make mandatory ordination standards optional will have no force or effect in Central Washington Presbytery.

3. For Thirty Years, our denomination has been well guided by the DG/AI on Human Sexuality given in 1978. We believe that this report continues to accurately and graciously reflect the truth of Scripture on matters of homosexuality. We proclaim this guidance continues to hold authority in Central Washington Presbytery in all standards of belief and practice at the congregational and Presbytery level.

4. We reject as false the idea that there can be unity in our church without unified standards for faith and behavior in those who serve the church as ministers, elders, and deacons. There can be no universal ordination standards. No General Assembly Authoritative Interpretation can change any ordination standard found in the Book of Confessions or the Book of Order. Thus, we reject any ordinations done by a body that does so in violation of the Constitution, including G-6.0601b, and proclaim that such ordinations will have no force or effect in Central Washington Presbytery.

5. We regret that some Presbyteries have chosen to ignore the clear message of Scripture and our confessions on matters of human sexuality and have adopted ordination standards that neither conform to the historic Christian faith nor the standards of our church constitution. Central Washington Presbytery will survey the actions of these Presbyteries, through the Committee on Ministry, and shall direct that all ordained members of any Presbyteries determined by the COM to be in violation of our ordination standards shall not be allowed to labor within our bounds, nor submit a Personal Information Form directly to any Pastor Nominating Committee without prior approval of the COM. 6. Finally, we believe that we have come to a tipping point as a denomination. We affirm the words of the Wolfhart Pannenberg: “Those who urge the church to change the norm of its teaching on this matter must know that they are promoting schism. If a church were to let itself be pushed to the point where it ceased to treat homosexual activity as a departure from the biblical norm, and recognized homosexual unions as a personal partnership of love equivalent to marriage, such a church would stand no longer on biblical ground but against the unequivocal witness of Scripture. A church that took this step would cease to be the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.”

(Church Times, June 21, 1996)

4

9. In addition to this very strong statement, our presbytery voted to adopted the following position and intention: That the Presbytery of Central Washington establish a Task Force on sexuality, ordination, and denominational issues that will: 1. Investigate how we can use prayer, discernment, and worship in the process of seeking God’s will in these matters.

2. Monitor changes to the current polity issues; specifically, actions of judicial commissions that may change the current status of ordination law.

3. Contact individual congregations via their sessions to open dialogue about these issues.

4. Investigate what constitutional process we might use as a presbytery to move in a united way into a different denomination.

10. Finally, our own session is developing an ad hoc committee with the charge to lead our session in a process of discernment regarding our own congregation’s response to the actions of the GA. We will continue to communicate those responses as they develop through the church’s website, letters, and “chat with the elders” sessions. Any of the pastors or elders would be happy to discuss these with you.

As we continue to respond to General Assembly, we do not want to lose sight of the mission God has given to First Presbyterian Church. We live in a broken world in need of God’s message of salvation. More than ever, we are committed to reach, worship, grow, and impact for the sake of Jesus our Lord.

Blessings in His Service,

Jack Peebles Senior Pastor

REACHING THOSE UNCONNECTED TO JESUS AND TOGETHER WORSHIPING GOD AND GROWING INTO CHRIST-LIKE MATURITY IMPACTING OUR COMMUNITY AND THE WORLD.

5

First Presbyterian Church NINE SOUTH EIGHTH AVENUE · YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 98902 (509) 248-7940· FAX (509) 248-0937 WWW.FIRSTPRESYAKIMA.COM July 17, 2008 Dear Friends, The General Assembly (GA) of the Presbyterian Church (USA) concluded its business a few weeks ago in San Jose, California. Our own Curt McFarland served as a commissioner representing Central Washington Presbytery.

Many of you had the opportunity to follow the events presented by Curt through his blog at http://cwpga2008.blogspot.com/. I do want to offer you my own brief thoughts on the events that have transpired, thus the reason for this letter.

For context, the PCUSA’s government is similar to the government of the United States, with legislative (General Assembly), judicial (Permanent Judicial Commission), and executive (General Assembly Council) branches. In the opinion of many (myself included), we have an enormous and generally uninformed legislative branch, a weak judicial branch, and an unfocused executive branch.

As a result, we have neglected the authority of scripture and drifted away from issues that truly merit our attention, such as denominational decline (we have lost half of our membership as a denomination since 1960), and decline in world mission and evangelism. Instead, much of the energy at GA is focused on more political issues, such as human sexuality (especially the ordination of unrepentant practicing gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered [GLBT] people). The issue of human sexuality has continued to be debated over the past 35 years.

Until this most recent GA, the PCUSA has held to what can be described as Biblical, historical, and orthodox views. You may have read or heard that the PCUSA has lifted the ban on homosexual ordination. This is not true.

Four actions, however, were taken at this last General Assembly that give me concern regarding this issue. While they do not totally allow for ordination at this time, they do remove certain obstacles.

First of all, one authoritative interpretation (AI) of our constitution (Book of Order and Book of Confessions) was adopted that nullifies previous denominational statements. An AI directs us in how we are to interpret the constitution. One previous AI (originally called “definitive guidance” written in 1979) made it clear that “homosexual practice does not accord with the requirements for ordination as set forth in the Form of Government.” Another authoritative statement was adopted this year that allows sessions and presbyteries latitude to ordain people who, as a matter of conscience, cannot comply with a certain portion of the denomination’s constitution.

With these two AI’s, each church and presbytery now has immediate authority on what standards of belief and practices they will accept in their ordained officers. This is a step away from our Presbyterian connectional form of government, and moves us toward a more “congregational” form.

Two more actions were approved that will require the approval of the 173 presbyteries of the PCUSA before adoption into the constitution. One is a proposed change to the Book of Order (deletion of G-6.0106b) and will require a simple majority vote. The other is a proposed change to the Book of Confessions (specifically the Heidelberg Catechism), which would require a 2/3 majority vote.

Having shared this, it is important to note that our own executive presbyter, David Lambertson, has sent a letter to each church in our presbytery stating he hopes “that we can reach agreement that the action of the General Assembly will not change what we are doing! As a presbytery, we have an examination policy that is consistent with the present Book of Order, and this policy also complies with the new Authoritative Interpretation adopted by the 218th General Assembly. Even if G-6.0106b is deleted and replaced with the new wording by note of the 173 presbyteries, our examination policy will be in compliance. This is liberating to me in that we as a presbytery can focus our attention to preaching, teaching, and living the Gospel.”

I praise God for David’s response and for our presbytery’s continued commitment to the Gospel. Historically, the GA of the PCUSA has been more liberal in its thinking when compared to that of the individual churches and presbyteries. Personally, I do not think the proposed amendments to the constitution will pass as similar amendments have been defeated in the past by over 70% of the denomination’s 173 presbyteries. However, some have argued that the damage has been done through the two new authoritative interpretations.

This issue continues to divide the church and has distracted us from the mission of proclaiming the Good News of Jesus Christ to a world that is hurting. Because of this, three years ago, the Presbyterian Global Fellowship (www.presbyterianglobalfellowship.org) was formed. The purpose of this fellowship is to behave like the church we believe God is calling us to be in the 21st century. Topics and themes are discussed within this fellowship that many believe should be discussed at the GA. I have been involved in their conversation for the past year and a half. My hope is to draw our congregation deeper into the conversation. As of today, we have at least five staff members and one elder who will be attending this year’s conference in Long Beach, California.

My hope and prayer is that we can join the conversations that are taking place in Presbyterian Global Fellowship, Presbyterians for Renewal, and within our own presbytery so that we might focus on the mission God has given us. Also, we need to be in conversation with these folks as we look toward the future of the denomination and First Presbyterian Church Yakima.

It is often erroneously suggested that to oppose the ordination of unrepentant practicing homosexuals is to be unloving, judgmental, and even hateful. I firmly believe that God’s love and grace are offered to all. Everyone is invited into church membership, based solely on a person’s profession of faith in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, regardless of their sexual orientation. To enter into an office of the church, however, there are certain standards to which we require compliance based on Biblical truths.

For your own information, the session and I would like to share with you some hopefully helpful information from various sources within the denomination. Special thanks to Dave Marshall and Derek Smith for helping to compile this information. It is important to note that we are not alone in our frustrations and concerns. There are many churches that have begun the conversation of what to do next. We need to be a part of the conversation. As the governing body of First Presbyterian Church of Yakima, the session’s desire is to communicate as clearly as possible the steps we will be taking to respond to the GA. I want you to know that I, as your pastor, will continue to do everything in my power to make FPCY the strongest possible congregation, adhering to the authority of God’s Word, upholding Christ and the Biblical witness to Him, and carrying out the mission He has given to this church to reach, worship, grow, and impact.

Blessings in His service,

Jack Peebles Senior Pastor REACHING THOSE UNCONNECTED TO JESUS AND TOGETHER WORSHIPING GOD AND GROWING INTO CHRIST-LIKE MATURITY IMPACTING OUR COMMUNITY AND THE WORLD.

ii

INFORMATION PACKET

218TH General Assembly PCUSA (June 21-28, 2008) List Compiled by: First Presbyterian Church, Yakima WA Updated: July 17, 2008

A. OFFICIAL NEWS FROM THE GA

1. Assembly proposes amendment to delete G-6.0106b and replace it with a new version http://www.pcusa.org/ga218/news/ga08131.htm 2. Assembly leaves definition of marriage unchanged http://www.pcusa.org/ga218/news/ga08138.htm 3. Assembly starts process toward revising Heidelberg Catechism http://www.pcusa.org/ga218/news/ga08129.htm 4. FOG revision sent for study to churches and presbyteries http://www.pcusa.org/ga218/news/ga08117.htm http://www.pcusa.org/formofgovernment/ 5. Gradye Parsons elected General Assembly stated clerk http://www.pcusa.org/ga218/news/ga08130.htm 6. Reyes-Chow elected moderator of 218th GA http://www.pcusa.org/ga218/news/ga08017.htm

B. RESPONSES FROM EVANGELICAL GROUPS WITHIN PCUSA 1. Presbyterians for Renewal (http://www.pfrenew.org/)

a. GA 2008 Overview: http://www.ga2008.com/docs/pfr-one-pager-ga2008.pdf b. First response: http://www.ga2008.com/docs/Reshaping_the_PC(USA).pdf c. Contending for the Faith: http://www.ga2008.com/docs/contending_for_the_faith_2008.pdf d. Broader Implications:

http://www.ga2008.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=244 2. Presbyterian Global Fellowship http://www.presbyterianglobalfellowship.org

a. See attached PGF Newsletter dated July 3rd b. Vic Pentz letter of July 10, 2008 http://pgf.typepad.com/outbox/2008/07/on-the-road-fro.html c. Vic Pentz Video at Presbyterian Global Fellowship 2006 Conference Former pastor at FPC Yakima, Vic is now pastor of the largest PCUSA congregation, Peachtree Presbyterian Church in Atlanta Georgia (http://www.peachtreepres.org). He is a founding leader in the PGF as well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSjRYRsnU5I (David Lambertson makes a cameo 10:56 min into the video!)

Information Packet Index, Page 2 of 2

3. The Outreach Foundation (http://www.theoutreachfoundation.org/) http://theoutreachfoundation.org/News/onlinenews/TOFletterfollowingthegeneralassembly .html 4. The Presbyterian Coalition a. June 27 Letter: http://www.presbycoalition.org/email-218.htm b. What Happened resource: http://www.presbycoalition.org/what-happened.pdf c. Critique of New FOG: http://presbycoalition.org/altering-the-covenant.pdf

C. RESPONSES FROM WITHIN CENTRAL WASHINGTON PRESBYTERY 1. David Lambertson’s June 27 letter (see attached document).

2. Al Sandalow’s (1st Pres Ellensburg) July 1 Letter to CWP Pastors (see attached document).

3. Curt McFarland’s (minister delegate to GA from CWP) blog: http://cwpga2008.blogspot.com/ 4. FPC Yakima Response to Date (June 2006): Last updated after the 217th GA, this website presents information from FPC Yakima Session on GA issues. http://www.firstpresyakima.com/About_PCUSA.cfm 5. Santa Barbara Document (Feb 2007): This document is again commended for study by all. Penned by Pastor Mark Patterson and endorsed by Santa Barbara Presbytery, this does a thorough job framing the issues that are before the denomination, providing a cultural and theological context for these events. http://www.firstpresyakima.com/pdf/SantaBarbaraResponse.pdf

D. RESPONSES FROM GROUPS HOPING TO REVISE ORDINATION STANDARDS 1. Covenant Network http://www.covenantnetwork.org/home.htm

2. More Light Presbyterians: http://www.mlp.org/article.php?story=20080627141501803 3. That All May Freely Serve: http://tamfs.org/

Updated: July 17, 2008

Pages 1-4: Personal Reflections on the 218th General Assembly of the PCUSA Pages 5-7: Where Do We Go From Here? Personal Suggestions from Curt McFarland

My Reflections on the 218th General Assembly of the PCUSA (held June 2008)

edited 10-23-2008

Prepared by Curt McFarland: Central Washington Presbytery Minister commissioner (first-time GA attendee) to the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA) held June 20-28, 2008 in San Jose, California.

I understand that there are those who disagree with my use of the word “crisis” when I speak of the current state of our denomination and the actions of the recent General Assembly. I respect and appreciate those who disagree with the general tone and/or specific points outlined below.

My concerns as a GA delegate (the following are not listed in order of significance): 1. The immediate removal of the Authoritative Interpretation “Definitive Guidance” that was put in place at the 1978 GA of the PCUSA. 2. The seemingly selective approach to amending one of the confessions (Heidelberg) of the PCUSA Book of Confessions. To me, the agenda appeared transparent behind a veil of “historical integrity.”

3. The approval of the overture which has now been sent to the Presbyteries to modify ordination standards (re-wording of G6.0106b).

4. The decision to rework and print youth sexuality curriculum (responding to previous controversial material created but pulled out of circulation).

5. That there would be contention regarding an overture to provide transparent accountability within the PCUSA health plan for those who have sought “Relief of Conscience” related to abortion benefits.

6. The continued significant investment in WCC (World Council and Churches) and NCC (National Council of Churches) from the Per Capita supported operating budget (amount out of proportion to the financial support of other WCC and NCC member churches). (2009 PCUSA Budget figures for WCC and NCC support: $758,402) (World Alliance of Reformed Churches support is an additional $232,731). This is out of an approximate $13,400,000 GA per capital budget. 7.4% of per capita.

7. GA per capita philosophy remains unchanged. There appears to be a continued unwillingness to consider alternative means of raising national church support amid growing distrust and the withholding of the GA per capita portion by a growing number of churches.

8. The establishment of a voluntary fund to assist Presbyteries in legal battles with churches desiring to leave the denomination with property (setting aside approx $50,000 per Presbytery involved in disputes). One of the positive decisions reached at the 218th GA (which runs contrary to the above direction on legal funds) came as a result of a commissioner resolution requesting that charity and grace be extended by PCUSA governing bodies in dealing with churches and pastors seeking dismissal, or discussing dismissal, from the PCUSA. 1

9. The apparent lack of concern from the majority of commissioners on the position several Moderator candidates took advocating a change to current ordination standards.

10. The difficulty in taking a clear, strong, yet gracious stand regarding Christian/Jewish/Islam conversations and relationships. While still troubling, the GA thankfully modified wording so that the final overture read, “Jews, Christians, and Muslims worship a common God, although each understands that God differently.” Several presbyteries advocated inserting “same God.” 11. The election process for the Stated Clerk was inappropriate. Grady Parsons was allowed to lead portions of the Assembly in place of Clifton Kirkpatrick prior to the Stated Clerk election. I indicated my belief that this was inappropriate to the GA floor manager and he passed my concern along to others with no change in how business was run at the podium.

12. The resource personnel from the General Assembly advising the standing committees of the General Assembly had, in some instances, a very clear agenda they were promoting to commissioners.

When I asked from the floor if we could receive assurance that committees were being presented with two equally clear yet differing voices from experts as they discussed, deliberated, and decided on overtures before them, the response from the Stated Clerk and the GA personnel on the platform was confusion and an inability to answer clearly.

13. Social Issue pronouncements from the General Assembly appeared simplistic and agenda-driven.

To me there seemed to be no honest attempt to discover if the resolutions proposed represented the larger body of Presbyterians. Presbyterians in local churches who disagree with these social statements are forced to play defense when the GA resolutions on controversial issues becomes public.

The time, finances and energy put into passing forceful social statements on a wide range of public issues was, in my opinion, a waste of time and a poor use of resources. While I am thankful that the church takes social issues seriously and attempts to speak into them, I asked the General Assembly Social policy staff lead, from the floor, whether anyone pays attention to what we pass at the General Assembly and how do we come up with such simple responses to incredibly complex issues without conversations with the membership of the church across the country. The answer was … “not very many people read or refer to what we pass or publish on these issues. And there is no broad conversation at the local level of the church as the positions are being formulated.” It seems to me that these big pronouncements about gun control, Middle East violence, war, homelessness, poverty, the environment, education, are directed and manipulated by the staff members of the GA office and that the outcome makes them feel as if they have accomplished something when in reality very few care what the PCUSA declares on these issues. We have lost our credibility and unity when we make national statements about important social issues that are clearly unbalanced.

14. I served on the Worship and Spiritual Renewal subcommittee of the 218th General Assembly. I believe we began with close to 50 commissioners assigned to our subcommittee and ended with approx 30. Several dropped out silently, others left in disgust. The process I observed in the subcommittee 2

was often manipulative. We were tasked with approaching our business; we had two overtures, using a new paradigm. We were to avoid using Robert's rules and seek consensus using “Group discernment.”

We spent many hours over several days attempting to utilize this new process. Instruction and rationale was not clear. Frustrations ran high. The process that was supposed to reduce conflict as we found a better way through controversy did just the opposite. The overtures before us had very little “controversy” attached to them. The committee moderator was a dear soul but unable to lead as was needed. The GA resource person assisting the moderator had to intervene regularly and eventually assumed a direct leadership role. This resource person was the creator of the “discernment” material we were using (which had also been used during the PUP committee’s work). We took too long to make simple decisions on the overtures, experienced heightened frustration and mistrust, and felt as if we were used as an experimental “lab,” rather than being allowed to participate in more substantial work typical for a GA committee. The two overtures were overworked by our committee. One of the overtures was not presented to the floor of the GA but passed on unofficially to be used at the Moderator’s discretion. As a committee we did not address the desperate need for Spiritual renewal or Worship within our denomination. When I asked the Stated Clerk and the Moderator, from the floor, where the crisis facing the PCUSA (steep and continuing decline in membership, growing disunity and distrust, need for a renewed vision for renewal and worship) was being addressed, the Stated Clerk responded that some committee was working on this. Certainly not the committee I served on.

Throughout the week we heard stories of ministry celebrations across the country and ignored the challenges and problems most churches are facing in the reality of their everyday existence. I came away with the impression the national leadership of the denomination remains unconvinced we are in crisis. That conviction prevents the allocation of energy and resources that will be necessary to provide an honest assessment of the PCUSA and facilitate a real conversation about its future. I felt many were delighted to keep moving along as we have in the past “as long as the denomination doesn’t sink completely on my watch.” Lack of acknowledgement, repentance, leadership, vision, honesty, risk.

15. There were several occasions where it was mentioned that the national office serves the local church (in particular when the New Form of Government (nFOG) was being proposed and discussed).

But in practicality, in the machinations of the GA, in the attitude I sensed from national office leaders, in seemed very clear that power would remain at the national level and that local churches existed to maintain the viability of the structure and organization. Synod reduction … no. A change in the national office philosophy (for many) … no. A real commitment to find out what local churches and Presbyteries needed and shift resources in that direction … no. The national office will continue creating material, providing resources, staffing positions, that fewer and fewer people at the Presbytery and local church level need, access, or care about. For those inside the church, and for those unconnected to the church and Jesus, the PCUSA is becoming more and more irrelevant.

16. Times of worship were helpful. The Moderator and Stated Clerk did an excellent job maintaining decorum and a base line of civility (no applause when your position wins the vote …). Having said that, the entire GA seemed to me to a poor imitation of a low level political event. It did not feel like a humble, deliberate, servant, intentionally prayerful event. When Robert’s rules were needed they were brought out. When exceptions to the rules should have been discussed and decided on in proper 3

fashion they were not. During the debate on moral standards for ordination, Jack Rogers (a strong advocate on one side of the argument was asked by a commissioner to speak and was given voice on the floor). I had no disagreement with that. I appreciate hearing various viewpoints that are well expressed. After his comments, another commissioner (Mark Patterson from Ventura) rose and after thanking Jack asked if Robert Gagnon, professor at Pittsburg Theological Seminary, could offer his well researched counter position on the important matter before the GA. His request was ruled out of order and professor Gagnon was not allowed to speak. It was explained that Jack Rogers, as a former GA moderator, has lifetime privilege of the floor. When a delicate and divisive matter is before the assembly such a request should be handled with great sensitivity and respect and an exception should be made if at all possible (voted on if necessary).

17. The vote of the Theological Student Advisory delegates was highly predictable. They were overwhelmingly opposed to more theologically conservative positions and in favor of theologically progressive positions. To a lesser but noticeable degree the Youth Advisory delegates also followed this pattern. PCUSA seminaries question why there is a decreasing desire across the church to support their institutions and mission. To me the bias of the Theological Advisory delegates reflected a clear, intentional and growing imbalance at our PCUSA seminaries. There appears to be an entrenched progressive agenda that is being advocated and taught at PCUSA seminaries. What future direction will emerging PCUSA seminary trained leaders attempt to take the denomination?

18. There was no clearly stated intention, plan, or demonstrated will, to confront pastors, local churches, and governing bodies, directly, lovingly, and firmly, who have moved outside the boundaries of existing ordination/Book of Order/Book of Confessions/Bible standards.

19. Most disturbing to me … the Bible seemed to have been reduced to a very limited role at this General Assembly. Not only in the committee work I was directly involved in, but also during discussions and deliberations on the floor in plenary sessions of the GA, the Bible was rarely referenced. The few instances it was mentioned it was referred to offhandedly, “Jesus tells us we should love and accept everyone,” or punitively, “it is a sin …” It was rarely opened, read, referred to, submitted to, as the authoritative Word of God. I am saddened that the time when we honestly and humbly search the Bible for direction and insight on the critical issues facing the denomination has passed. If one were to open and read a passage during conversations on the floor of GA I sense they would be dismissed and derided by many as uninformed, naïve, and ignorant. Why not, during every major theological and moral discussion at GA, allow time for prominent theologically-educated voices from both sides of a particular issue to each present a 5-10 minute Bible study on that particular topic, and then allow 5-10 minutes for questions and answers. Ensure civility through the leadership of the Moderator and Stated Clerk and then proceed to open discussion, prayer, and vote?

This synopsis is submitted humbly, open to discussions with, and correction by, others, for the Glory of Jesus Christ our Lord and our Savior. CM

4

Where do we go from here?

I offer the following suggestions for discussion, modification, and potential consideration by a CWP Task Force or individual Sessions. Curt McFarland (218th GA commissioner) I have a deep love for our Presbyterian heritage. I owe a great debt to the faithfulness, courage and compassion of the pastors, teachers, elders, and church family in which I was nurtured, cared for, challenged and discipled. The PCUSA is in deep crisis. It is imperative that those on both sides of the various debates within the PCUSA maintain charity, affection, and gentleness towards each other.

Charity, affection and gentleness do not mean continued unity is possible or ultimately desirable.

While separation in the body of Christ is always painful and discouraging it may at times be the best of bad alternatives. Unity in the PCUSA cannot exist based on procedures and votes. Unity must be built on common theology, mission and ethics. I believe we have arrived at, or are fast approaching, a time of decision within the PCUSA. Numbers of: church members, Sunday attendees, adults being baptized, contributions sent to the national office, continue to decline. Distrust is evident throughout the church. Animosity is on the rise. Public legal battles are being waged by institutions intent on maintaining property and income. Accountability within the church is rare. Discipline is erratic.

Flagrant departures from historic theological and ethical standards are celebrated by individual churches, Presbyteries, and national church leaders.

I believe it is time for us, and for our Presbytery, to act decisively … We have a wonderful Executive and wonderful pastors throughout our Presbytery. I am not at the point of abandoning the denomination but I am at a point of working diligently for the reform of the church. It is important that we as local churches and as a Presbytery use effectively the overture process.

Here are some concrete steps, some specific overtures that may help us move forward: 1. Each pastor and leader in our Presbytery would commit to personally contacting dozens of other pastors throughout the PCUSA and begin building direct and reliable lines of communication that will enable the sharing of decisions, responses, directions that are being made and taken across the church.

Maybe this already exists? How does PFR or PGF facilitate this cross church communication?

2. State what we believe and where we stand (which we have done and will continue to do as sessions and as a Presbytery).

3. Develop a specific plan of action (at the congregational and Presbytery level) to respond to the crisis within the PCUSA. 4. Overture the upcoming GA (2010) as follows: a. Call the National church and each local congregation to affirm the Confessing Church Standards and provide gracious but definite separation for any that do not agree with these generous standards.

Provide an easy out for any that believe their conscience will not let them affirm the “Confessing Church” Standards or the “Santa Barbara Appropriate Response.” (Allow those who dissent to leave 5

with pensions intact and assist them in securing pastoral roles in other denominations more suitable to the theology and ethics each hold dear). b. End our association with WCC and NCC and align ourselves with something more in line with PGF, PFR, Outreach Foundation, Willow Creek Association. c. Invert the power structure ‌ Mandate that GA level staff serve only for the benefit of local congregations. GA staff serve as resource personnel for individual congregations. Shut down the publishing arm of the PCUSA. Shut down the UN office, the Washington DC office, and shift the Social Policy office to a position of support. Their role would be to listen to local congregations and help them understand and apply social justice with theological integrity at the local level. d. Eliminate Synods and strengthen Presbyteries. At certain points in the history of the American Presbyterian church Synods filled an essential role in communication, forming partnerships, and resourcing mission. With our current communication tools this role can be filled by Presbyteries.

Mandate that Presbyteries work on building connections across their regions, from region to region, and with like-minded mission partners around the world. e. Remove the property trust clause from the Book of Order. Provide a means for congregations that follow a certain process (time + education + prayer + study + conversation + ?) and still find by a set majority (85% or more?) of the membership that they cannot maintain their association with the PCUSA with integrity to leave with proportional assets. The assets should be proportional to the will of the membership. The process is set by vote of the GA and implemented by Presbyteries. Let our connectionalism be the result of common mission, common understanding of Jesus, common essential theology and agreed upon Biblical ethics. Encourage new associations with churches, even those outside the PCUSA, who have the same essential foundations we have. Develop a passion for churches to start new churches. Declare that any human-instituted unity is false and attempts to maintain such false unity will be tolerated. Our unity will be free and founded on agreed upon essentials. f. Address fully, and in painful detail, the precipitous decline in the denomination. Quit talking about membership numbers; utilize the more accurate measure of Sunday attendance numbers. Mandate that every single church in the denomination spend three years preparing a study on the viability of their ministry and mission. Some churches will not grow numerically due to demographics or other factors but each church should demonstrate that it exists primarily to worship God and for the benefit of those outside its walls and that it is committed to: sharing Jesus openly and graciously in the community, that it is investing substantial finances, energy, passion, prayer in others who are currently unconnected to the Jesus and the church. The national church should contact, survey, and hold accountable every church. g. Declare that now is the time to conclude this chapter in the life of the PCUSA. Either we will agree on the essentials and move forward together or we will disagree on the essentials and move in separate 6

directions. We vow to act with kindness, respect, and compassion and to pray for each other, no matter which way we sense the leading of the Holy Spirit.

The response of the GA to the above overtures will provide clarity on the direction, tone, foundational beliefs, and future of the denomination. The outcome of the 219th (2010) GA will provide each congregation and Presbytery with the information necessary to make appropriate decisions about their future associations and mission.

In Christ, our peace and passion, Curt McFarland 10-23-2008

Websites that have been helpful as I evaluate the 218th General Assembly and the denomination: Presbyterian Coalition: http://www.presbycoalition.org/campaign.cfm First Presbyterian Church Yakima: http://www.firstpresyakima.com/feature2.cfm San Diego Presbytery: http://presbyterysd.org/Follow/Him.cfm Presbyterian Global Fellowship: http://www.presbyterianglobalfellowship.org/pgf/ Jim Berkeley: http://jimberkley.blogspot.com/ Theology Matters: http://www.theologymatters.com/ PCUSA GA Website: http://www.pcusa.org/ga218/

7

Curt McFarland’s Reflections on GA CWPGA2008 Monday, July 7, 2008 Reflecting on GA I've been asked by several for a recap on the GA, now a week past. Here is what I've written and sent: I'm writing this from Belfast ...

GA was very discouraging. I went as a delegate because the church I am a part of (First Pres Yakima) and members of the Presbytery I belong to (Central Washington Presbytery) have talked and talked about our growing displeasure with actions of previous GAs. If we are going to complain it seemed only reasonable and consistent to do the hard work and get directly involved.

I found myself on the losing end of the vote most times. A quick personal perspective on the three greatest sadnesses: 1) At the GA level there is increased talk but no real commitment to the denomination being focused on the local church (I sensed very clearly that power is focused at the top and pronouncements and directives come from above (the Stated Clerk nomination was a good demonstration of this) or from those above directing the GA delegates in a short intense period of time), 2) Very little desire to face the reality of the continuing decline in membership, attendance, and trust (response when this question was raised was that some committee had passed something to address that and that local churches should send along more overtures (but most overtures with the potential to help transform the denomination were all sidelined or defeated)), 3) the greatest of the greatest sadnesses ... it seems to me that the Bible can no longer be used as a source of authority for discussions and deliberations at the GA level. The division on what authority the Bible has and on how to interpret the Bible has grown quite vast (case in point was the book sent to each GA commissioner prior to the GA with chapters written by many of the most distinquished professors of PCUSA seminaries (another question is asked, why are churches reluctant to support the seminaries? I could often tell how I should vote by looking at the results of the Theological Students advisory vote and doing the opposite!) completely dismissing the standard interpretation of passages related to sexual activity and offering a justification why those passages say nothing about sexual boundaries but actually the Bible affirms most all sexual inclinations which are obviously God-given).

On another occasion as sexual boundaries were being discussed on the floor of the GA Jack Rogers was asked by a commissioner to speak as an expert Bible scholar on the subject (I wonder if he had a particular agenda?), following that Professor Robert Gagnon was asked by a commissioner to speak from the other perspective and the Stated Clerk ruled that out of order (technically the Stated Clerk was correct in his ruling since Jack Rogers as a former moderator always has voice at GA while Professor Gagnon does not, but it was not correct or healthy in any other sense of the process). In the course of the GA the Bible was mentioned possibly 6-8 times and I had the sense that if it was quoted in a more evangelical manner it would be dismissed by the whole and viewed as a divisive and manipulative maneuver.

55

We are post-Biblical at the denominational conversation level. Discussions were based on emotions and experiences more tan on any Biblical foundation. Instead of a few random statements that what God wants is for us to love everyone (who can disagree with that) as support that God wants us to remove any meaningful boundary standards for ordination why wouldn't we have the best of both sides of the debate walk the assembly through a 15-30 minute Bible study on the topic under debate, with respectful Q&A after, ask for prayer, and then proceed to floor debate and vote. Instead each subcommittee is put into a time-pressured discussion process (where it seems from an answer to a question I asked from the floor that the authority voices and experts each sub committee hears from is unbalanced and clearly biased in the direction already intended by those guiding the voting delegates). We are then asked to trust the subcommittees who have done all of the hard work and listened to more expert testimony. I see it all as a rather unhealthy process but I haven't yet sorted out what can be done to improve the process.

Sadly at this GA (again from my perspective ... many others believe it was an exciting and wonderful gathering), we detached further from the powerful, historic, evangelistic, connectional, Biblical foundations many have treasured through the centuries.

I would recommend the PFR blog and website, both very good in describing the GA. My GA blog (which you are now reading) ... is a bit unorganized and unfinished but hopefully provides some insights In Christ, Curt

###

56

Oct. 18, 2008 To my fellow Presbyterians in Central Washington Presbytery From Carol Licht, an elder in the church Today you are meeting to discuss the possibility of breaking away from the PCUSA if certain positions and convictions are not met. While I understand the weariness and frustration that prompts this gathering, I feel compelled to urge you to adopt a measured response.

Indulge me with a mental picture: You are a child again and have just been given a shiny new red bicycle for your fifth birthday. The next day a neighbor kid comes over to play and takes your beautiful new toy and abuses it by scratching the paint, popping the tires, breaking the seat. You are very upset! Do you cry out: a) “You need to treat my bicycle appropriately or else leave my house.” or b) “You’re wrecking my bicycle and so I’m going to leave my house.”

I submit that leaving is not an appropriate or courageous response. Frankly, my nonChristian friends will not view another split in the church as an act of honor. At best they will see it as pointless. Most likely they will see it as evidence of more hypocrisy. I am not too concerned about what other Christians will think – they are not the ones to whom we’re called to be a witness.

I wish you could come with me some day to northern Thailand where I was born and raised as the daughter of Presbyterian missionaries to see first hand the impact of the Presbyterian Church there: strong churches, hospitals, schools, universities, seminaries. Their legacy is the hundreds of graduates whose lives have been shaped by faith for service to their country.

My grandparents, Edwin and Ellen McDaniel, bound up the wounds of lepers in southern Siam where they served as Presbyterian medical missionaries for nearly thirty years starting in 1904. My step-grandmother, Agnes (Barland) McDaniel helped to start the school of nursing that still thrives in northern Thailand.

My parents, Ed and Charlotte McDaniel are both buried in the Christian cemetery in Chiang Mai, Thailand where they gave their entire adult lives in service as Presbyterian missionaries. My father’s compassionate medical work literally transformed the population crisis faced by that country, opening the way for the relative prosperity the country enjoys today.

My brother, Dr. Phil McDaniel, became the third generation in our family to serve as a medical missionary at the Kwai River Christian Hospital, founded by Yakima native Dr. Doug Corpron. His daughter, Linette, and her husband have just returned from serving as Christian witnesses in China.

When I became an elder in the Presbyterian Church I was asked to share my story.

This is what I said: “Today I stand on the shoulders of my mother, an elder herself, who taught me that it is a sacred trust to be a leader in the church. I stand here on the shoulders of my brother, my father, my grandparents, and the countless other men and women who have modeled lives of service around the world. I want to pay back a debt of gratitude for the life of faith they modeled for me.�

Let me be clear: legacy matters because it inspires us. History matters because it instructs us. Roots matter because they ground us. The modeling of trustworthy service by the saints of the church matters. Our identification with all the above as members of the Presbyterian Church matters because in looking backwards we see how to go forwards. This sacred legacy is not something to walk away from.

Let us instead take courage and determination in hand. Let us resolve to do a better job of teaching and explaining what the scriptures actually say on these controversial points (I find that most people have no idea). Let us be brave enough to be the church in the midst of people who do not think, act or feel like us. Let us be clearer about why we uphold the Bible as the true and trustworthy Word of God, yet honest in admitting that we take lightly certain passages (for example, 1 Timothy 2:11-15). Let us model obedience and fidelity in our own lives even while we humbly admit to sins that Christ himself reviled including pridefulness and greed.

Let us not fall into the hands of the dark side that chortles when Christians take their eye off the goal and fight amongst themselves. Let us trust that our powerful God will lead us if we stand together. Let us believe that He is enough.

Jesus loved people into the Kingdom. Let us do likewise.

Micah 6:8 But he's already made it plain how to live, what to do, what God is looking for in men and women. It's quite simple: Do what is fair and just to your neighbor, be compassionate and loyal in your love, and don't take yourself too seriously — take God seriously.

The Message

Faithfully yours in Christ Jesus,

Carol (McDaniel) Licht

CENTRAL WASHINGTON PRESBYTERY

 Exec and Other Churches

Notes taken at church gathering on Aug 23, 2007 in Ellensburg (Dave Marshall, Elder at First Pres Yakima) Any mistakes are the responsibility of the editor, Curt McFarland (First Pres Yakima).

If you would like documents you presented at the meeting included here please send them as a Email attachment.

About 40 pastors and elders representing several churches in the Central Washington Presbytery met at First Presbyterian Church of Ellensburg on the evening of 8/23/07. The purpose of the meeting was to hear from a variety of churches on how they were addressing the critical issues facing the PC(USA) national denomination.

Curt McFarland stated that this gathering was intended as a positive meeting: a time for listening, learning, and prayer.

Several pastors had been asked in advance to share with the gathering how their particular sessions and congregations are responding to the crisis facing the national denomination. Some of those invited were unable to attend but had provided a written response, others wanted to attend but schedules and responsibilities prevented their participation, one did not want to present. In the invitation letter, and following Emails, to churches throughout the Presbytery those who were not directly asked to speak were asked to indicate whether they would like to present, as time allowed. Several pastors/elders who had been asked to speak gave a brief presentation, followed by an opportunity for questions/comments for the larger group. Following the presentations there was a time of general conversation where several others were able to share experiences and concerns. The meeting was finished with an extended time of prayer for each other and for our denomination.

PRESENTERS: First Presbyterian Church Wenatchee – Rev. Dr. Geoff Brown, Rev Paul Pankey, Elder Stew Cusick (geoff@fpcw.org; paul2@fpcw.org; stewc@nwi.net) Wenatchee is a member of the confessing church movement. They have participated in the Presbyterian Global Fellowship, and have attended all of the New Wineskins conferences. As a result of this involvement, their session has decided to stay in the denomination and continue to pursue reform of the denomination. Staff has been active in communicating some of these issues to their congregation. Many position statements can be found on their web site at www.fpcw.org. Most notably they have published documents on their various session resolutions such as the 2006 resolution, their affirmation of the essential tenets document, and information about the confessing church movement. Their session has published standards for leadership and on what constitutes biblical marriage.

1

Geoff has also been communicating these issues from the pulpit and many of his sermons are also available on-line.

Wenatchee Presbyterian Church– Elder Stew Cusick Stew shared with the group a copy of an article from the August edition of The Layman, which presents the information from a speech by Alan Wisdom, VP of the Institute on Religion and Democracy who spoke at the Presbyterian Coalition Gathering X (attached). Wisdom said that taking the position of “staying in” is a harder road and will not bring instant reform. Rather, rebuilding the denomination will take a slow, one stone at a time effort.

There 1) 2) 3)

are three problems that Presbyterians face during this time of crisis a neglect of the word, a welter of different doctrines, and a lack of church discipline.

It is tempting to be paralyzed into inaction as a result of certain Wineskin churches leaving the denomination. However, most wineskins churches are still with us.

Don’t be paralyzed.

We are in a theological crisis which does demand an appropriate theological response. Stew appreciates the Mark Patterson paper and believes if we are a connectional church, we must stay together and stay strong.

First Presbyterian Church Ellensburg – Rev. Al Sandalow (sandalow@elltel.net) Al shared with the group his July 2007 pastoral letter to his congregation and a letter from their Session to the congregation, dated May 15, 2007 (attached). Al feels that most of the new people in his congregation aren’t really aware of the political goings on of the GA at the national level. To counter this, he publishes a “where we are at” letter about once a year, which helps keep people informed.

In 2005, their Session began to designate their entire GA portion of per capita funds to Presbytery mission causes rather than to the GA budget. In 2006, they decided to keep the GA portion of their per capital aside in case the presbytery was required to submit those funds to Presbytery. They did not want to cause an undue burden on the Presbytery.

They would probably resume contributing their per capita to the GA if the GA were to rescind the PUP report. Al’s great hope was that the PCUSA would be reformed back to its biblical foundation. His other great desire is that this particular presbytery would stay unified and that we would work together toward that reform. His observation about his own congregation is that if a decision was made to leave the PCUSA denomination, about a third of his congregation would say “yes we should leave”, another third would stay (mainly from the long established population), while another third would move with the pastor wherever he went.

2

Al’s church would like to see three things happen at the June 2008 GA session: 1) A new stated clerk would be voted in, 2) Any major changes to the Book of Order would be resisted, and 3) That they would rescind the PUP report, or at least parts of it.

More information can be found on their church’s website at www.fpeburg.org, where he has communicated some of these issues to his congregation.

First Presbyterian Church Moses Lake – Rev. Eric Frey (ericfrey@aol.com) The majority of Eric’s congregation is not aware of the controversies at the national level. A handful of people are concerned however based on what they hear in the public newspapers. People are not necessarily aware of some of the journals such as The Layman; however they are hearing information from the public media. He did a sermon series on the controversies, which helped. He said about 10 to 20% are waiting to see what happens before leaving the church.

Many people are individually choosing to designate their per capita gifts so as not to go on to the GA level. Their session has also voted to withhold the GA portion of per capita. They are a member of the confessing church and they have attended several events but have frankly not spent a lot of time on denominational issues. In fact, Eric admitted to not spending much time even in Presbytery meetings.

His heart is to minister in Moses Lake and as a pastor of the church he finds it difficult to get that involved at this level.

His church is not poised to leave the denomination and they are praying for change and they are praying for common sense leadership. The vast majority of his congregation is aligned with Eric’s belief.

First Presbyterian Church Prosser – Rev. Paul Fredericks (paulf_fpc@embarqmail.com) Pastor Fredericks was unable to attend the meeting, however he presented a position paper entitled “Addressing Issues in our Denomination”, which is attached.

Churches of Roslyn and Cle Elum – Mt. Pisgah Presbyterian Church (Roslyn) and Cle Elum Community Church – Rev. Dr. Worth Wilson (pastordad2@gmail.com)

Pastor Wilson is an American Baptist pastor serving in the Presbyterian churches in Roslyn and the Cle Elum.

3

These two churches are a mix of Protestant denominations and serve as the main Reformed voice in these communities. However, the majority of people are not from the Presbyterian tradition. The overwhelming majority in the congregation are very conservative. Perhaps if they were more aware of the issues on the national level of the denomination they might leave the church altogether.

They are more interested in being a Christian church rather than a Presbyterian church per se. This means they are more congregationally oriented than denominationally oriented.

The Cle Elum board follows the national issues but pretty much feels that the PCUSA is making themselves irrelevant to our mission in Cle Elum and therefore focuses on the ministries of their church. Both churches however have adopted the confessing church movement. Both the board and the session have studied the essential tenants. Both congregations participated in a Bible study on the essential tenants in the fall of 2006.

Beginning this year both churches have voted to withhold the GA portion of per capita and place those monies into a savings account to hold the funds in trust in case the Presbytery was required to pay them . At Roslyn, 16% of the congregation's non-specific giving is given to missions and session has decided to place a emphasis on local missions but does continue to give to Presbytery missions. In Cle Elum, the board voted to redirected mission giving to local missions, church planting, Hispanic ministers salary support, and pastoral leadership development rather than the denomination (both PCUSA & ABCUSA) or the presbytery. This action in Cle Elum of re-directing mission money is a direct result of 216th GA passing of the PUP report and receiving of the Trinity report.

Okanogan Presbyterian Church – Rev. Chris Warren (fire41@northcascades.net) Chris indicated that the Session of Okanogan Pres is a younger group. He has started to educate his session on some of the denominational issues and engage them in theological discussions. He found at first that they were not very enthusiastic or interested in studying the book of order or some of the germane theological issues.

However, these controversies have done a positive thing for their congregation in that they were spurred to do some adult studies on the Trinity issue. He did perceive the need for his session to understand some of the deeper issues facing our denomination. His church is not interested in leaving. They are a member of the confessing church movement. Their belief has been that it will all work out but now people are realizing the need to fight for reform.

The positive results of these controversies for his congregation have been that it has lead to greater awareness of the Book of Order and the Book of Confessions. His congregation has been studying these more.

4

First Presbyterian Church Yakima – Rev. Curt McFarland, Rev. Jim Erixson (Curt@firstpresyakima.com; Jim@firstpresyakima.com) Curt provided the group with a paper entitled “First Pres Yakima response to Issues Facing the National PCUSA” - (attached). A lot of conversation has been taking place within his congregation. The majority is not tuned in to national issues, but when they hear of these things they are concerned about what is happening to the foundation of their church. The church has joined the confessing church movement and has applied these standards to all paid staff and leaders (elders, deacons, pastors) of the church. Most of 2006 was spent praying, explaining and discussing these with staff, leaders, and the church. All leaders, minus one, affirmed the Confessing Church Standards for their life and their ministry.

Several aspects and implications of the essential tenets have been discussed with the leadership of the church.

Pastoral staff has mentioned these issues from the pulpit which has resulted in good conversations with members.

The session has worked through the Trinity paper sent out by the recent GA. Curt stated his belief that the historic foundation of the Presbyterian denomination is a good and solid foundation but the national denomination has been building off that historic foundation in recent decades. The session has endorsed the “Appropriate Response paper from the Santa Barbara Presbytery and would like to see the Presbytery of Central Washington endorse this document or one similar and then pass it along as an overture to the 2008 GA. Some at First Pres Yakima believe the national crisis is so big and the future is hopeless, but many others believe God can work a miracle in our denomination and bring us, individually, locally, and nationally to repentance and renewal. The leadership of First Pres Yakima has committed itself to become educated about the issues facing the PCUSA, to begin engaging speaking up for renewal, without diverting our main focus from the work God has given us to do in Yakima and Central Washington. The leadership at First Pres Yakima has moved to withhold the GA Per Capita portion and set it aside for payment if and when the national body moves significantly for repentance and renewal. The session is not moving to separate from the denomination, but is understanding it can not hope others will speak up. Big question is how to engage without sacrificing the ministry and work of the local church.

More information can be found at the church’s web site http://www.firstpresyakima.com/what_we_believe.cfm and also, http://www.firstpresyakima.com/About_Session.cfm.

West Side Church Richland – Rev. Ralph Kieneker (rckieneker@msn.com) and Elder Roger Knight Roger and Ralph shared with the group their one page paper entitled “Actions Taken in response to Current Issues Within PCUSA” - (attached). There are many

5

denominations represented at Westside, they are an United Protestant Church established in Richland; however most of those involved at the church identify themselves as Presbyterian. The majority of the congregation has not paid much attention to the national issues in the past. However, this is changing of late. In 2001 they adopted the confessing church standards as a resolution from session; however they did add to that resolution an emphasis that we are always called to love and grace. The pastors have sent several letters to the congregation, which were all affirmed by the session.

They have used the essential tenants as standards for their paid staff and session leadership.

Ralph Kieneker was actually inspired by the PUP report to candidate for a senior pastor position thereby getting more involved in the church. He feels there is a constitutional crisis within the denomination. He was able to articulate to the group his stance and would like to see strong unity about these confessing church standards in the CW Presbytery. He also feels there is a strong support for the reformed traditions from his congregation.

More information can be found at their website www.westside1.org, under the “What we Believe” section.

Executive Presbyter – Rev. G. David Lambertson (david@cwpresby.org) David is saddened by the amount of energy that is being spent in this Presbytery in responding to these national issues.

He is concerned that our witness has become negative. He wishes that we would spend our energy on the things that we are about rather than on the things we are against.

First Presbyterian Church Omak – Rev. Ken Peterson (KenP@ncidata.com) As a pastor, Ken fears the distraction from his pastoral ministry and for mission of our church by the issues surrounding P.U.P; however he appreciates the need for it and the efforts others in the presbytery are making. He feels he really needed to hear from others at this meeting. Omak’s Session rather than voting to withdraw the GA portion of the per capita on behalf of the entire congregation, allowed individuals to redesignate their own portion and act of their own accord. 26 out of 175 members did withdraw their GA portion of per capita while the remainder elected to leave it in.

According to their website (http://www.omakfirstpres.org/info.htm), their church became the first church in the state of Washington in 2001 to adopt the resolutions of the confessing church movement.

6

Conclusion At the end of the meeting the group spent quite a bit of time in prayer for the Presbytery and the denomination. The gathering together and conversation was very much appreciated by most of the group and it was agreed that further meetings should be organized and scheduled early in 2008, prior to the June GA meeting.

Some expressed frustration we did not come up with an action plan, others felt we were too proactive. The purpose of this meeting was to set the stage for future action together by coming together to listen, pray, learn and discuss. Any comments regarding errors in the above document should be directed to Curt McFarland @ First Pres Yakima (Curt@firstpresyakima.com) edited 10-9-2007 CM

7

First Presbyterian Church of Prosser Addressing Issues In Our Denomination We at First Presbyterian Church of Prosser feel deeply committed to the Reformed Tradition. However, we are ambivalent about the current state of affairs in the PC(USA) because we are not sure that our definition of the “Reformed Tradition” is the same as the denomination’s definition. We feel that we are far more committed to a historical and orthodox understanding of the Reformed Tradition than our denomination.

While defining the Reformed Tradition is a lengthy and valuable discussion, for simplicity and brevity, let’s just say we are committed to the “Essentials & Distinctives of the Reformed Tradition” as defined in the document from San Diego Presbytery. The question is what do we do in response to this chasm between the denomination and us.

Therefore, we have taken the following steps.

First, after the decisions of the last GA we, as Elders and Ministry Staff, began to examine the current situation in the denomination and to study the theological issues involved. In the course of this study time we realized that, as a church, we are probably theologically closer to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church than PC(USA). While this was a harsh realization we made a decision to stay largely because of the current stance of Central Washington Presbytery. Its commitment to the “Essential Tenants” was a very important part of this decision. We suspect that if there will be a split within the denomination it will occur around Presbyteries not individual churches. Second, the leadership of the church has committed itself to a season of prayer and discernment. This means staying abreast of the current events in our denomination and looking at all possible options. This means not only praying for and watching the denomination it also means examining strategies for retaining the property if the denomination goes in a direction that we cannot support. We considered withholding of funds, but, at this time, we have not chosen to do so primarily because of the stance of Central Washington Presbytery. Third, while we felt prayer and discernment was important we also realized we needed to stay very intent on continuing our mission of “leading people to Jesus Christ and growing in Him together.” What happens in our denomination is important to us, but if too much time, energy, and resources are directed to “fixing” the denomination we are not sure that is the best use of what God has called us to do. Third, we have acknowledged to the congregation that there are difficulties in the denomination, but we have not gone into great detail, because we are not sure where the denomination is headed and the majority of the congregation do not seem all that concerned about the denomination. However, we will be having a sermon series on the “Essential Tenants” at some point to emphasize some of strengths of the Reformed Tradition. Our stance at this time amounts to “a wait and see” approach while continuing on with our mission of “leading people to Jesus Christ and growing in Him together.”

8

Letter from Rev Al Sandalow First Pres, Ellensburg July 1, 2008 Dear Friends in Ministry in Central Washington Presbytery; By now, you have certainly heard of the damaging actions taken at the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) last week in San Jose. I was there as a part of the Presbyterians for Renewal GA team and had a ring side view of this troubling meeting.

Let me say, that our Presbytery was ably represented by Commissioners Curt McFarland and Robert Welsh and you would be proud of their efforts.

What are the problems GA has handed us? Certainly, there were the usual batch of annoying, one sided reports on a wide variety of issues, that would be bigger problems if it wasn’t for the fact that no one ever reads them. But, it was the issues that circle around ordination that once again created the most serious problems.

Let me start by putting this into perspective. First, we have long observed that in general, General Assemblies tend to be more theologically liberal or progressive than the Presbyterian Church in general. There have been plenty of GA’s that have taken positions that are not in step with the church as a whole. Often, these efforts are simply rejected by the Presbyteries when changes to the Book of Order that are proposed come before them for a vote. This Assembly fit the picture perfectly.

Second, the liberals have learned that to win their votes they need to tell lots of heart wrenching, personal stories of people in emotional pain because of what the church believes. This is the main way they attract enough commissioners from what of many of us call the “mushy middle” to their side to win the critical votes on ordination issues.

They simply don’t have the votes on their own. If you listened to the debate, you never heard any of the pro-homosexual ordination folks quoting scripture or the confessions.

That said, if you look at all the critical votes taken on homosexual ordination, they were almost all 53-54% for and 47-46% against – not much of a majority. We need to be careful that we do not jump to the conclusion that the denomination has suddenly shifted to some radically liberal majority. Frankly, the percentages haven’t changed much.

So, what changed this year that made this GA’s decisions so potentially damaging? Two things: First, those on the pro-ordination side have found a major loophole to exploit, by essentially modifying the Constitution without having to ask the Presbyteries for concurrence. This has been done by the past two GA’s by passing “Authoritative

2 of 6 Interpretations” of the Book of Order; “AI’s” for short. Essentially, an AI is a statement of what the constitution means on some issue; much like what the secular Supreme Court issues in their decisions.

What this assembly and the last assembly did was to rule, with two AI’s, that each church and Presbytery has the final authority on what standards of belief and practices they will accept in their ordained officers. There are no longer ANY national standards for ordination or behavior. This has been called “local option”.

Thus, a Presbytery could decide it’s OK to believe that homosexuality is blessed by God and that it is OK for an ordained church officer to be in a same sex relationship. Several Presbyteries have already done this and a few other seem to have been waiting in the wings for this decision to be passed.

Second, since 1978 and 1979 our denomination’s stand on homosexuality and ordination have been guided by two actions forbidding ordination of “self-affirming, practicing, homosexuals”. Originally called “definitive guidance”, this standard has been affirmed many times by subsequent GA’s and had the standing of an AI on this issue. The prohomosexual ordination groups have long sought to have this AI removed and this year they were successful. This is a grievous loss of a tool that has served the church well for 30 years.

The final piece is that this assembly also took the actions to have the Presbyteries remove G-6.0106b from the Book of Order and replace it with a very vague affirmation (see below1). Even though the previous actions have effectively bypassed this standard, it is still an important part of the puzzle that has guided our standards on human sexuality.

Additionally, the Assembly called for the removal of the phrase “homosexual pervasions” from the Heidelberg Catechism, a move that is historically correct, but obviously intended to remove any condemnation of homosexuality from our confessions.

So, what do we do? I think we need a strong, but measured response. We should not let a small percentage of the church run the orthodox faithful out by Machiavellian political maneuvering. However, just whining about how unhappy we are will get us no where against their “the end justifies the means” strategy.

We have warned the GA that adopting a “local option” for ordination will effectively divide the church and break down our unity and connectional nature. I think we need to show the PC(USA) this is not mere talk, but take swift action to show the church how this will begin to play itself out.

Attached is a proposal for how we might respond as a Presbytery. I think it speaks for itself and makes it very clear that we will not accept ordinations made in violation of the Book of Order and that we will not blindly stumble down this path until it is too late to turn back.

3 of 6 I would invite your comments and thoughts. I know that summer is a difficult time to gather people together, but I think a swift response is important, both for the sake of the churches in our Presbytery who will be grieved by this GA’s actions and to speak to these GA actions while the issues are still fresh.

If there are enough of you interested, we can meet to discuss this (or some other) response. If enough support arises, perhaps we can call a special meeting of the Presbytery to take official action. I think we need to act soon.

I am tired of this. Yet, the Apostle Paul reminds us: "Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." Gal 6:9 Don’t give up! Let’s see this through.

Yours in Christ,

Al Sandalow 1st Ellensburg 1. “Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to repent of any self acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament. Those who are called to ordained service in the church, by their assent

to the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003), pledge themselves to live lives obedient to Jesus Christ the Head of the Church, striving to follow where he leads through the witness of the Scriptures, and to understand the Scriptures through the instruction of the Confessions. In so doing, they declare their fidelity to the standards of the Church. Each governing body charged with examination for ordination and/or installation (G-14.0240 and G-14.0450) establishes the candidate’s sincere efforts to adhere to these standards.”

4 of 6

Jeremiah 6:14 "They dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious. 'Peace, peace,' they say, when there is no peace."

We believe that events at the 217th and 218th have brought our PC(USA) denomination to a point of crisis. Actions of these assemblies have broken the connection and covenant that has existed in our church for since the first meetings of our General Assembly.

Claiming that our unity is in found in Christ or in mission, then removing every common element of belief or personal standard, creates a false unity, as if what we believe and what we do has no bearing on our life together.

While we respect our General Assembly, we affirm with our Book of Confessions: “As we do not rashly condemn what good men, assembled together in general councils lawfully gathered, have set before us; so we do not receive uncritically whatever has been declared to men under the name of the general councils, for it is plain that, being human, some of them have manifestly erred, and that in matters of great weight and importance. So far then as the council confirms its decrees by the plain Word of God, so far do we reverence and embrace them.

But if men, under the name of a council, pretend to forge for us new articles of faith, or to make decisions contrary to the Word of God, then we must utterly deny them as the doctrine of devils, drawing our souls from the voice of the one God to follow the doctrines and teachings of men. The reason why the general councils met was not to make any permanent law which God had not made before, nor yet to form new articles for our belief…” (BoC 3.20) Thus, following the highest authority in our constitution, our Confessions, we make the following affirmations: 1. That first and foremost, the church is captive to the Word of God and that God’s Word is not subject to the whims of any council that drifts upon the winds of modern cultural norms. We are compelled to follow truth as it is revealed to us in Scripture and to see that truth is embraced by our congregations and our ordained leadership.

“That truth is in order to goodness; and the great touchstone of truth, its tendency to promote holiness, according to our Savior’s rule, “By their fruits ye shall know them.” And that no opinion can be either more pernicious or more absurd than that which brings truth and falsehood upon a level, and represents it as of no consequence what a man’s opinions are. On the contrary, we are persuaded that there is an inseparable connection between faith and practice, truth and duty. Otherwise, it would be of no consequence either to discover truth or to embrace it.” (G1.0304)

5 of 6

2. That we reject any actions that allows any part of the church to modify or ignore any mandatory provisions of the Book of Order without the advice and consent of the Presbyteries. Thus, we declare that actions taken to make mandatory ordination standards optional will have no force or effect in Central Washington Presbytery.

3. For thirty years our denomination has been well guided by the DG/AI on Human Sexuality given in 1978. We believe that this report continues to accurately and graciously reflect the truth of Scripture on matters of homosexuality. We proclaim this guidance continues to hold authority in Central Washington Presbytery in all standards of belief and practice at the congregational and Presbytery level.

4. We reject as false the idea that there can be unity in our church without unified standards for faith and behavior in those who serve the church as ministers, elders, and deacons. There can be no universal ordination for the whole church when there are no shared ordination standards. Thus, we reject any ordinations done by any body that does so in violation of G6.0601b and proclaim that such ordinations will have no force or effect in Central Washington Presbytery.

5. We regret that some Presbyteries have chosen to ignore the clear message of Scripture and our confessions on matters of human sexuality and have adopted ordination standards that neither conform to the historic Christian faith nor the standards of our church. Central Washington Presbytery will survey the actions of these Presbyteries, through the Committee on Ministry, and shall direct that all ordained members of any Presbyteries determined by the to be in violation of our ordination standards shall not be allowed to labor within our bounds, nor submit a Personal Information Form directly to any Pastor Nominating Committee without prior approval of the COM. 6. Finally, we believe that we have come to a tipping point as a denomination. We affirm the words of Wolfhart Pannenberg: “Those who urge the church to change the norm of its teaching on this matter must know that they are promoting schism. If a church were to let itself be pushed to the point where it ceased to treat homosexual activity as a departure from the biblical norm, and recognized homosexual unions as a personal partnership of love equivalent to marriage, such a church would stand no longer on biblical ground but against the unequivocal witness of Scripture. A church that took this step would cease to be the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.�

6 of 6 We believe that the PC(USA) has come to the brink of becoming the church that Pannenberg warns us about. If the piece by piece dismantling of our historic and orthodox Christian faith and ordination standards continues and future assemblies fail to take actions that reverse the damaging actions of the 217th and 218th General Assemblies’, we will consider that the General Assembly of the PC(USA) has broken the bonds that hold us together and will look at every and all options to address this, including options whereby our Presbytery may functionally withdraw from the PC(USA).

GROUPS WITHIN PCUSA

 Santa Barbara Presbytery

Page 1 of 2

David Marshall From:

Jake Kupp [jakekupp@covenantmarketing.com]

Sent:

Nov 28, 2006 1:52 PM

To:

'Betty Rogers'; 'Pastors'; 'Dave Arkills'; 'Anderson, Eric'; 'Bricel, Kathy'; 'Connell, Dave'; 'Fuhlman, Donna'; 'George, Gary'; 'George, Gary'; 'Gustafson, Eric'; 'Harris, Connie'; 'Harris, Connie'; 'Hilmes, Jill'; 'Klein, Tony'; 'Leavitt, Gordon'; 'Licht, Carol'; 'Marshall, Dave'; 'Palmatier, Ted & Alida'; 'Park, Pat & Joe (Clerk)'; 'Steere, Jeff'; 'Sundquist, Steve'; 'Sundquist, Steve'; 'Tenney, Bob'; 'Trammell, Jen'; 'Curt McFarland'; 'Jim Erixson'; 'Judy Turner'; 'Kathy Eaton'; 'Mark Washam'; 'Norm Buckley (Norm@firstpresyakima.com)'; 'Rhonda Cardona'; 'Steve Barker'; 'Susie Woodin'

Subject:

Additional Information relating to tonights session meeting

Attachments: Santa Barbara Resolution-Final.doc

Dear Elders, This weekend I had a chance to talk with Fred Maloney about our proposed motion regarding per capita. Fred shared with me a document that his son-in-law has written and approved by the Ventura Community Presbyterian Church. It is very well written beginning with theology & rational but then moving to several courses of action. I am not endorsing this document at this time, but I feel that it gives us another option that is worth considering. I have discussed w/ Pastor Curt McFarland before sending it and he is supportive of sharing it with you and with no expectations of you having to review it before tonight’s meeting. Thanks. Jake (Please note Mark Patterson’s note to Fred and Ruth Maloney below for further clarification :) From: Mark Patterson To: fgmaloney@charter.net Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 8:59 AM Subject: Ventura Resolutions

Hi Mom & Dad! Here is the paper I wrote and our session approved. It has begun to spread and some other presbyteries and churches are looking at it for their own action. It was commended by a gathering of 16 renewal groups a couple of weeks ago. It is much more far reaching than anything else out there but I have been growing increasingly frustrated since GA feeling that the church is desperate for leadership and direction and none is coming. Most of the paper is theology and rational but it moves from this to call for numerous acts to return the church to its historical and constitutional faith. I went over these with denominational legal experts who have said these resolutions should all hold up if challenged in church courts. That’s not to say they won’t try but the language was very carefully crafted to make sure it was faithful to the constitution and Presbyterian law. Enjoy and spread to whomever you wish.

Hope you have a great Thanksgiving! We love you guys.

Mark Mark R. Patterson, PhD Lead Pastor Community Presbyterian Church 1555 Poli Street Ventura, CA 93001 805.648.2737

11/30/2006

Appropriate Response

1

A Declaration of Theology and Action

2 3 4 5

From the Session1 of Community Presbyterian Church of Ventura to the Presbytery of Santa Barbara and Presbyterian Church (USA) Reformation Day—October 31st 2006

6 7

I. An Appeal to the Presbyteries, Congregations, and Christians in the PC (USA)

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

With many in the church we have over many years carefully and prayerfully followed the actions, decisions, controversies, and perspectives manifesting across the Presbyterian Church (USA). We have studied, discussed, and wrestled with the many difficult issues. We have pondered over and prayed over events, statements, litigations, and meetings. Through all this we have intentionally moved slowly, cautiously and thoughtfully, recognizing that misinformed acts and reactionary stands are neither helpful nor faithful. We believe that if we have erred it is on the side of reticence and silence. Through this season of discernment, study, and prayer we have sought an appropriate response to the gracious call and command of God to submit our lives to the Lordship of Christ Jesus and to give our lives to fulfilling the Great Ends of the Church.

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

We stand profoundly grateful to God, certain that he has through this time of reflection, study, and participation with the broader church given us a word of guidance for our congregation, our presbytery, and the church as a whole. This word is not a new word or a word that seeks division, schism, or the creating of a new and separate body. Rather it is an acknowledgement and reaffirmation of our history, theology, and polity and passionate appeal that our church as a whole and every constituent congregation and presbytery within it turn from the naturalistic theology, romanticism2, folly, and idolatry that has too often been allowed to shape and characterize our church and return to its first love, Jesus Christ, Lord of the church and the One Word which we alone must hear and obey. Our intention is to stand in faith and unity against the destruction of our church, its confession, and its witness. We seek and call for a return to the Scriptures, our Reformed theology, and the standards of our Constitution. We joyfully and gratefully acknowledge that within our history we have worked together to reconcile our differences. We have been able, on numerous occasions in our long history to restore our structural unity and thus we now seek the higher good of restoring our confessional unity and integrity. We call the church to pursue and know the genuine, God given peace, unity, and purity that is the necessary fruit of faithfulness, integrity, and godliness. And we call the church to return to its first work of mission centered around and upon the life changing and world changing word of the Gospel and to follow our Lord’s command to go out into all the world to make disciples in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

30 31 32 33

There can be little doubt that the church we have loved and served is in the midst of a profound crisis that is clearly worsening. The hope vested in the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity has—thus far—failed to materialize. Arguably the 217th General Assembly’s approval of the Task Force Report, even as amended, has only moved us further into crisis. The report’s recommendations—now authoritative interpretations—may open the door for local license3 and certainly has 1

Pastors Mark Rayburn Patterson, Paul Dugan, and Marsha Martin; Elders: Dan Tapia, Rocky Ludes, Jim Lisi, Debby Barker, Glen Lowes, Marcia Drescher, Jim Peters, Kevin White, Bob Pedroza, Denny Armstrong, Connie Tice, Richard Armstrong, Marta Helmer, Paul Burke, Dave Heiss, Randy Guzik, Jack Wallace, Ted Temple and Kirk Hamilton.

2

Romanticism refers to a broad, and thus difficult to define worldview. For our purposes it is important to look at epistemological issues (how we know what we know). Romanticism emphasizes idealism over realism and knowledge drawn from feeling and intuition over reason and empiricism. Romanticism would define the universal through the particulars whereas realism (and thus evangelicalism) would take the opposite course, defining the particulars from the universal. Romanticism is open to contradictory ideas remaining unreconciled and still valid viewing these as part of a grand, inosculated whole that lies beyond reason but may be known intuitively and experientially. For two helpful studies see: Bernard M. G. Reardon, Religion in the Age of Romanticism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989) and Stephen Prickett, Romanticism and Religion: The Tradition of Coleridge and Wordsworth in the Victorian Church (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976).

3

Local license or local option refers to a local governing body (session or presbytery) abandoning, ignoring, or annulling (whether temporarily or permanently) standards of the national church in favour of locally agreed upon values or rules. The PUP report, in allowing conceivably any doctrine or practice to be declared a scruple by a candidate, theoretically allows the national standards of the church to be trumped by locally held opinions and interpretations. Ultimately the full implications of the PUP authoritative interpretations will not be known until cases are brought to church courts which could happen as early as October 2006.

C:\Documents and Settings\dwmarshall\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK16\Santa Barbara Resolution-Final.doc Dr. Mark R. Patterson, PhD Page 1

11/30/2006

A Declaration of Theology and Action

Appropriate Response 34 35 36 37

led increasing numbers of sessions and presbyteries to clearly articulate what beliefs and practices are considered essential and non-negotiable4. Additionally, many are taking up issues of property, per capita, and even separation from the PC (USA)5. While our history as a church is replete with controversy and conflict, it is painfully clear that we stand before the most threatening crisis in our church’s long history.6

38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

The depth and significance of the current controversies must not be underestimated. While many would say, “Peace, peace…” there is in fact no peace and little chance of finding peace if the church continues to ignore, deny, or simply renounce the serious issues we face. We can no longer afford theological sound bites, confessions that are PowerPoint deep, and “truths” that are little more than romantic wishes and emotional subjectivism. We must have the courage to sincerely and fearlessly address the issues dividing us and move beyond tepid pronouncements or declarations of peace while denying all reality and ignoring the real issues confusing and dividing us. We must make an appropriate response, to God and to those he has placed under our care, and to those who are disrupting the peace unity, and purity of the church through ignorance, error or evil.

46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

The Session of Community Presbyterian Church of Ventura California calls upon the Santa Barbara Presbytery and all congregations and governing bodies within the PC (USA) to unite behind the Scriptures, confessions, and polity of the church.

We call upon every member, pastor, elder, and governing body to study this document and “test the spirits to see whether they are of God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.”7 Test our words and actions before the Scriptures, confessions of the Church and standards of the Reformed tradition. If you find that we are speaking contrary to these standards do not listen to us! But if you find that our perspective and actions are faithful to the Scriptures and our constitution then we urge you to stand with us. “Let no fear or temptation keep you from treading with us on the path of faith and obedience to the Word of God in order that God’s people be of one mind upon earth and that we in faith experience what he himself has said: ‘I will never leave you, nor forsake you.’ Therefore, ‘Fear not little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.’”8

4

In addition to this document before the Santa Barbara Presbytery the following may be noted as examples: Both San Diego and Santa Barbara presbyteries have passed “essential tenets” guidelines for ordaining, installing, and receiving ministers into their membership.

The Presbytery of Central Florida has approved a resolution declaring that G-6.0106b is an essential requirement for ordination and will not recognize any ordination done in violation to this standard. Other presbyteries, including Pittsburgh and Holston are considering similar actions. The Sacramento Presbytery has passed four resolutions dealing with ordination standards, per capita, and property. The Presbytery of San Francisco will soon address conflicting resolutions that reflect the tensions across the larger church: one calls for the strict maintenance of constitutional standards while the other seeks full inclusion of any person into the life and witness of the church. As of this writing almost thirty presbyteries are considering resolutions that affirm constitutional standards. In the September 12th edition of the Charlotte Observer twelve pastors representing nearly 3,500 members of the PC (USA) published a full page statement which declared the actions of the 217th General Assembly “collectively represent grievous error and a significant departure from the biblical and confessional principles of the Christian faith.”

5

To give some examples: First Presbyterian Church of Baton Rouge and Kirk of the Hills in Tulsa have both filed suit against their presbyteries seeking affirmation of full rights and ownership over their property. Kirk of the Hills, the largest church in its presbytery with over 2,800 members has gone even further with its pastors renouncing the jurisdiction of the church and the congregation overwhelming approving a resolution to leave the PC (USA) and join the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. Milwaukee Presbytery has allowed a small member congregation to also join the EPC—though requiring it to pay $150,000 for the right to maintain its property. Across the denomination many congregations are pondering if, when, and how to leave the PC (USA) and examples abound in the news. Exacerbating issues, secret advisory papers drafted by the offices of the General Assembly and the GAC and recently made public, show the denomination intends to squelch all dissent and retaliate against any seeking to withhold control over church property. Tactics advised include defrocking offending ministers, lawsuits against ministers and elders, and removal of sessions. Trust and co-operation is all but non-existent.

6

Andrew Walker (King’s College, London) and Robert Wuthnow (Princeton) have both suggested that the larger church is heading for the third great schism. The issues tearing at the PC (USA) are similarly affecting many other churches and denominations and leading to the unique situation in which evangelicals within the PC (USA) have more in common with evangelicals in the Episcopal and Methodist Churches (to give two examples) than they do with progressives within their own church (and vice versa). The whole of Christendom may well be heading towards a split across and through countless denominations and traditions which divides the holy catholic church into two camps or perspectives: evangelicals and progressives. Certainly the gap between these two within the PC (USA) is expanding.

7

I Jn. 4:1. See also: Jer. 29:8; II Peter 2:1

8

8.04, Book of Confessions, Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA) part I. The Theological Declaration of Barmen, while written in an entirely different political setting, was nevertheless wrestling with nearly identical theological issues and thus forms a crucial document for our day and situation.

Page 2 of 19

A Declaration of Theology and Action

Appropriate Response 56

II. Concerning the Present Situation of the Presbyterian Church (USA)

57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73

The issues tearing apart the church are neither peripheral nor incidental. At stake is nothing less than our integrity, our future, our mission and our message. At question is whether we have been, are, and can be trustworthy before God or whether we will abandon the faith once and for all delivered to the saints for a populist, culturally determined Gospel that is hostile to the work of Christ. Ensconced within claims of piety and words of faith are alien principles that have entered our church damaging the theological basis and standards that have defined and shaped the church. At issue is a natural theology9 that forms the essence of the progressive theology in the PC (USA) in contrast to evangelical10 theology which forms the essence of Reformed theology within the church. In spite of shared language there are profound, even mutually exclusive, differences between the progressive theology that has long sought center stage and the Evangelical theology that has long formed the center and foundation of Presbyterian belief and currently defines the majority of our members and congregations.11 While some may hope for and proclaim that there is room within the PC (USA) for both (or all) sides12 the fact remains that these perspectives are in many places mutually exclusive and irreconcilable. One can not declare Jesus “the Way, the Truth, and the Life, the only way to the Father”13 and simultaneously declare that he is but one way among many. One can not affirm the authority of the Scriptures over all matters of faith and practice14 while simultaneously proclaiming that experience, emotions, and opinions have equal (or greater!) voice. One can not hold that the ethical standards of Scripture are to be required while simultaneously holding that truth is uncertain and each must choose their own course, beliefs, and behaviours. There is always room for diversity within the church when these beliefs deal with non-essentials or are not mutually exclusive. But that is not the case today within the PC (USA). Essentials upon which the church has been built and which exist as standards in 9

Natural theology is most simply described as “bottom up” while evangelical theology may be described as “top down.” Obviously these are over simplified and thus not wholly accurate but they allow those inexperienced with the concepts to begin wrestling with the issues at stake. Evangelical (i.e. Reformed) theology has always started at the top, beginning with questions about the nature, will, and work of God and only secondarily with questions of what this means and how we are to respond. Natural theology works from an opposite direction, wrestling first or primarily with who we are as God’s creation and how we experience God and then deducing from these who God is and what He does. This simple difference has profound implications and leads to vastly different perspectives. To find an example one need only look at the issue of homosexuality. Where evangelical theology would hold that the will of God revealed through His acts (creation, et. al.)and testified to in the Scriptures declares the practice of homosexuality to be sinful, natural theology would hold that because such feelings or attractions exist in one whom God made then God logically approves of the practice and lifestyle. From the top down the lifestyle is viewed as antithetical to the Christian life while from the bottom up it is viewed as a faithful expression of God’s diverse creativity. These views, based upon profoundly different starting points and theological perspectives and methodologies are difficult, if not impossible to reconcile. In fact, no significant attempt of evaluating or reconciling such disparate doctrines has been made as the church has instead been content to grant both the stamp of legitimacy and propriety in the name of diversity and the nebulous ethic of tolerance.

10

The word evangelical comes from the Greek word euangellion, meaning good news. Today it is broadly and not always accurately used.

According to Karl Barth, one of the most important reformed theologians in our history, “Evangelical means informed by the gospel of Jesus Christ, as heard afresh in the 16th century Reformation by a direct return to Holy Scripture.” Evangelicalism when used in its strict theological sense is not bound to a particular tradition but cuts through all sectarian lines. Evangelicals are first upwardly or vertically focused with the horizontal focus coming as a certain and necessary response to revelation and relationship with God. Evangelicalism is centered upon God not humanity, the sacrifice given to us not the sacrifice we make, the power of God to heal and save not the intrinsic power or worth of the human being. It draws its guidance from Scripture, finding here the authoritative instruction about both God and faithful human response to his revealed will. Donald Bloesch has noted that “Evangelical theology aims not only to be faithful to Scripture, but also to expose the unfaithfulness of the Christian community to Scripture.” Evangelicalism is profoundly concerned with the poor and the righting of injustice. And it is all these (and more!) because of its passionate Christocentrism which rigorously holds Jesus Christ at the center of all of life, the focus of God’s activity, the revelation of his will, and the source and goal of all creation.

11 For

a helpful study of the differences between progressive and evangelical theology see: Gerrit Scot Dawson and Mark R. Patterson, Given and Sent in One Love: The True Church of Jesus Christ (Lenoir North Carolina, Reformation Press, 2005), pp. 79-86.

12

To give one recent example, advice on the Presbyterian Women page of the PC (USA) web site stated: “Talk about Christianity in a way that is not imperialistic. Do not assume that …Christianity offers something better than other religions” (http://www.pcusa.org/pw/resources/bias-free-guidelines.htm). It is impossible to reconcile this with the evangelical perspective set forth in either the Book of Confessions or Book of Order (cf. G-1.0100 “All power in heaven and earth is given to Jesus Christ by Almighty God, who raised Christ from the dead and set him above all rule and authority, all power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come. God has put all things under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and has made Christ Head of the Church, which is his body.” The Reformed tradition has always held that it has something better to offer than other religions and his name is Jesus.

13

John 14:6. 8.10, Book of Confessions, Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA) part I.

14

5.003; 6.001-006, Book of Confessions, Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA) part I.

Page 3 of 19

A Declaration of Theology and Action

Appropriate Response 74 75 76

our Confessions are routinely denied, annulled, or simply ignored while counterfeit alternatives are raised as viable options without any recognition that these contradict our history and tradition. With the loss of our defining doctrines the PC (USA) has become increasingly directionless, messageless, and meaningless.

77 78 79 80 81 82 83

While diversity of belief, experiences, and practices have long characterized the PC (USA) they have never been successfully reconciled. For decades we have been encouraged to “celebrate our diversity” without ever being called to reconcile our diversity or wrestle with the difficult and painful questions about the legitimacy, propriety, and truth of disparate beliefs and truth claims. We hold that not everything proclaimed or believed is true. Nor is every belief affirmed under the banner of diversity legitimately Reformed or in some cases, even Christian, and therefore to be received as valid for the church. For true peace, unity, and purity to exist and flourish, for our mission to continue and deepen, for the church to be faithful before God and relevant to the people of this world we must value theological legitimacy over theological diversity.15

84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96

The issues tearing at the PC (USA) today are theological. Appeals for tolerance, reforms of polity, and pursuit of our mission may have some value but are not theological answers and thus can not, ultimately, answer the theological difficulties tearing at us. The church must decide what it believes if it is really going to be whole, healthy, and functional and it must make an appropriate and fitting response to the Triune God of grace. This is especially true for us within the Reformed and Presbyterian tradition. For we are a confessional church. Our very existence is based on confessions held and expressed over and against other possible expressions of faith, beliefs, and practices that lie outside our tradition and even outside the Christian faith. Our very life and faith is grounded upon the fact that in the face of many beliefs and claims of truth one may hold, some are not true, not accurate, and not of God. They are inherently and essentially inappropriate as they are inconsistent with the work and nature of God. The PC (USA) is a confessional church whose very existence is defined and mission shaped by what we hold to be true. To now hold disparate doctrines, to believe that any belief is valid and valuable, to encourage each to determine their own ethical lifestyle is not only logically ludicrous, it is categorically contrary to the whole of the Reformed tradition and the church catholic. Yet it is this attitude and perspective that is increasingly shaping the theology of the PC (USA) and in the process, deceiving many.

97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110

That is of course not to say that Reformed theology—or any theology for that matter—should be considered perfect, complete, or beyond need of correction and improvement. Indeed, a hallmark of our confessional tradition is that our theology is “Reformed always being reformed by the Word of God and the call of the Spirit.”16 But this phrase, when taken in its entirety reveals the inherent tension that must remain. While our theology grows in understanding and our message is translated into ever new contexts and cultures, the Word of God underlying such human statements remains fixed and unchanging. Where our confessions and mission are consistent with the Word they may be called faithful and true, even where still in need of further improvement or clarification and even when held “in tension” with other doctrines. But where our theological statements contradict, annul, or transcend the Word they may be, indeed must be, declared deficient, untruthful, scandalous, and heretical. The Reformed tradition approaches theology humbly but not stupidly. Acknowledging that God is ultimately beyond all attempts of description it nevertheless holds that he can be truly known, accurately described, and actually obeyed. Admitting that all attempts to describe God are mere human efforts to describe what is eternal and beyond full human description, it nevertheless remains foolish to imagine and pernicious to proclaim that any description may work and one confession is a good as another. The proponents of such error and folly, have in fact moved outside of the PC (USA), being an essential renunciation of the church through denial of its essential tenets, history, and theological perspective.

111 112 113 114 115 116

It is obvious, but important enough to state explicitly that this paper and the theology it expresses is written from and addressed to a Reformed and Presbyterian perspective. In other words, we are not interpreting, critiquing, or correcting the theology of the Episcopal Church, the Methodists, Lutherans, or anyone else within the Christian family. There are under the large umbrella of Christian orthodoxy many theological traditions and doctrines. Doctrines held by one tradition within the Christian faith may be different than those in another and may even contradict them. The understanding of the nature of the Lord’s Supper, for example, is decidedly different in the Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed traditions, but not sufficiently so as 15

The greatest hope in recent years that this might occur evaporated with the report of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity. In spite of good intentions, high hopes, and hard labor, the task force in the end failed to address the real theological issues tearing us apart. Instead of seriously wrestling with the profound differences of theological perspectives within the PC (USA) they instead only tangentially addressed them, that is, (for those mathematically astute) without touching them at all. While speaking of the centrality of Christ or the authority of Scripture no word of guidance is given to help the church discern what these mean, where it may have erred and why, or how to reconcile the different understandings attached to such statements. The task force, while affirming the authority of Scripture abdicated all responsibility of leading the church into legitimate and faithful interpretation by simply expressing that Presbyterians disagree over interpretation. In the end their report failed by offering a polity solution to a theological problem and thus leaving the greatest problems before us essentially untouched and certainly unresolved.

16

G-2.0200. Book of Order, Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA) part II.

Page 4 of 19

A Declaration of Theology and Action

Appropriate Response 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137

to render any one of these as unorthodox or unfaithful. Different traditions hold different doctrines on baptism, grace and works, free will and election, eternal security and perseverance, eschatology, and many others, while still remaining Christian and united around the essential articles of faith. Each of these traditions has particular historical-theological-cultural characteristics which shape their doctrine, life, and witness. The Reformed tradition also has unique and defining characteristics, particularly “its affirmation of the majesty, holiness, and providence of God who creates, sustains, rules, and redeems the world in the freedom of sovereign righteousness and love.”17 The purpose in this paper’s theological reflection is first to call the PC (USA) to understand that some doctrines, practices, and philosophies, regardless of claims, are simply not Christian.

They are not a part of any orthodox tradition or its confessions and practices and must be acknowledged as such. And second, it is to call the PC (USA) to understand that some doctrines, practices, and philosophies, while genuinely Christian are not part of our particular tradition. It is our purpose and hope that the PC (USA) will discern these differences and seriously endeavour to stand for the truths of the Christian faith. And it is our purpose and hope that the PC (USA) will grasp the unique and valuable perspective of the Reformed and Presbyterian tradition and not lightly ignore, forget, or deny our particular historical experience of God and the Gospel.18 We are a church within the Reformed tradition. As a church we must stand courageously for the faith once and for all delivered to the saints.19 As members of the Reformed and Presbyterian tradition we may joyfully acknowledge that we share many common beliefs and practices with the larger church.20 And we must endeavour to learn from our sisters and brothers in other traditions while remaining faithful to our own tradition and its unique and valuable witness. Our intent in this study is to simply express that much of what is currently defining our church today is not Reformed and in some case not even Christian. We can not accept or believe everything or anything and long remain either Presbyterian or even Christian. Our future, our faithfulness, our mission depend upon our rightly discerning the truth of God and his revelation. We must have a truthful and accurate understanding of the nature and work of God and a response that is fitting and appropriate to the reality of God.

138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153

It is time for the PC (USA)—that is, its members, congregations, and governing bodies—to express what the church believes, and as necessary corollary of this declaration, it must express what it does not believe. In doing this, it need not express all that it believes nor hold that these expressions are inerrant and final. For fuller descriptions already exist—primarily for us in the Book of Confessions, but also in Reformed theological works such as Calvin’s Institutes, Weber’s Grundlagen Der Dogmatik, Barth’s Church Dogmatics—and any human work can be better expressed to more accurately describe the eternal reality behind it. Nevertheless, it remains crucial in our time that the PC (USA) courageously affirm (decide?) what it believes.

We must reaffirm that our words of confession may accurately—if not fully—express the truth of God revealed to us by His acts and witnessed to by the Word written and proclaimed. And we must in our affirmation, have the courage to discern and denounce error and heresy wherever it occurs. We must utterly reject as inappropriate the naïve but popular folly, proclaimed in the name of tolerance and diversity, that the church can and may hold disparate doctrines simultaneously and proclaim both as true. It is time for the PC (USA) to reject the hopeless ambiguity and uncertainty that has marked our confession in recent decades and stand for the truth of the Gospel revealed through Jesus the Saviour of the world. And it is time that this be done by more than a few leaders, individuals, or congregations who in recent years and decades have boldly stood for the Gospel. As the life and future of our church is at stake, it is required in our day that all who love the Lord Jesus stand for the truth of his gospel and renounce and repent of the errors—great and small and of which, in their variety we are all guilty—that have overwhelmed our confession, mission, and ethics. It is time for the faithful to rise and fearlessly express the 17

Other great themes of the Reformed Tradition include: (1) The election of the people of God for service as well as for salvation; (2) Covenant life marked by a disciplined concern for order in the church according to the Word of God; (3) A faithful stewardship that shuns ostentation and seeks proper use of the gifts of God’s creation; (4) The recognition of the human tendency to idolatry and tyranny, which calls the people of God to work for the transformation of society by seeking justice and living in obedience to the Word of God (G-2.0500. Book of Order, Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA) part II).

18

Or, as the Constitution puts it: “The creeds and confessions of this church reflect a particular stance within the history of God’s people.

They are the result of prayer, thought, and experience within a living tradition. They serve to strengthen personal commitment and the life and witness of the community of believers” (G-2.0500b. Book of Order, Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA) part II).

19

“Dear friends, although I have been eager to write to you about our common salvation, I now feel compelled instead to write to encourage you to contend earnestly for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints” Jude 1:3 NET.

20

Again, as the Constitution states: “In its confessions, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) gives witness to the faith of the Church catholic.

The confessions express the faith of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church in the recognition of canonical Scriptures and the formulation and adoption of the ecumenical creeds, notably the Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds with their definitions of the mystery of the triune God and of the incarnation of the eternal Word of God in Jesus Christ” (G-2.0300). And again: “In its confessions, the Presbyterian Church U.S.A.) identifies with the affirmations of the Protestant Reformation. The focus of these affirmations is the rediscovery of God’s grace in Jesus Christ as revealed in the Scriptures. The Protestant watchwords—grace alone, faith alone, Scripture alone—embody principles of understanding which continue to guide and motivate the people of God in the life of faith” (G-2.0400).

Page 5 of 19

A Declaration of Theology and Action

Appropriate Response 154 155 156 157 158

message we have been entrusted to bear. It is time for those who sit on the fence of indifference to rise from their Laodicean complacency and grasp the severity of the situation, perceive the call of God in this hour, and rise to the church’s need of their witness. And it is time for those who have for decades rejected the clear teaching of the Scriptures and the essential tenets of the Christian faith to honestly acknowledge their renunciation and peaceably leave the church as the Constitution requires.21

159

III. A Theological Declaration

160 161 162 163 164

We hold, with deep gratitude and humility, that God has called us to speak with one voice and given us a word which must be proclaimed. After years of discerning, praying, studying, and conversing the time has come for all in leadership and all congregations to affirm again the heart of what we believe and express afresh what we hold true and dear in these troubled times. “We believe we have been given a common message to utter in time of common need and temptation”22 and we invite all within the PC (USA) to join us in this affirmation.

165 166 167 168 169 170

We live in an age that is profoundly skeptical of any truth claim especially any raised over and against others. Our age is uncertain that truth exists, that truth can be known, or that any perspective should be proclaimed as such. It is also a time of rampant subjectivism where each not only decides what is right in their own eyes, but is actually encouraged to do so. The skepticism and subjectivism combine to cause profound trauma and confusion within the church as each looks within to determine what is right and true for them. The very nature of the church takes a new shape as doubt and diversity become our confession and the ancient confessions that have always defined us are lost to the god of uncertainty and subjectivity.

171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181

Other ages have had to face different points of error or confusion. Athanasius addressed a church wrestling with the nature of Christ and the Trinity. Augustine confronted the errors of Pelagius on grace and salvation. Luther and Calvin stood against the corruption of the church that had replaced grace and justification with self-righteousness, works, and indulgences. Barth stood against the natural theology of Third Reich Germany that was increasingly allowed (by the church!) to shape the church’s theology, mission and ethics. In every age the church is called to address the errors, misunderstandings, corruptions, and heresies that occlude the truth of the Gospel and thus its message and mission. Rarely, if ever, is the church allowed to choose its battles. Instead these usually emerge from the issues, values, and philosophies of the current culture in which the church is placed. In every case and era it is required of the church, as a necessary element of its mission, to address these values and philosophies, affirming what is true and critically assessing what is false all under the authoritative and defining revelation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And in the process it must consciously resist the temptation to take the popular and easy course of changing the Gospel to fit the values and philosophies of the day.23

182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193

In our time the issues at the center of our debate are not the Trinity or the nature of Christ, they are not about justification or even ordination standards or homosexuality. The primary issue facing (and confusing) the church today is the nature, reality, and means of revelation and, from the human side, what constitutes a real and proper knowledge of God. Secondly, and inseparably bound to this, is the question of what constitutes righteousness before God. While many areas and details of theology and ethics may be specifically addressed we hold that the root of error and misunderstanding today revolves around our understanding of God’s revelation, Christian epistemology, and misunderstandings regarding the nature of and distinctions between inherent and imparted righteousness. We hold that the natural theology manifesting in the progressive wing of the church and defining its theology is radically inconsistent with the teaching of Scripture and our Reformed tradition.

This misuse of Scripture and redefining of essential and/or traditional elements of Reformed theology has led the church into confusion, biblical illiteracy, and even heresy. We hold that a clear—if brief—word of correction must be voiced if we are to be faithful to God and the word he has given us and faithful in leading the church through the dangers raised against its witness.

194 195 196

In view of the errors of natural theology manifesting within the progressive wing of the church and the devastating harm these doctrines and their proponents are bringing to the peace unity and purity of the church we therefore confess the following evangelical and Reformed truths: 21

G-6.0108, footnote 1. Book of Order, Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA) part II.

22

8.08, Book of Confessions, Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA) part I.

23

This has become the common approach of the PC (USA) and the dominant methodology of the progressive wing of Protestantism. The values and philosophies are made authoritative and the church is then required to shape its message and mission around these values.

The history of both Judaism and the church reveal disastrous results whenever this is allowed and call us to remember such lessons, lest we repeat them.

Page 6 of 19

A Declaration of Theology and Action

Appropriate Response 197

i.

198 199

“I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father but through me.”

John 14:6

200 201 202 203

“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber…. I am the door; if anyone enters by me, he will be saved.”

John 10:1, 9

204 205 206 207

“For we teach and believe that this Jesus Christ our Lord is the unique and eternal Saviour of the human race, and thus of the whole world…Wherefore we quite openly profess and preach that Jesus Christ is the sole Redeemer and Saviour.”

Second Helvetic Confession, Ch. XII

208 209 210 211

“All power in heaven and earth is given to Jesus Christ by Almighty God, who raised Christ from the dead and set him above all rule, and authority, all power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in the age but also that which is to come.”

Preliminary Principles, Constitution—G-1.0100, PC (USA)

212 213 214 215 216 217

We hold, with the testimony of the Scriptures and in consistency with the Reformed faith and the church catholic that there is but one mediator between God and the human race, one Saviour, Redeemer and King, the Lord Jesus Christ. By his name alone salvation is graciously given as the Father freely determines and in him alone are we reconciled, redeemed, and restored to God and the life He intends. In accord with the singular message of Scripture, Reformed theology, and the holy catholic church we affirm that Jesus is unique, unrivaled, and singular in nature, being, and work, the center of God’s saving work and the singular goal of creation.

218 219 220 221 222 223

We reject therefore the errors of progressive and revisionist theology that denies or annuls the singular saving work of Christ by proclaiming that Jesus is but one way of salvation among others of equal validity, truth, and efficacy. We reject and denounce any testimony that seeks to limit his saving work, power, or efficacy to that of mere example of spirituality, godliness, or morality. Further, we reject the false doctrine that would hold that there are areas of life in which we would not need God’s justification and sanctification through Christ. We believe that any holding or teaching such errors have departed from the Reformed faith, are deceived, and have become promoters of heresy.

224

ii.

225 226 227

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

John 1:14 NRSV

228 229

Christ is the visible expression of the invisible God. Colossians 1:15—Phillips Translation

230 231 232 233

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.

Hebrews 1:1-2, ESV

234 235 236 237 238 239

Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence, do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation; therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his Church.

Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter I

240 241 242

The very light of nature in man, and the works of God, declare plainly that there is a God; but his Word and Spirit only, do sufficiently and effectually reveal him unto men for their salvation.

Larger Catechism, Question 1

243 244

We believe that Jesus Christ is the One Word of God to whom we turn, whom alone we obey and trust in life and in death.

We believe, in keeping with the Scriptural witness and the central tenets of the Reformed faith, that God’s nature and work

Page 7 of 19

A Declaration of Theology and Action

Appropriate Response 245 246 247 248 249 250

finds its primary revelation in the person and work of Christ, for with Luther we hold that “elsewhere God is utterly incomprehensible but comprehensible in the flesh of Christ alone.”24 Thus it is to Christ alone that we turn to know God and learn of His ways, work, and will. For Christ Jesus, as the Word of God incarnate, is the essential form of God’s revelation and the only means by which we may know of the nature, will and work of God. We hold that God’s revelation in Christ receives primary witness through the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments and is made efficacious and perspicuous through the illumining grace of the Holy Spirit.25

251 252 253 254 255 256

“We reject the false doctrine, as though the church could and would have to acknowledge as a source of its proclamation, apart from and besides this one Word of God, still other events and powers, figures and truths, as God’s revelation.”26 We reject the false claims of modern Gnosticism and neo-mysticism that boasts of secret, personal, innate or inner knowledge that openly contradicts God’s self revelation, whether this knowledge pertains to the nature or work of God or a human response of belief, lifestyle, or ethics. We reject the voices of culture that call us from the holiness of God to take up lives marked and characterized by self, pleasure, license, materialism, and injustice.

257

iii.

258 259 260

Every word of God proves true….Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you, and you be found a liar.

Proverbs 30:5, 6

261 262

The grass withers, the flower fades; but the word of our God will stand forever.

Isaiah 40:8

263 264 265 266

All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.

II Timothy 3:16-17

267 268 269 270 271 272

The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.

Westminster Confession, 1.6

273 274 275 276

We hold that the Scriptures by God’s inspiration and the interpretive work of the Holy Spirit do manifest themselves to be the Word of God written, and thus wholly sufficient to lead the church into true wisdom, godliness, reform, obedience, and worship of God. As God’s written Word the Scriptures are trustworthy, authoritative, and able to express God’s will to every age and people. “Insofar as Christ’s will for the church is set forth in the Scripture, it is to be obeyed.”27

277 278 279 280

We reject the false doctrine that would raise alongside or over the Scriptures other authorities, opinions, and voices intended to transcend, correct, repeal or annul the word of God. While fully affirming that God does speak through the voice of the Holy Spirit we deny and reject any claim of hearing his voice that contradicts or denies the clear teaching of Scripture, whether this concern is the nature and work of God or the character and detail of the godly life he intends. We hold, with the

24

The full quote is as follows: “I have no God whether in heaven or in earth, and I know of none, outside the flesh that lies in the bosom of the Virgin Mary. For elsewhere God is utterly incomprehensible, but comprehensible in the flesh of Christ alone.” Quoted in H. R. Mackintosh, The Doctrine of the Person of Jesus Christ, (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1962), p. 231.

25

Excellent articulations of the Reformed understanding of Christian epistemology and God self-revelation may be found in Otto Weber, Foundations of Dogmatics, I (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1981), pp. 169-227. Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, I.1 and I.2. T. F. Torrance, Reality and Evangelical Theology: The Realism of Christian Revelation (Downers Grove: IVP, 1982). Colin Gunton, A Brief Theology of Revelation (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1995). Emil Bruner, Revelation and Reason: The Christian Doctrine of Faith and Knowledge (Wake Forest: Chanticleer Publishing, 1946). Edward Dowey, Jr., The Knowledge of God in Calvin’s Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1994).

26

8.12, Book of Confessions, Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA) part I.

27

G-1.-0100c, Book of Order, Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA) part II.

Page 8 of 19

A Declaration of Theology and Action

Appropriate Response 281 282

guidance of Calvin, that opinions formed without the leading of the Word of God are of no account to the church and are voices without authority or relevance to the Christian life.

283

iv.

284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291

If anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us.

So we are ambassadors for Christ, since God is making his appeal through us; we entreat you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. II Corinthians 5:17-21

292 293 294 295

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

John 2:1-2, NRSV

296 297 298 299

From this we confess and avow that there remains no other sacrifice for sin; if any affirm so, we do not hesitate to say that they are blasphemers against Christ’s death and the everlasting atonement thereby purchased for us.

Scots Confession, Chapter IX

300 301 302 303 304 305 306

Therefore, it is necessary for us to be righteous before we may love and do good works.

We are made truly righteous, as we have said, by faith in Christ purely by the grace of God, who does not impute to us our sins, but the righteousness of Christ, or rather, he imputes faith in Christ to us for righteousness.

II Helvetic Confession, Chapter XV

307 308 309 310 311 312 313

We hold, with the testimony of Scripture and our Reformed Confessions, that our righteousness before the Triune God is itself a gift of God through Christ, wholly imparted and thus entirely an act of grace. While the Bible uses many and varied terms to describe the depth and reality of this mystery—redemption, ransom, reconciliation, deliverance, propitiation, expiation, and others—these together testify to the fact that our righteousness, that is our right standing before God, is the fruit and effect of his act in and for us. We hold that Christ Jesus is our righteousness, our justification, our sanctification and this righteousness, extrinsic to us by nature, is made ours only through the sacrifice of Christ and the inner work of the Holy Spirit and true faith which is its fruit and effect.

314 315 316 317 318

We reject as false any doctrine or teaching that holds that persons by their nature bear or possess an intrinsic, natural, or innate righteousness before God based upon human works, nature, spirituality, or by the fact of their being created in God’s image. We reject as heresy any doctrine that would hold the human race as essentially righteous, holy, and pleasing before God apart from the work of salvation in Christ Jesus or that certain attributes or actions are sufficiently righteous in themselves to be without need of the justifying work of Christ Jesus and the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit.

319

v.

320 321

And I will walk among you, and will be your God, and you shall be my people.

Leviticus 26:12

322 323 324

You shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I, the LORD, am your God and there is no other. And my people shall never again be put to shame.

Joel 2:27

325 326 327 328

I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them; and I will bless them and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary among them forevermore. My dwelling place shall be with them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Then the nations shall know that I the LORD sanctify Israel,

Page 9 of 19

A Declaration of Theology and Action

Appropriate Response 329 330

when my sanctuary is among them forevermore.

Ezekiel 37:26-28

331 332 333 334 335 336

After Jesus had spoken these words, he looked up to heaven and said, "Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son so that the Son may glorify you, since you have given him authority over all people, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.

John 17:1-3

337 338 339

For it is the God who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

II Corinthians 4:6

340 341 342 343 344 345

The Spirit of God quickens people to an awareness of God’s grace and claim upon their lives.

The Spirit moves them to respond by naming and calling upon God, by remembering and proclaiming God’s acts of self-revelation in word and deed, and by committing their lives to God’s reign in the world Book of Order, W-1.1002.

346 347 348 349 350 351

We hold that God’s revelation of himself is personal, relational, and thus saving. Our knowledge of God is neither noetic28 nor a postulate of human reason or discovery but the result of God being among us, drawing us to himself as his people and redeeming us to be a nation of priests before him and through this, unveiling himself to us. God’s salvation is not so much a thing bestowed as the consequence of his relational presence among his people and their appropriate response to this presence. God gives himself in loving, redeeming relationship, moving our hearts to repentance, our minds to understanding and our wills to obedience. His saving work is revelatory and his revelatory work saving and transformational.

352 353 354 355 356

We reject the populist doctrine that one can know God without true relationship—making God a postulate of human knowledge—or that one can have a relationship with God without true knowledge of his revealed will and work—making God little more than the fabrication of subjective romanticism or Gnostic mysticism. We reject and renounce any and all claims of theological knowledge and/or a relationship with God that leads one into a faith and life that contradicts or denies his revealed will made clear in the Scriptures.29

357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369

We hold that the above five statements express specific points that must be heard and confirmed and proclaimed in our day.

These essential and defining doctrines of the Reformed faith are being annulled by alien principles leveraging for a place of authority in the PC (USA). In stating these principles we neither seek nor make new statements or requirements. On the contrary, we seek the opposite and place these before the church as a reminder of what we have always held, always believed, and always sought to manifest in our communion. It is not these statements that are new but those that have been raised against them claiming authority over against the Scriptures as other “words”—as if any truly existed!—other saviours over or alongside Jesus the Messiah of God—and other forms of knowledge and sources of truth than those revealed by God through his saving, revelatory work. The anemic and impotent state of the church today is the result of its confusion over doctrine, its faithlessness, immorality, materialism, and its subtle replacement of the Gospel of Christ for another gospel that is nothing more than the romantic hopes of a lost humanity. We call the church to study these issues, wrestle with their truth and implications, challenge where they are wrongly or poorly stated, and discern what the Spirit is saying to the church of our day.

370 371 372

In this act of study and discernment, we fully and sincerely affirm the importance of mutual forbearance, agreeing that believers of good conscience will disagree.30 We affirm the importance of listening, mutual dialogue, and humility for only when we acknowledge the imperfection of each of our perspectives and learn from one another will we grow in the fullness God

28

Noetic: 1) of or pertaining to the mind. 2) Originating in or apprehended by the reason. Or, put most simply, true knowledge of God is not mere “head-knowledge” separated from actual life and practice.

29

Psa. 1:1-2; Matt. 15:7-9; John 3:19-20; I John 1:6, 2:4; Rev. 3:17.

30

G-1.0305, Book of Order, Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA) part II.

Page 10 of 19

A Declaration of Theology and Action

Appropriate Response 373 374 375 376

intends. However there must be limits to this forbearance.31 The Constitution, in calling us to this standard, makes clear that difference of opinion does not mean absence of truth. The Scriptures and Constitution command and expect that we will firmly hold to the truth of the Gospel and our Reformed witness. Even as the Constitution calls us to mutual forbearance it reminds us that

377 378 379 380

No opinion can be either more pernicious or more absurd than that which brings truth and falsehood upon a level, and represents it as of no consequence what a man’s opinions are. On the contrary, we are persuaded that there is an inseparable connection between faith and practice, truth and duty. Otherwise, it would be of no consequence either to discover truth or to embrace it.32

381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397

It would be institutional suicide and utter faithlessness before God to equate forbearance with uncertainty or require tolerance to mean denial, agnosticism, or rejection of truth. In certain times and seasons situations demand that we affirm afresh what we believe, value, and refuse to surrender. Regretfully the term and practice of forbearance has become wholly misunderstood within the church and as such has become not an aid to its peace, unity, and purity but a cause of its decay and ruin. The Constitution acknowledges that “there are truths and forms with respect to which men of good characters and principles may differ.”33 These statements reflect a humility that has characterized our tradition from its first days and manifests in the consistent refusal to hold the Reformed faith as alone true, best, and uniquely of God. We have always held that others believe differently and their beliefs are to be honored, respected, and allowed. But this does not necessarily mean within the church generally or the Reformed tradition specifically. To allow and respect the conscience of a Muslim, a Mormon, or atheist does not mean we agree with them, hold their doctrine, or welcome them as equal members within the church. As a confessional church—an essential and irrefutable characteristic of the PC (USA)—we state our beliefs and reasons for holding them, welcoming all who would agree, to join us in our confession and life. Those who disagree on secondary or peripheral issues we acknowledge as full members in the holy, catholic church though outside of the Reformed tradition.34 Those who disagree on essential articles of faith and ethics, whose conscience is held captive to other doctrines, values, and philosophies we bless, love, and pray for but do not receive as members, officers, or pastors with equally valid perspectives.

Indeed, on the very page that calls us to forbearance and to respect the consciences of those who believe differently is the reminder:

398 399 400 401 402

That our blessed Savior, for the edification of the visible Church, which is his body, hath appointed officers, not only to preach the gospel and administer the Sacraments, but also to exercise discipline, for the preservation of both truth and duty; and that it is incumbent upon these officers, and upon the whole Church, in whose name they act, to censure or cast out the erroneous and scandalous, observing, in all cases, the rules contained in the Word of God.35

403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411

It is both unreasonable and unfaithful to hold, simultaneously, theological and ethical tenets that are disparate and mutually exclusive. This does not refer to discussions and debates over non-essential issues nor does it request or expect a perfectly homogeneous church. This would be unreasonable, unfaithful, and unhealthy. We refer to central, crucial, and essential doctrines and ethical practices that are in danger of being lost by the church and non-Reformed, non-Christian teachings that are increasingly held as equally valid and legitimate with our historical standards. Currently within the PC (USA) there exist those who hold to the biblical and historical standards of the Reformed faith and others that have promoted serious, even heretical departures from these standards. Sadly, many in leadership of the church have ignored the clear mandate of the constitution and refused “to censure or cast out the erroneous and scandalous.” Indeed, all of us within the church are guilty of participating and furthering the decline of the PC (USA) as we have together refused to stand for the truth of the Gospel, too readily 31

This fact is completely lost in the PC (USA) today.

32

G-1.0304, Book of Order, Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA) part II.

33

G-1.0305, Book of Order, Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA) part II.

34

Within the 348 member churches of the World Council of Churches there exits broad parameters of belief. Nevertheless, both the Latter Day Saints (Mormons) and Jehovah’s Witnesses are denied membership because of heterodoxy, i.e. beliefs that stand outside of and contrary to even the broadest understanding of Christian faith and doctrine.

35

G-1.0303, Book of Order, Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA) part II (italics mine). Time and space does not allow a discussion of the obvious principle that some doctrines and practices are considered essential while others are not. The Trinitarian nature of God, salvation by grace through faith, and the bodily resurrection of Jesus (to name three) are obviously more central and more important to our faith than manner of baptism, styles of worship, or which hymnbook we will use. The tension inherent in holding standards and seeking to show forbearance is perhaps best practiced by following Augustine’s axiom that we be resolute and unbending with what is essential, generous on what is non-essential and gracious over all.

Page 11 of 19

A Declaration of Theology and Action

Appropriate Response 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424

accepted vapid substitutes, fallen for the lies of materialism and the idols of self-centeredness, and failed to live out the clear teachings of the Word of God. The consequences are grave. As a confessional church we have all but lost our confession.

As a body we have lost all sense of real unity and instead become content with the prostheses of connectionalism and tolerance.36 But in losing real unity we have lost our witness and are in the process of losing our very existence. At some point, if we have enough courage, we will need to wrestle with the question of whether our divided house and hearts have not led us to lose our God. The failure of some of our leaders—within and across the General Assembly, synods, presbyteries, permanent judicial commissions, and sessions—to maintain this standard (and numerous other standards) has brought us to a point at which others must arise to correct the errors and deficiencies that have gone uncorrected for decades while realizing the damage done may be too deep to heal. But it is clear that we can no longer remain silent and in our silence give tacit approval to that which is foolish, idolatrous, and evil. We can no longer be content with sitting on the sidelines wringing our hands or naively hoping that all this will simply go away. We can no longer cry, “Peace, peace…” when there is no peace. It is time to set aside our denial and acknowledge the magnitude of our problem the weight of which is greater than tolerance or celebration of diversity can bear or heal.

425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434

It is time for the church to choose whom it will follow: whether it will be the magnanimous gods of the age who rise without form or reality from every creed and who speak equally through every opinion and feeling or whether we will turn again to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who has rescued us from the kingdom of darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of the Son he loves. Many of our number have chosen the former and effectively left the fold of the PC (USA) and its theological traditions. Their boasts of faithfulness and full participation to the contrary, they have already left the church, if not in fact then in principle. It is time, in the name of integrity and honesty, for those who have denied and rejected the central tenets of the Reformed faith to graciously separate from the body and leave the church to those who have remained faithful to its standards, doctrine, and traditions. It is time for all within the PC (USA) to decide afresh whom it will follow. But as for us, we will serve, follow, and love the Lord God revealed in Christ and borne witness to in the Holy Scriptures, the God who graciously dwells among us making us his people.

435 436 437

“One becomes an active member of the church through faith in Jesus Christ and acceptance of his Lordship in all of life”37

438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445

Our disunity within the PC (USA) is further exacerbated by our denomination’s confusion regarding the nature and character of the church, and what it means to be a member, and an officer within it. Our understanding of participation, membership, and leadership within the church are interrelated and both define and determine our ecclesiology. The PC (USA) stands confused over the nature, character, and mission of the church and this confusion has brought devastating consequences.

For where the nature of the church is confused the mission of the church is lost. It is therefore necessary that we reaffirm our understanding of the church as well as what it means to be a member of it. These standards of membership in turn form the basis and standard of ordination as elder, deacon, and minister of Word and sacrament making it even more crucial that they be determined, understood, and held by the church.

446 447 448 449 450 451

The church is God’s creation and work. We believe that the Father, from the creation of the human race, has faithfully, preserved, instructed, multiplied, honored, adored, and called from death to life, a gathering of faithful people.38 We affirm that God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, making us his new creation, and calling us to be ambassadors of reconciliation39 and witnesses to the transforming power of Christ’s resurrection40. As such, the church exists as the body of Christ,41 a people of integrity, purity and devotion, born of God and ceaselessly striving to faithfully respond to the faithfulness of our Father in heaven. We are, by God’s gracious work, a people of faith.

IV. Faith and Full Participation in Christ Jesus

36

Weinsheimer’s brilliant distinction is worth noting: “Tolerance is a social and political, not cognitive, value. It promotes peace, not truth.”

This is found in Joel Weinsheimer, Eighteenth Century Hermeneutics: Philosophy of Interpretation in England form Locke to Burke (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993).

37 G-5.0101, 38 3.05,

Book of Order, Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA) part II.

Book of Confessions, Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA) part I.

39

2 Corinthians 5:17-21.

40

Acts 1:8.

41

See Rom. 7:4, 12:5; I Cor. 12:27; Eph. 4:12, 5:23. See also 5.130, 6.054, 6.186, Book of Confessions, Constitution of the PC (USA) part I and G-1.0100, Book of Order, Constitution of the PC (USA) part II.

Page 12 of 19

A Declaration of Theology and Action

Appropriate Response 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461

Faith in Jesus Christ is the only basis for church membership42 and thus Active Membership—that is the beginning of full participation in the life and witness of the church and the standing upon which all ordained offices are contingent—means nothing less than genuine, vibrant faith in Christ which accepts and exhibits his Lordship over all of life. By our faith, we are justified, that is declared righteous in His eyes and reconciled to God. Thus, faith provides understanding of God’s nature, will and work, binds us in trusting relationship to the Lord, and defines the shape of our lives. For these reasons, the health of the church and its members is directly tied to the depth, integrity, and truth of the faith they hold and live. Where this faith exists with integrity and vibrancy one can be assured of the health and future of the body. Where this is annulled, culturally defined, or simply forgotten the church will certainly fall into impotency and irrelevance. We hold that it is this latter state that accurately and increasingly describes the PC (USA) today. Thus we call all we can and certainly those within the PC (USA) to return to the living God in that full faith that lays claim upon and transforms the whole of one’s life.

462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469

We understand faith to be “the sure and certain knowledge of God’s benevolence towards us, which, being founded on the truth of the gracious promise in Christ is both revealed to our minds and confirmed in our hearts by the Holy Spirit.”43 Faith is not an opinion, perspective, or feeling. It is more than mere personal conviction. Faith is the fruit and effect of the Holy Spirit’s work on our lives. Revealing the truth of God to our hearts, the Spirit enables us to see and comprehend God’s will and enables us to wholeheartedly follow and live a life that is pleasing to God. We hold that faith means understanding, receiving, and appropriately responding to the essential tenets of the Christian faith, that is, the real acts and revealed nature and thus truth of God our Father. These are learned from the Bible’s witness and include44 our affirmation…

…of the Trinity and God’s existence as one being in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

…of Jesus’ bodily resurrection from the dead and ascension to heaven

.…of the Lordship of Jesus.

…that salvation is through Christ alone

…of Jesus Christ’s dual nature, fully God and fully human.

…that salvation is by grace through faith, not of works.

…that Jesus was crucified, dead, and buried.

…of the forgiveness of sins through faith in the person and work of Christ.

...of the person and work of the Holy Spirit, who with the Father and the Son works to effect our salvation.

…of the Bible’s inspiration and authority.

…that God has, through Christ, called a church into being to do His will and proclaim his nature and work.

…that we are to live holy lives after the example of Christ

…that we are to go into all the world, making disciples of all people and teaching them all that Jesus said and did.

…that Jesus will return to gather his church to himself and reign forever over all creation.

470

V. Faith as Response

471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478

The Christian life is a specific response of faith by which we publicly submit the whole of our lives to the lordship of Christ, entrust the whole of our lives to his mercy and grace, live the whole of our lives in joyous expectant obedience, and give the whole of our lives to the manifestation, exhibition, and expansion of his kingdom. Most practically, this means personal commitment to and sharing in the proclamation of the good news, participation in the life and worship of the church, prayer, study of the Scriptures and faith of the church, and supporting the church through the giving of money, time, support, and service.45 For faith informs and transforms our lives. Knowing and trusting God’s will and work we are justified (declared righteous) and living our faith before God and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit we are sanctified (made righteous). In faith we turn to God and in the process, turn from all that would keep us from him and his blessings.

479 480 481

Since, then, we do not have the excuse of ignorance, everything—and I do mean everything— connected with that old way of life has to go. It's rotten through and through. Get rid of it! And then take on an entirely new way of life—a God-fashioned life, a life renewed from the inside and working itself

42 G-5.0103, 43

44

45

Book of Order, Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA) part II.

John Calvin, Institutes of The Christian Religion, III.ii.7. See also 5.112, Book of Confessions, Constitution of the PC (USA) part I. This should not be considered an exhaustive list of all that one might include as an “essential tenet.” This simply notes some crucial points of faith that have been held by the church across its whole history, proclaimed in the Scriptures and repeatedly affirmed in the creeds and confessions of the PC (USA). The Scriptures and Book of Confessions provide a fuller and richer understanding of the content, object, and meaning of faith.

G-5.0102, Book of Order, Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA) part II.

Page 13 of 19

A Declaration of Theology and Action

Appropriate Response 482 483

into your conduct as God accurately reproduces his character in you. What this adds up to, then, is this: no more lies, no more pretense‌ In Christ's body we're all connected to each other, after all.46

484 485 486 487 488

We hold that faith in Christ and purity of life are the two, necessary, sides of the one act of Christian discipleship. One can not have one without the other.47 Jesus came that we might have life, and have it abundantly.48 This means that faith not only receives God’s gifts and blessings, it endeavours to throw off all that would limit, deny or annul them. Faith, and thus church membership, is to put off the old and put on the new life God intends and thus, as an act of faith, in obedience and love to God, and in pursuit of that life Christ came to give, we put off our sinful nature seeking to reflect the image of Christ Jesus.

489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497

PUT OFF- Marks of the sinful nature49: Sexual immorality: adultery, impurity, fornication, homosexual behavior, lust, pornography, orgies, prostitution, carousing, lewdness Malice: slander, deceit, murder, bitterness, falsehood, dissention, gossip, discord, revenge, hatred, unwholesome talk, coarse joking, obscenity, abusive talk, strife, disobedience to parents, treachery Greed: envy, love of money, theft, jealousy, idolatry, covetousness, swindling Lack of self-discipline: fits of rage, drunkenness, debauchery, laziness, love of pleasure Pride: selfish ambition, arrogance, boasting, conceit, False spirituality: witchcraft, false teaching, empty religion

498 499 500 501 502 503 504

PUT ON- Marks of the new life in Christ: Sexual purity: fidelity to marital vows between a man and a woman, chastity in singleness Love: honesty, peacemaking, speaking the truth in love, forgiving, a mastered tongue, self-control, patience, kindness, sincere, impartial, merciful, considerate, forbearing, compassionate, thankful, loyal, gentle Humility: regard for authority, submissive Freedom from greed: contentment, faithful stewardship, financial/vocational integrity, generosity Sound doctrine: passion for godliness, worship of the true God, love of the Truth

505 506 507 508 509

Not one of us is free from sin, not one of us perfect50 and thus we are all ever in need of God’s grace and forgiveness which is available to all who confess their sins.51 We are ever in need also of the loving guidance and support of the church, recognizing that Scripture teaches us to rescue and restore one another in love.52 Only together, in humility and confession, in the fullness of mutual encouragement and love, can we grow into the life Christ died to provide. Nevertheless these Scriptural standards declare the will of God for our lives and the goals toward which we are to strive.

510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517

We stand eternally grateful to God for the Presbyterian Church (USA) and seek through these theological statements and the resolutions that follow to be a part of its restoration and healing. It is our intent to build up, unify, encourage, and strengthen the church in every way possible. It is our aim to advance the efficacy of its mission and ministry. It is our desire to protect the church from schism and heresy, doing all that is within our power to help build a church that brings glory to God through the display of his truth, purity, holiness, grace, and love. Where hard words and painful diagnoses have been expressed let it be known that it was done so not with joy but sorrow and heaviness of hearts deeply grieved over the state of our church.

But we speak out from a deep trust in the power of God and hope that the church can be reformed, renewed, and unleashed to fulfill the Great Ends of the Church to the glory of God who alone is Saviour and Lord.

46

47

48

49

Ephesians 4.22-25 (The Message) Romans 6.1-23; 1 Corinthians 6.9-11; Galatians 2.20; 5.13-18; Ephesians 4.17- 24; Colossians 2.11-12; 3.1-3; Titus 2.11-3.8; 1 Peter 1.13-2.12; 4.1-7 John 10:10.

These are composite lists derived from the following moral/ethical summaries in the New Testament: Mark 7.21-23; Romans 1:26-32; 13.8-14; 1 Corinthians 6.9-11; Galatians 5.16-25; Ephesians 4.22-5.21; Colossians 3.1-17; 1 Timothy 6.3-10; 2 Timothy 3:1-9; Hebrews 12.14- 13.6; James 3:14-18; 1 Peter 2:1-3; 4:1-7

50

Rom. 3:23, 3:10-18; 1 John 1:8-10; Ecclesiastes 7:20.

51

1 John 1.5-2.6

52

Matthew 18:15-20; Galatians 6:1-2; James 5:19-20.

Page 14 of 19

A Declaration of Theology and Action

Appropriate Response

519

RESOLUTIONS FOR THE PRESBYTERY OF SANTA BARBARA

520

Toward Peace, Unity And Purity

518

521

Rationale:

522 523 524 525

Our recent General Assembly’s adoption of the Theological Task Force’s Report on the Peace, Unity, and Purity of the Church focuses attention on the responsibility of each governing body within the denomination to apply the constitution in its particular setting. The following resolutions are presented to accomplish this at our presbytery level and to provide leadership and guidance for our member congregations.

526

Resolutions:

527 528 529 530 531 532 533

1.

In its discernment of the essentials of Reformed polity and for the sake of the peace, unity, and purity of the church, the Presbytery of Santa Barbara adopts the principle that compliance with the standards for ordination adopted by the whole church in the Book of Order is an essential of Reformed polity. Therefore, any departure from the standards for ordination expressed in the Book of Order will bar a candidate from ordination and/or installation by or membership within this governing body. Provisions of the Book of Order are signified as being standards by use of the term "shall," "is/are to be," “requirement,” or equivalent expression. Those violating these standards shall be ineligible for ordination, installation, and/or service as minister of Word and Sacrament within our presbytery.

534 535 536 537 538

2.

To promote the peace, unity, and purity of our presbytery, we resolve that the Presbytery of Santa Barbara shall not receive into membership, nor recognize as a member, anyone who has been made eligible for ordination or installation via the granting of an exception for his or her departure from the essentials of Reformed polity which denies or annuls any of the ordination standards as set forth in the Constitution of the PCUSA [G-1.0500]) as described above.

539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546

3.

In its discernment of the essentials of Reformed polity and for the sake of the peace, unity, and purity of the church, the Presbytery of Santa Barbara adopts the principle that compliance with the standards for ordination adopted by the whole church in the Book of Order is an essential of Reformed polity. Since every session member has vowed to be governed by our denomination’s polity, any conscious and collective departure from the essentials of Reformed polity is a sign of spiritual illness. The presbytery has the express power (a power that only the presbytery can exercise) to provide pastoral care for the churches and members of presbytery, visiting sessions and ministers on a regular basis (G-11.0103g). Therefore, the presbytery will counsel, guide and, if necessary, endeavour to bring healing to any session that is spiritually ill.

547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554

4.

In its discernment of the essentials of Reformed polity and for the sake of the peace, unity, and purity of the church, the Presbytery of Santa Barbara adopts the principle that compliance with the standards for ordination adopted by the whole church in the Book of Order is an essential of Reformed polity. Since every pastor has vowed at ordination to be governed by our denomination’s polity, any conscious and deliberate departure from the essentials of Reformed polity is a sign of spiritual rebellion and/or illness. The presbytery has the express power (a power that only the presbytery can exercise) to provide pastoral care for the members of presbytery, visiting sessions and ministers on a regular basis (G-11.0103g). Therefore, the presbytery will counsel, guide and, if necessary, correct each pastor that is spiritually ill or in rebellion.

555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564

5.

To promote the peace, unity, and purity of our presbytery, we resolve that the Presbytery of Santa Barbara shall therefore work pastorally with any pastor, session or congregation that contemplates or seeks dismissal from the Presbyterian Church (USA); shall not preemptively take any coercive action against any pastor, session or congregation who merely considers faithfully following the Great Ends of the Church (G-1.0200) in another Reformed denomination; and shall not treat property as a basis for unity or as an opportunity for division. The presbytery interprets “use and benefit of the Presbyterian Church (USA)” in G-8.0201 to mean, in the judgment of this presbytery, solely whatever furthers the Great Ends of Church (G-1.0200); interprets its express power “to coordinate the work of its member churches, guiding them and mobilizing their strength for the most effective witness to the broader community for which it has responsibility” (G-11.0103b) to mean that in some cases, a congregation, with its property and financial assets, may be dismissed from the Presbyterian Church (USA) without penalty.

Page 15 of 19

A Declaration of Theology and Action

Appropriate Response 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587

Stewardship and the Great Ends of the Church Rationale: Per-capita payments were established in 1803 as voluntary contributions to the church to aid commissioners who live at a distance in attending meetings of higher governing bodies. This idea is continued to the present day with the Book of Order allowing per-capita funds to be used for meeting the expenses of those attending. Nevertheless, over the decades and centuries the per-capita has grown in both the amount assessed each congregation and the number of areas funded by percapita revenues. Numerous attempts of reform have been made including the 1986 General Assembly ruling that “only those ecclesiastical functions which enable the General Assembly to plan, oversee, and evaluate the mission of the church will be funded by per capita.” But these attempts at reform have brought little change and today the per capita continues to grow and fund areas far beyond meeting expenses or the mission of the church.

In 2006 the General Assembly anticipated $13,155,538 in per-capita revenue. Of that $718,895 was designated for permanent and special committees53, $783,895 to ecumenical groups54, $2,097,613 to Presbyterian Historical Society, $992,476 to Constitutional Services, and numerous other expenses.55 In fact these expenses are so great and so many that the General Assembly anticipates expenditures of $15,201,911—over 1.8 million dollars more than expected per-capita revenue.

We hold that 1) the historic and constitutional grounds for the per capita have been lost; 2) millions of dollars are spent upon areas that many within our congregations find controversial and even reprehensible; 3) the vast majority of money spent from per-capita apportionments does not further the mission of the church; 4) mission is best done within and by the local church and presbyteries; and 5) as part of the larger church with no desire to withdraw or separate, we are morally obligated to participate in supporting our share of legitimate expenses, prioritizing these and all presbytery expenses according to the great ends of the church (G-1.0200).

Resolutions:

588 589 590 591 592 593

1.

In order to further the ministry of the presbytery and faithfully steward the funds entrusted to us, we the member churches of Santa Barbara affirm our higher moral obligation to further the Great Ends of the Church (G-1.0200) and, as a presbytery, to coordinate and guide the collective ministry of our member churches (G-11.0103a, b). Therefore, we resolve to willingly and cheerfully contribute to the Presbytery of Santa Barbara the full per-capita apportionment determined by the presbytery with the understanding that funds so designated will be used by the presbytery to further its mission and ministry.56

594 595 596 597 598

2.

To promote the peace, unity, and purity of our presbytery and faithfully steward the funds entrusted to us, we resolve that the Presbytery of Santa Barbara shall honor the protest of every congregation that chooses to exercise its right to withhold its per capita while also considering remittance of per capita to General Assembly and synod to be a high moral obligation. Be it further resolved that this presbytery holds its express powers and duties enumerated in G11.0103a & b to include higher moral obligations.57

53

For example: Comm. On Ecumenical Relations; Adv. Comm. On Constitution; Adv. Comm. on Litigation; Theological Diversity Task Force; Adv. Comm. on Social Witness Policy; and others.

54

For example: National Council of Churches ($325,000); World Council of Churches ($458,402); and others. Of the 348 member churches/denominations in the WCC the PC (USA) is by far the single greatest financial contributor. For details one may read the entire 57 page Financial Report of the WCC online at: http://www.oikoumene.org/fileadmin/files/wccmain/2006pdfs/Financial_Report_2005_final.pdf

55

The General Assembly Per Capita Statement of Activities has 35 separate lines under expenditures, far more than space allows here.

This document may be found online at http://www.pcusa.org/financials/percapita/0706pcnetassets.pdf.

56

Anticipated Santa Barbara Presbytery for 2006-07 per capita assessment will be $18.63 per member.

57

This is permitted by ruling of the 1999 General Assembly: “If churches refuse to pay their portion….the presbytery has the responsibility to pay the full amount irrespective to the specific collection from churches, as long as funds are available within the presbytery” (italics mine). 211th GA minutes (1999, 65, 107, 16.008-.009, Req. 99-1). Note: This was an Authoritative Interpretation (AI) of the constitution by the General Assembly which has the force of law. It is worth noting that the General Assembly’s Advisory Committee on the Constitution has declined to speculate on circumstances that would make funds unavailable. It currently remains the express power of the presbytery to make this assessment and designation.

Page 16 of 19

A Declaration of Theology and Action

Appropriate Response 599 600 601

3.

In order to further the ministry of the presbytery and faithfully steward the funds entrusted to us, we resolve to explore the propriety, feasibility, and advisability of pursuing remedial and legislative action to correct inappropriate use of per-capita funds by the General Assembly and the Synod of Southern California and Hawaii.

Peace, Unity, Property

602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634

Rationale Historically, we Presbyterians are connectional, constitutional, and confessional. All too often, we have also been combative and conciliatory as evidenced by our numerous splits and mergers. While we have a long tradition of encouraging people to advocate strongly for their positions, we also have a deeply rooted ethos to be conciliatory, even in the midst of great strife.

Since the 217th General Assembly in 2006, many faithful believers within the Presbyterian Church (USA) have been experiencing crises of conscience that may lead them to reassess their relationship with the denomination and even seek dismissal from this denomination. This has resulted in increasing discord and turbulence in the denomination over the issue of property. In 2005, the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly (SC) engaged legal counsel regarding possible actions to be taken against pastors, sessions and congregations who might seek a claim on church property and/or dismissal from the denomination. Their advice58 included many harsh and procrustean measures that are designed to squelch all potential dissent possible.59 This unrestrained preemptive grasp for power and control has forced congregations into a defensive posture and required them to consider a faithful and appropriate response.

There are two problems with the Stated Clerk’s preemptive act and the advice he received. First, these unbiblical tactics fundamentally forsake and damage the connectional nature of our community by being both harsh and preemptive. The compulsion of civil law cannot replace true connectionalism. Indeed, it destroys it. Second, despite much public rhetoric by the SC about peacefulness, community and conciliation, there has been no official repudiation of this legal advice. The lack of repudiation feeds the fear that those who would exercise freedom of speech will face preemptive retaliation. The result is connectionalism through intimidation and the ruin of biblical peace, unity, and purity. Further, it forces churches to consider how they may defend themselves against possible legal action raised against them by their own denomination even as they pursue to faithfully fulfill the great commission of Christ and the Great Ends of the Church described within the Constitution.

Against the actions of the SC and the advice he has received are the Great Ends of the Church (G-1.0200) and the first Historic Principle of Church Order, namely, “God alone is Lord of the conscience” (G-1.0301). First, our goal is to further the Kingdom of God. This may or may not include this denomination. The Presbyterian Church (USA) is only a part of the Church. Second, Presbyterians have historically given wide latitude in discussing all manners of issues. To squelch discussion or dissent preemptively is troubling. 1 Corinthians 6 is clear in directing believers to come together before going to secular court. We are deeply concerned that the denomination has created a war chest for anticipated secular legal battles. As people of faith, as ordained officers who are bound together by common vows, we should follow biblical principles for conflict resolution rather than employing scandalous tactics that are designed to win at all costs and maintain existing power structures. In John 17:21 Jesus prays that those who believe in Him would be one. We believe that the unity Christ calls us to is 58

This is found in two documents: Processes for Presbyteries in Responding to Congregations Seeking to Withdraw and Church Property Disputes: A Resource for those Representing Presbyterian Church (USA) Presbyteries and True Churches in the Civil Courts.

59

Some recommendations included in these documents are the following: 1) the formation of administrative commissions to:(a) remove pastors who merely seek to discuss the possibility of being dismissed from the denomination (Processes, III.4.D.1.b); (b)assume original jurisdiction in order to prevent the Session from calling a congregational meeting to vote to request the presbytery to exercise its G-11.0103i power to dismiss the congregations (Processes, III.4.D.2.d); (c) “to keep the presbytery in a “defensive” secular legal posture (let the schismatics seek Caesar’s help)” (Processes, III.4.F.2); (d) prior even to disciplinary charges being filed, to remove a pastor from office on the presumption of guilt (Processes, III.4.F.3.A.1).

2) Preemptively file an affidavit against the title of property trust of the real estate. (Church Property Disputes: A Resource for those Representing Presbyterian Church (USA) Presbyteries and True Churches in the Civil Courts, page 3). In other words, the presbyteries are being encouraged to file a lien or encumbrance against congregational real estate in public records. Effectively, this is a way of warning people that there is a claim against the ownership of the property. It would make it difficult for a congregation to use the property as collateral or to sell it.

3) Label the defendants as schismatics in all legal filings (Church Property Disputes: A Resource for those Representing Presbyterian Church (USA) Presbyteries and True Churches in the Civil Courts, page 3).

Page 17 of 19

A Declaration of Theology and Action

Appropriate Response 635 636 637

beyond denominational lines. The Presbyterian Church (USA), like all Christian denominations, is only one part of the Church over whom Christ alone is the head (G-1.0100). Therefore, whatever furthers the Great Ends of the Church (G-1.0200) serves for the “use and benefit” of our denomination (G-8.0201).

638

Be it resolved that this presbytery:

639 640 641 642 643

1.

respectfully, yet strongly, requests that the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly publicly repudiate the coercive, unbiblical, and unconstitutional practices advocated by his legal counsel regarding actions to be taken in secular or church courts against pastors, sessions and congregations who might contemplate or seek dismissal from the Presbyterian Church (USA). Furthermore, the Presbytery instructs its stated clerk to send this paragraph to the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly in a personal letter notifying him of the will of the presbytery on this issue.

644 645 646 647

2.

recognizes and acknowledges its authority under G-8.0000 and G-11.0103i to evaluate questions concerning church property in light of the particular circumstances presented in each instance and to exercise its good judgment in accordance with Authoritative Interpretations of G-11.0103 made by the General Assembly in 1988, 1989, and 1990.

648 649

3.

shall therefore work pastorally with any pastor, session or congregation that contemplates or seeks dismissal from the Presbyterian Church (USA);

650 651 652

4.

shall not preemptively take any coercive action, as currently recommended by the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly, against any pastor, session or congregation who merely considers faithfully following the Great Ends of the Church (G-1.0200) in another Reformed denomination;

653

5.

shall not treat property as a basis for unity or as an opportunity for division.

654 655

6.

interprets “use and benefit of the Presbyterian Church (USA)” in G-8.0201 to mean solely whatever, in the judgment of this presbytery, furthers the Great Ends of Church (G-1.0200);

656 657 658 659

7.

interprets its express power “to coordinate the work of its member churches, guiding them and mobilizing their strength for the most effective witness to the broader community for which it has responsibility” (G-11.0103b) to mean that in some cases, a congregation, with its property and financial assets, may be dismissed from the Presbyterian Church (USA) without penalty.

Preparing For The Future

660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673

Rationale:

674

Resolutions:

675 676 677 678

More than ever healthy, covenantal relationships with the larger church are necessary if the church is to remain faithful, vibrant, and useful. Historically—and perhaps ideally—such covenantal relationships existed through and across the larger denomination which shared a unique heritage and confession. Sadly, this is no longer the case. Growing divisions, mistrust, and vastly different theological perspectives and values have led to a fragmented church. New covenantal relationships are therefore necessary in order to protect faithful congregations within hostile presbyteries, unite for the maintenance of Reformed standards of faith and practice, accountability, mission, and fellowship. New covenantal relationships are also necessary for assessing the state and future of the PC (USA) and determining a response of faith and integrity. We have long boasted in our connectional nature within the PC (USA). While we do not deny this reality, we hold that it is fractured and dysfunctional. Additionally, we hold that the higher standard expressed in the Scriptures is to be our goal and thus we seek new, vibrant, working relationships built around the unity of shared convictions, message, and ministry. Finally, we believe we are called to participate in bringing peace, unity, and purity to the larger church. With these in mind we adopt the following resolutions.

1.

We, the Presbytery of Santa Barbara resolve to form The New Covenant Task Force comprised of nine elders and pastors (roughly equal in number) of the presbytery chosen by the moderator and Executive Presbyter and affirmed by the vote of the presbytery charging them with the following tasks and responsibilities (as well as others made necessary by their work):

Page 18 of 19

A Declaration of Theology and Action

Appropriate Response 679 680

a.

Determine like minded presbyteries and congregations with whom we might enter a covenantal relationship.

681 682

b.

Explore as a presbytery and with other like minded presbyteries and congregations the potential shape, function(s), mission, and nature of these covenantal groups.

683 684 685

c.

Study and evaluate issues, decisions, and actions occurring in and through the PC (USA) for the purpose of educating the presbytery and, where deemed important or necessary, formulating a response that will be presented to the presbytery for its approval.

686 687 688 689

d.

Explore issues of property, per capita, pensions, and others that effect the presbytery, its member churches and ministers, making recommendations to Presbytery regarding actions that further our faithfulness to God, the Great Ends of the Church, stewardship of that which God has given, the Constitution of the PC (USA), and our covenantal relationships.

690 691

e.

Explore how the Presbytery, with other covenantal partners, might seek to bring reform and renewal to our member churches.

692 693

f.

Explore how the Presbytery, with other covenantal partners, might seek to bring reform and renewal to the PC (USA).

694

g.

Make regular reports to the Presbytery regarding its findings, work, and recommendations.

695 696 697 698

2.

We the presbytery of San Barbara instruct our stated clerk to send the full text of this document (theological pages and resolutions) to the stated clerks of every congregation and governing body within the PC (USA) for the purpose of dialogue, discernment, and in hope that we in some way can participate in leading the church to renewal of life and faithfulness and thus genuine peace, unity, and purity.

Page 19 of 19

EVANGELICAL GROUPS WITHIN PCUSA

 Presbyterians for Renewal

PRESBYTERIANS FOR RENEWAL

GA 2008 Overview: The PFR One-Pager The 218th General Assembly of the PC(USA) made some major decisions that require prayer and thoughtful response.

The most significant decisions are contrary to the very foundation of Christian faith and life, our calling to witness to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in and for the world.

"What is PFR Doing Now?"

Potentially Positive Actions

This document presents a new collaborative spirit for Presbyterian participation in God’s mission.

It is necessary to respond both to the particular actions taken by the GA and to the deeper condition of the PC(USA) revealed by these actions. We encourage you to read “Contending for the Faith: The Way Forward After GA 2008,” on our website, where we offer a more detailed assessment of the state of the PC(USA) and outline how you can partner with us, including the following initiatives:

“Grow God’s Church Deep and Wide”

Resources for Worship and Theology:

This action declares “a churchwide commitment to participate in God’s activity through Jesus Christ in transforming the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)”

PFR will provide resources for the church to develop faithful understandings and practices regarding Christian worship, the relationship between Christianity and other faiths, and our calling as Christians to work together for peace with members of other faiths. We will also provide resources to help congregations and presbyteries answer the Assembly’s call to gather in “spiritual assemblies.”

While those troubling actions of the GA deserve our most focused attention, we note several actions of the General Assembly that have potential to promote biblical faithfulness:

“An Invitation to Expanding Partnership in God’s Mission”:

“A Call to Seek God for Spiritual Renewal of the Church”: The GA has encouraged congregations and presbyteries to hold special gatherings seeking spiritual renewal.

A new mission budget Provides more funds for international mission workers.

Annual Report on “Relief of Conscience Plan” (re: abortion) An annual report on the plan is now required.

“Response to Churches Seeking Dismissal from the PC(USA)”: The GA encouraged presbyteries to be charitable in their treatment of congregations seeking dismissal.

Negative Actions of the GA: Inter-faith Relations, Ordination and Sexuality Other actions are serious departures from Scripture and our missional calling:

Inter-faith Relations: Judaism, Christianity and Islam: The GA has encouraged common worship between members of the three faiths, and has asked them to “celebrate diversity.”

A new theological statement was approved that implies Jesus is one of several viable ways to know and worship God, and considers all three faiths part of one larger family of God.

Ordination Standards and Sexuality: Local License: The GA passed a a new “Authoritative Interpretation” (AI) of the Book of Order that intends to give sessions and presbyteries freedom to ordain persons in violation of the PC(USA)’s standards, including the requirement to live in fidelity in marriage or chastity in singleness. (AI’s are effective immediately, but learning the actual impact of this one will require court decisions.)

Removal of Authoritative Interpretations on Homosexual Practice: The GA removed the existing AI’s on this subject that supported biblical morality. (Learning the actual impact will require court decisions.)

Approved Deletion of the “Fidelity and Chastity” Standard: This is a proposed amendment to the Book of Order that requires approval by the presbyteries to be effective. The amendment intends to allow the ordination of persons with a variety of sexual lifestyles.

Approved amendments to the Heidelberg Catechism to Remove Reference to Homosexuality: these amendments would require the next GA to approve them and subsequent approval of the presbyteries to be effective. The intent is to change the church’s teaching and moral standards on the issue of homosexuality.

Call to Biblical Faithfulness: PFR will provide networking and resources to defeat the proposed amendments to the constitution and to send to the next GA opportunities to restore integrity to the interpretation of the PC(USA)’s constitution. We need your help. Please contribute to the “Fund for Biblical Faithfulness,” and watch our website for more information in the coming weeks.

Reshaping the PC(USA): The unity and witness of the PC(USA) have been strained to an unprecedented level. For the sake of our witness to the Gospel, we believe it is necessary for the different visions of Christian faith and life in the PC(USA) to be expressed in formally distinct bodies without a formal split in the denomination. Such possibilities have been discussed hypothetically under the rubrics of non-geographical or “missional” presbyteries and synods.

We invite the contribution of ideas from the whole church (a means will be available online soon) about how best to reshape the PC(USA), and we are gathering a team of elders, pastors and governing body executives to develop the best possible proposal for re-structuring the PC(USA). Please contribute to the “Fund for Reshaping the PC(USA)” to make this effort possible.

For further information, visit www.GA2008.com and www.pfrenewal.org.

Other resources available from PFR include: “Reshaping the PC(USA): PFR Looks Beyond the 218th General Assembly” “Contending for the Faith: The Way Forward After GA 2008”

8134 New LaGrange Rd. Suite 227. Louisville, KY 40222. 502.425.4630

Contending for the Faith: The Way Forward After the 218th General Assembly

Presbyterians For Renewal

July 9, 2008

The 218th General Assembly (GA) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) recently took numerous actions on important and controversial issues. This article will outline several deeply troubling actions that require the prayerful and active response of those concerned for biblical faith and life in the PC(USA).

PFR strongly encourages all Presbyterian pastors and elders to stay informed on denominational issues and to lead their congregations faithfully while engaging in their presbyteries “to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3). To this end, PFR is committed to providing accurate and timely analysis on denominational issues. We will also offer the church initiatives designed to address both the “big picture,” underlying challenges we face as a denomination and as a movement of Presbyterians for renewal, and initiatives aimed at the particular and immediate concerns before us.

Contents of this paper: "What happened at the GA and what can we do?"

•

The Major Actions of the 218th General Assembly

•

Inter-faith Relations: Judaism, Christianity and Islam

•

Ordination Standards and Sexuality •

Local License: A New Authoritative Interpretation Regarding “Freedom of Conscience” (immediately effective)

•

Removal of Authoritative Interpretations Prohibiting Homosexual Practice for Church Officers (immediately effective)

•

Deletion of the “Fidelity and Chastity” Standard (requires approval by presbyteries to be effective)

•

Amending the Heidelberg Catechism to Remove Reference to Homosexuality (requires next GA approval and subsequent approval of the presbyteries to be effective)

"What is PFR’s Response to the State of the PC(USA)?"

•

“The Big Picture”: Repentance and Our Missional Calling

•

The GA in Light of our Missional Calling: A Two-Fold Approach to the Way Forward •

Call to Biblical Faithfulness

•

Reshaping the PC(USA)

8134 New LaGrange Rd. Louisville, KY 40222 • tel: 502.425.4630 • fax: 502.423.8329 w w w. p f r e n e w a l . o r g , • w w w. g a 2 0 0 8 . c o m

The Major Actions of the 218th General Assembly It is important that we first say the 218th General Assembly made several decisions that have the potential to promote biblical faithfulness in our denomination. These include the approval of a radical new document enabling broader mission collaboration and an increase in funding for international mission workers. We encourage you to read the outline of these positive decisions available through the homepage of GA2008.COM. The actions of the GA that have rightly received the most attention are those related to interfaith relations, ordination standards and sexuality. The GA’s actions on these issues are profound deviations from the clear teaching of Holy Scripture and our Reformed Confessions. As such, they are deeply disturbing. Indeed, they threaten the very identity of the PC(USA) as an expression of the Body of Christ called to “exhibit the Kingdom of Heaven to the world.”

Inter-faith Relations 1) Common Worship for Jews, Christians and Muslims?

The General Assembly took two actions regarding the relationship between Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The stated intent of these actions was to promote peace and understanding among the faiths. To pursue this end, these actions encourage members of the three faiths to join together to “celebrate diversity” and to engage in common worship. One of the actions encourages Presbyterians, Jews and Muslims “to celebrate religious holidays together, setting aside days of worship,” and the other says joint practices might include “participation in sacred and holy observances in each other’s traditions.”

There is much to commend in the GA’s stated intention to promote peace and understanding.

Yet the recommendation of common worship between the three faiths represents a serious misunderstanding of Christianity and Islam as well as forms of modern Judaism.

Worship is a central expression of faith and shapes the identity of each religious community.

The mode and meaning of worship for each faith, respectively, are determined by each faith’s foundational beliefs, which are not consistent among Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

For instance, as Christians, we believe true worship of God is worship through Jesus Christ, God's Son (e.g. John 14:6). Behind the everyday practice of praying “in the name of Jesus” is this foundation of Christian worship. It is the exaltation of Jesus Christ as Lord of all and the one through whom we have access to God the Father that launched the early church into the discussions that grew into the Nicene and Chalcedonian Creeds, the standard-bearers for Christian belief.

Of course, the identity and centrality of Jesus Christ are the very beliefs that have most distinguished Christianity from both Judaism and Islam. The encouragement for Christians to worship together with Muslims is particularly troubling. As a faith tradition that emerged five

2

hundred years after the incarnation of Jesus Christ, Islam is very self-conscious regarding its beliefs about the person of Jesus. Mainstream Islam honors Jesus as one of many in a line of prophets, the last of which was Muhammad, whose teachings are considered the most authoritative.

The Qur’an is clear that Jesus, while a prophet, is not and could not have been the eternal Son of God. This belief naturally, then, has characterized mainstream Islam. It naturally follows and is only honest to note that Christian worship (through Jesus) is clearly rejected throughout the Qur’an as dishonoring to God, even a form of unbelief. Given these foundational differences in our faiths, over the last fourteen centuries, since the emergence of Islam, Christianity and Islam have not been able to affirm common worship because they hold very different beliefs about the nature and identity of God, the means of salvation and what kind of worship honors God. Nevertheless, the General Assembly has encouraged Presbyterians and Muslims to worship together. The Assembly has not explained precisely what new Christian and/or Muslim theological understanding would enable Christians to worship as Christians with Muslims, or how Muslims might worship as Muslims with Christians. A new theological statement that was also approved goes some way toward explaining the rationale for the encouragement to engage in common worship.

2) A New Theological Statement on the Three Monotheistic Faiths Providing what one overture called “a new theological foundation,” the GA also approved the following new theological statement that underlies the encouragement for common worship among Jews, Christians and Muslims: “though we hold differing understandings of how God has been revealed to humankind, the PC(USA) affirms that, as children of this loving God, we share the commandments of love for God and neighbor, the requirement to care for the poor.”

The most natural reading of this statement finds the PC(USA) confidently affirming that the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is in fact the God of Muhammad, despite all the enormously complex and controversial issues involved in such an affirmation. The explicit phrase, "a common God," was removed before the statement was approved. Of course, the affirmations that remain, as well as the encouragement for common worship, all hang on that premise. More important than an abstract statement is the affirmation of a common connection by faith that each religion is thought to provide to the one God. People of all three faiths are “children of this loving God,” all part of God’s family through their respective faiths, which forms the basis for the encouragement of common worship. The differences between the faiths, according to this statement, are found in “differing understandings of how God has been revealed to humankind.”

The primary problem with this statement is that the various elements taken together are in conflict with the faith of orthodox Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The statement seems to begin with a generic monotheism – “that there is only one God” – a God who can be known and approached in worship in a variety of ways. The differences between the three monotheistic

3

religions are considered to be secondary -- God may have created the differences intentionally, or they may be the result of human convention or cultural influences - but at the end of the day the idea is that there is a deeper unity for common worship in the one bigger family of God.

The Theological Implications of the Actions on Inter-faith Relations It is difficult to avoid the fact that this new theological statement and the exhortation to common worship only make sense if the Lord Jesus Christ is moved to the sideline in favor of a generic monotheism. Contrary to a generic monotheism is the Christian confession of the centrality of Jesus Christ for all knowledge and worship of God. As the Barmen Declaration famously states: “Jesus Christ, as he is attested for us in Holy Scripture, is the one Word of God which we have to hear and which we have to trust and obey in life and in death." Jesus is not merely one of several viable understandings of how God has been revealed and how people of faith can approach God in worship.

Taken at face value, the implication of these inter-faith statements is a denial of very basic elements of orthodox Christian faith. Such a move was obviously not the intention of the majority of commissioners who voted overwhelmingly to approve these actions. A charitable view of these decisions would fault the general theological malnourishment of the denomination as a whole.

Finally on these matters, it is worth pointing out that it is not appropriate, for inter-faith relations, for one group unilaterally to state what beliefs and practices would be appropriate for persons of another faith, especially when the statements involve beliefs and practices that have not historically characterized the other faith or faiths in question.

PFR Action on Inter-Faith Relations We will make theological and other practical resources available to the church regarding interfaith relations in the coming weeks and months, to help Presbyterians dig deeper into the nature of Christian worship, the relationship between Christianity and other faiths, and a theologically sound approach to fulfilling our responsibility to work for peace together with people of other faiths.

(continued on next page)

4

Ordination Standards and Sexuality Two Immediately Effective Actions Related to Sexual Behavior and Ordination Standards 1) Local License: A New “Authoritative Interpretation” (AI) of G-6.0108 in the Book of Order: What happened?

The GA passed a new Authoritative Interpretation “AI” on section G-6.0108 of the Book of Order, the section that states ordained officers must “exercise freedom of conscience within certain bounds.” The intent of this new “AI” is to broadly expand “freedom of conscience” and to allow sessions and presbyteries to ordain and install individuals who do not and do not intend in personal belief or practice to abide by the constitutional standards for ordination, including the requirement “to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness” (G-6.0106b).

Two reasons this action is deeply troubling: 1) Biblical faith and practice. Most importantly, the intent of this action is to permit the ordination of persons who are sexually active outside of marriage between a man and a woman. Those encouraging this action include the special interest groups urging the church to honor homosexual practice as a gift from God. This action seeks to undo the historic and biblical standards for ordination in the PC(USA), standards that are vital for the church’s witness to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

2) The covenant community. But the intent of this action is also a clear disregard for the established means of amending our constitution of the PC(USA), a safeguard that allows the whole covenant community to make determinations about changes in a constitution that governs the life of the whole church. This established process for constitutional changes requires the approval of the GA and a majority of the 173 presbyteries. Because the GA itself has the authority to “interpret” the constitution of the PC(USA), this new “AI” passed twelve days ago by the 218th Assembly is immediately effective. In taking this action, the GA has attempted to effectively amend the constitution while circumventing the amendment process by not giving the presbyteries a vote.

What impact will the new AI on G-6.0108 actually have?

It remains to be seen whether or not this new “AI” will be able to accomplish its intent. There are good arguments on both sides. Future decisions by the General Assembly’s Permanent Judicial Commission (GAPJC) should make the impact of this action more clear. Such a decision could come in a few months or take longer than a year.

5

What Can You Do? Sessions can begin now to establish for their congregations and for their presbyteries clear statements of intent regarding their application of biblical standards for ordination. Such statements must be made carefully in order to be done within the bounds of the PC(USA) constitution. PFR will provide specific advice through our website in the coming weeks. In addition, sessions and presbyteries can work together to draft a more biblically faithful interpretation of the constitution to send as an overture for consideration by the 219th General Assembly in 2010 as a new AI on G-6.0108.

PFR Action PFR is committed to mobilize leaders and provide resources for congregations and presbyteries who wish to establish clear, biblical and constitutional ordination practices for themselves, and who wish to send to the next GA a faithful “AI” on G-6.0108.

2) Removal of the “Authoritative Interpretation” on Homosexual Practice What happened?

The GA passed another “AI” that says all previous authoritative interpretations on homosexual practice no longer have any “force or effect.” Among the clear statements no longer in effect is the following: "That unrepentant homosexual practice does not accord with the requirements for ordination."

The AI’s on homosexual practice were significant because they were the only statements with constitutional force that explicitly indicated that homosexual practice was inconsistent with the requirements for ordination. Some church court cases have leaned on these AI’s when making determinations regarding the constitutionality of ordinations of practicing homosexual persons.

What impact will this action have?

Though the intent of the GA’s action is clear - to make it more likely that such ordinations will be deemed constitutional - it is unclear whether or not the action will ultimately have this effect.

PFR believes the “Fidelity and Chastity” standard in G-6.0106b (see below) is, on its own, very clear on the matter. Recent GAPJC decisions appear to have interpreted the Fidelity and Chastity standard in this way as well. Therefore, it remains to be seen what practical effect on ordination standards this action will have.

PFR Action PFR is committed to mobilize leaders and provide resources for congregations and presbyteries who wish to send to the next GA a new authoritative interpretation of the constitution regarding homosexual practice and ordination standards.

6

A general note on the two actions above on authoritative interpretations: Regardless of what technical impact these actions of the GA will have, it is very likely that we will begin seeing “test cases” in the near future. In other words, it is likely that some sessions and presbyteries will begin ordaining candidates who are in open violation of the Fidelity and Chastity standard.

Such actions would do further damage to the church, because they would be contrary to both God’s good intentions for humankind as expressed in Holy Scripture and contrary to the PC(USA)’s own “Fidelity and Chastity” standard for ordination. We urge sessions and presbyteries considering such ordinations not to take this step. And we urge those desiring to uphold our biblical and constitutional standards for ordination to work with us to give the next GA an opportunity to approve a new AI on homosexual practice and G-6.0108.

Two Actions on sexuality and ordination standards that require presbytery approval to be effective: 1) Deleting the “Fidelity and Chastity” Standard in G-6.0106b What happened?

The GA approved an amendment to the Book of Order’s section G-6.0106b, which includes the “the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness.“ The proposed amendment would remove this language.

What impact will this action have?

This action has no immediate impact on the polity of the denomination. Amending the Book of Order of the PC(USA) requires the approval of a majority of our 173 presbyteries. Presbyteries have now been launched into another round of contentious debates on sexuality and controversial votes. The presbytery votes must be taken within one year from the close of this last Assembly. If passed, the amendment would take effect at the end of June 2009.

The very likely implication of passing the amendment would be the removal of any doubt about the eligibility for ordination of persons sexually active outside of marriage between a man and a woman. Sessions and presbyteries would be able to ordain individuals engaged in all manner of lifestyles without violating the letter of the PC(USA)’s Book of Order. The debate over the constitutionality of such ordinations would shift solely to this question: Can a person be both obedient to Christ and engaged in unrepentant and habitual sexual activity outside of marriage?

7

While PFR and indeed the global church are quite confident that the answer to this question is “no,” the last thirty years of debate in the PC(USA) have proven two things: there is much disagreement in our denomination on the Bible’s teaching on sexuality and indeed on the status of the Bible as an authoritative guide for faith and practice, and questions about the constitutionality of ordinations are generally answered in church courts on the basis of specific wordings of the Book of Order alone, not on the basis of scriptural teaching or our Book of Confessions. PFR believes we all must acknowledge and repent of these two realities.

Beyond the technical implications, the approval of this amendment would plunge the PC(USA) to a new depth of departure from biblical morality on a central aspect of human life about which the Scriptures have much to say. It would further entrench the PC(USA) in the untenable position of claiming to be a Christian church while living at odds with the foundation of Christian faith - the calling to trust in, obey and witness to Jesus Christ according to the written Word of God in Holy Scripture. Our witness within our own culture would be damaged further. And global partners have already expressed concern to PFR that, if this amendment were passed, the implications for our misson efforts among people of other cultures, and for our relationships with Presbyterian and Reformed Christians around the world would be enormous and devastating.

PFR Action We can and must engage in this specific struggle for biblical faithfulness in the PC(USA). PFR is committed to helping elders and pastors in their presbyteries defeat this proposed amendment to the Book of Order and to maintain the Fidelity and Chastity standard. This will require the passionate and committed efforts of the entire family of Presbyterians for Renewal, and we strongly urge all elders and congregations who are committed to PFR’s mission, values and vision to remain engaged in the struggle for biblical faithfulness in the PC(USA).

What Can You Do? In three previous votes of the presbyteries on the Fidelity and Chastity standard, the presbyteries have voted, by an increasing margin, to maintain biblical faithfulness in our ordination standards. We believe the presbyteries will defeat this latest proposed amendment. But this outcome will require the efforts of all of us to be informed and engaged in our own presbyteries.

This crucial effort will, unfortunately, require the investment of significant funds. PFR’s funding for its continuing grassroots and program ministries for congregational leadership has already been significantly affected, for the worse, by previous actions of the Assembly in recent years. In order to lead this new effort, we need your investment.

We have set up a special fund, “The Fund for Biblical Faithfulness,” to which individuals and congregations may contribute, which will enable a collaborative effort between PFR, other renewal groups and you, across the nation.

8

Please pray for the PFR network, for the discernment of the presbyteries of the PC(USA), and please contribute to this new fund. Contributions to this fund will be used specifically for the networking and resource development to help you -elders and pastors of the PC(USA) - to address the actions of the 218th General Assembly on ordination standards. We will be making further announcements about this effort on our website, through special email communications, and through traditional mailings.

2) Removing A Reference to Homosexuality in the Book of Confessions: Amendments to the Heidelberg Catechism What Happened?

The GA approved an effort to amend the Heidelberg Catechism, one of the confessional standards of the church in our Book of Confessions. The contention of the overture approved by the Assembly is that the PC(USA)’s Heidelberg Catechism does not adequately reflect the language of the 16th-century German text of the catechism.

The primary interest of this effort to amend the catechism is actually to remove a reference to homosexuality in the answer to the catechism’s “Q&A 87” (the catechism has 129 questions and answers that teach the Christian faith). In order to make the case that the primary interest was to restore our catechism’s fidelity to the 16th-century text, four other answers were cited as containing “errors.” In reality, two of these “errors” are very minor and debatable issues that present no substantive theological concerns, and the other two are in fact completely reliable translations.

Why the concern to remove a reference to homosexuality? The stated intent of those driving this initiative is their desire to prevent a person from being able to find an answer in our Book of Confessions to the question of whether or not homosexual practice is sinful. Furthermore, section G-6.0106b in our Book of Order states the following as a standard for ordination: “Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament.” The effort to remove the reference to “homosexual perversion” from the Book of Confessions is one piece of the broader effort to change the PC(USA)’s standards for the sexual conduct of ordained officers of the church.

What Impact Will This Action Have?

There is no immediate change to the Heidelberg Catechism, but a process has been initiated that could result in the removal of the reference to homosexuality. The process to amend the Book of Confessions is rigorous and lengthy. The initial result of this GA’s action is the formation of a committee to study the proposal and to make a recommendation to the next Assembly. The next GA will then vote on that proposal. If the next GA’s vote is to move forward with some

9

form of amendments to the catechism, then these proposed amendments would need to passed by 2/3 of the presbyteries in order to move to the final step. The final step required in order to amend the Book of Confessions would be the approval of the subsequent General Assembly.

PFR Action During the General Assembly PFR posted on GA2008.COM a letter from four Presbyterian seminary professors, two of them scholars of Reformation Theology from Princeton, outlining their objections to the proposed amendments and the means by which the amendments were sought, i.e. on the basis of very weak historical arguments, rather than by stating the actual intent, namely to change the church’s confessional teaching on homosexuality. This letter is In addition, we will publish a detailed article explaining several of the cited “errors” in the catechism are not, in fact errors at all but faithful renderings into English of the original German text of the catechism. Finally, in the event that the amendments to the catechism are sent to the presbyteries for a vote, PFR will work with elders and pastors to defeat the amendments.

Addressing the “Big Picture”: Repentance and Missional Calling For two decades, PFR has passionately engaged the PC(USA), seeking to be an instrument of God’s Spirit in renewing the life of our denomination. We have been dubbed by some as the “evangelical loyalists,” a label we have received with gratitude. We have worked to establish and maintain a close working relationship with the broad center of the denomination and whenever possible to support the mission and ministry of the General Assembly Council. We have intentionally worked to maintain a “comprehensive vision for renewal” and a long-term perspective.

Ultimately, the spiritual health of our denomination is determined by the faith and witness of our local congregations, so our ministries have and continue to provide resources, leadership training, inspiration, and a sense of evangelical Presbyterian identity through conferences, networks and publications for our congregations and for youth. To a great extent, these ministries have been able to do their work without much direct involvement in the decisions of the governing bodies of the PC(USA).

Simultaneously, we have sought to address “denominational issues.” We have offered analysis on the issues facing the church and worked with pastors and elders who seek to make godly decisions within the middle and higher governing bodies of the PC(USA), including the General Assembly. Our desire has been for the PC(USA) to be a faithful witness to Jesus Christ in the world as a connectional body and particular expression of the larger Body of Christ.

The PC(USA) has struggled through many of the same problems that other mainline denominations in North America face. And like many other mainline denominations, the PC(USA) has

10

progressively lost sight of its Christ-centered identity and missional calling: the reason we exist as a church is to proclaim the Good News of Jesus Christ and to offer to the world a distinctive vision of God’s good intentions for humanity. One of the “Great Ends of the Church” in our tradition is our calling to “exhibit the Kingdom of Heaven to the world”: to be a distinctive people, guided by a distinctive loyalty to the one and only reigning Lord Jesus Christ, who is attested to us in the authoritative and written Word of God. Without this foundational sense of our identity, the Church has little defense against the full embrace of the culture in which it finds itself. In the case of mainline denominations in North America, including the PC(USA), this loss of our sense of identity has catalyzed the erosion of biblical authority, “other gods” direct our life, and the church has embraced the beliefs and morals of North American society. Numerical decline in the church is not a mystery: without a distinctive faith and way of life, the church has nothing to offer anyone that they could not receive in most other forms of human community, many of which have “less baggage” than Christian denominations.

PFR will be the first to confess our own failures in this process of decline. Mainline evangelicals may have been unfaithful on different “issues” than those who have explicitly embraced a pattern of cultural accommodation, but we have been unfaithful nonetheless. Matters of wealth, justice, power, and care for the creation, to name but a few, are matters on which many of us in the broadly evangelical movement have allowed ourselves to be made captive to the culture rather than to Christ. These are not the central points of the “culture war” and so they have not become central points of contention in the mainline denominations. Both “liberals” and “conservatives” in the PC(USA) and other denominations have made serious accommodations to these aspects of western culture.

When it comes to areas of obvious sinfulness in the church such as these, we face a critical question: Should we repent of our sin as guided by sound study of the Holy Scriptures and our Reformed Confessions, in order to honor God and pursue a distinctive way of life as Christ’s witness to the world? Or should we take our cues from the norms of the surrounding culture, openly revamping our faith and life as Christians to fit within the prevailing standards of North American society?

The distinctive mark of a Christian church is not that we should be a community found perfect in this life, but that we should be found in continual repentance of our sin and calling upon God for forgiveness and transformation, that we might embody the Gospel for the sake of the world. However imperfectly, this we have tried to do for the last two decades as PFR. It is the deep difference over this question of the church’s identity that characterizes a major divide in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) today: are we directed by Jesus Christ who is the Head of the Church, who has called us to be an alternative community in and for the world? Or are we an organizational expression of the latest trends in western culture? The identity of the church - the very existence of the PC(USA) as a “church” - is at stake as we answer these questions. And on these questions, the PC(USA) is deeply divided.

11

The Actions of the 218th General Assembly in Light of Our Missional Calling When taken together, the actions of the 218th General Assembly make a strong statement about the disunity of the PC(USA) and the status of its faith and witness to Jesus Christ.

Just two years ago the 217th GA approved one authoritative interpretation intended to accomplish a change in our ordination policies regarding the sexual conduct of church officers, what the new “AI” on G-6.0108 seeks to accomplish as well. When the first measure was passed in 2006, many hoped it would promote the peace, unity and purity of the church. The result was very different. Several dozen congregations have left or are leaving our denomination, thousands more of our congregations were dismayed by the Assembly’s action, and deep concerns were expressed by our global partners. This action made many wonder if the PC(USA) had taken its decisive step toward full cultural accommodation.

By attempting to strengthen the action of the previous GA, and by adding to that action several additional measures designed to advance the same cause, a narrow majority of the 218th Assembly has now strained the unity of the PC(USA) to a new level. In addition, the actions regarding inter-faith relations add a pointed and radical embrace of western culture’s prevailing sense of the status of various “religions”: that we should consider the distinctive beliefs of each faith to be of lesser concern, such as the Lordship of Jesus Christ, in favor of viewing religions as the product of various human conventions valuable only in so far as they serve a secular vision for the basis of political peace in the world.

It is for this reason that we said, in our initial response to the General Assembly, “the PC(USA)’s compromise of the Gospel of Jesus Christ has reached an unprecedented level.”

Therefore, PFR’s response to the current condition of the PC(USA) is two-fold.

1) The Call to Biblical Faithfulness The specific “action” steps outlined above have emphasized one crucial aspect of our response to the state of the PC(USA): PFR is committed to uphold biblical faithfulness within the PC(USA) by supporting presbytery-by-presbytery efforts to defeat the proposed amendment to the Book of Order’s standards for ordination and to send to the next General Assembly proposals to restore integrity to the interpretation of our constitution. In God’s mysterious providence, thousands of congregations who share PFR’s mission have been called to be faithful witnesses to the Good News of Jesus Christ in the PC(USA). We minimize neither the severity of the state of the PC(USA) nor the opportunities to be instruments of God’s Spirit at this moment in the life of the denomination.

Now is the time to make that witness to the truth clearer than ever, by working together to address the actions of the Assembly immediately and directly.

12

2) Reshaping the Presbyterian Church (USA) Many congregations and their leaders have expressed to PFR that they have now been pushed to the point where they must seriously question the ability to remain faithful within the PC(USA). PFR believes this is a valid concern. While we are, at present, free to be faithful in the PC(USA), it is also clear that the way in which we, together, exercise that freedom to be faithful must now change.

By a narrow majority, recent assemblies have voted to change our biblical and historic standards for ordination. These votes actually represent only one segment of our denomination. The majority of the members of the PC(USA) have consistently disagreed with these actions. Given the theological and moral seriousness of the issues involved in these disagreements, we have reached the point where the different visions of Christian faith and life in the PC(USA) need to be expressed through the institutional structure of the denomination.

No one is honored by the constant battles over sexuality, especially not our Lord Jesus Christ, whose love it is our calling to proclaim to the world. At a more foundational level, we reiterate the following from our initial response to the General Assembly: “It is clear that the PC(USA)’s confession of the Lordship of Jesus Christ and commitment to our Reformed confessions has weakened to the point that we can no longer assume a common framework of conversation....For the sake of our witness to the Gospel, we believe it is necessary for the different visions of Christian faith and life in the PC(USA) to be expressed in formally distinct bodies without a formal split in the denomination. Such possibilities have been discussed hypothetically under the rubrics of non-geographical or “missional” presbyteries and synods. We will pursue the ideas and relationships necessary to make this a reality, and we call upon the whole church to think creatively about ways to achieve this end. Perhaps revisions to the work of the Form of Government Task Force that will be brought to the next General Assembly are a way to advance this effort.”

Reshaping the PC(USA) will recognize outwardly what is already our inward reality. Reshaping the PC(USA) will allow congregations to be connected through governing bodies grounded in their commitment to a common faith and life, rather than mere geography as is the case today. For our own congregations, this will mean the freedom to be connected through a network of governing bodies that share a common vision for faithful witness to Jesus Christ in the world.

We fully recognize that there are many questions surrounding such a proposal. So, let’s put some of those on the table explicitly: Would such a proposal really address the concerns of congregations struggling to remain in the PC(USA) in good conscience? Does it make sense ecclesiologically - that is, can there be one PC(USA) that, at the same time, formally recognizes profound disagreements on Christian faith and life? Is there historical precedent for such a move?

What would such a “network of governing bodies” actually look like? Would the current system of the General Assembly and the presbyteries actually approve such a reshaping of the PC(USA)?

13

These are only a few of the very good questions surrounding the effort to reshape the PC(USA).

If these questions cannot be answered well, any proposal to reshape the PC(USA) will not work.

We are not interested in merely pragmatic moves that are not theologically sound, nor would we propose theologically sound moves that would not work practically. The theological and practical realities of the PC(USA) require creative and faithful solutions that will address both legitimate concerns.

In the coming months, we will be publicly exploring our thoughts on these and other issues with the whole church. At the very least, such discussions will put serious theological thinking on the agenda of the national conversation of the PC(USA). These discussions may help all Presbyterians, regardless of their position on the theological spectrum, to think through their own views about the meaning of confessing the faith, the missional purpose of the church, and the relationship between congregational and denominational identities.

What Can You Do? For those interested in helping to move this conversation forward, there are at least three ways for you to become involved.

•

First, we will provide a means for you to contribute your own ideas to the effort. The primary means for you to do so will be provided online in the coming weeks. We will take advantage of the latest technology to foster a national conversation where everyone’s input will make a contribution to the discussion. Gone are the days when a small group should determine institutional structures on its own, and this includes the concrete proposal for reshaping the PC(USA) that will be the result of this process. We need all of our minds to work together. We especially look forward to the contributions of Presbyterians of racial and ethnic distinction, and of Presbyterians in other parts of the world. PFR will facilitate the overall framework of conversation.

•

Second, we are putting together a team of elders, pastors, governing body executives and theologians to help lead this process. With the contributions of the whole church in view, a team will still need to facilitate this conversation, provide its own expertise, make some judgment calls and move the initiative forward. PFR will gather this group together at times over the coming months. What does this have to do with you? We need your help to pay this team’s expenses for gathering together numerous times.

“The Fund for Reshaping the PC(USA)” has been established for this purpose, and all contributions to this fund will specifically serve this effort. Please consider helping us facilitate this initiative.

•

Third, we encourage pastors to engage their sessions and small groups in their congregations in this conversation. In the coming weeks and months, PFR will provide some written reflections addressing this initiative and the key questions we raised above. We hope you will find these resources helpful in facilitating your own conversations.

14

Maintaining Perspective, Vision, and Hope The challenges we are facing together in the Presbyterian Church (USA) are no challenge to the authority of Jesus Christ and the victory that is his – and so ours in him, by faith – for eternity.

The condition of this little part of the Body of Christ called the PC(USA) is not a surprise to God. The Lord has always been and will always be faithful to his people, and we must continue to pray for the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and ask to be filled with his Spirit as we discover together how best to respond faithfully to the state of our denomination. In God’s providence, we are here together in the PC(USA). And we trust that God will lead us as we move forward together and seek his will for the coming weeks and months, for the next few years and for the long-term future of our congregations.

Presbyterians For Renewal is committed to mobilizing leaders of congregations within the PC(USA) for just such a time as this. We are committed to biblical faithfulness and missional mindedness—to sharing the Good News of Jesus Christ for all God's people, with passion and with joy. The lasting effect of PFR's commitment is only as strong as the commitment from each person whose faith is called into action by the challenges we now face.

We need you to respond to the call to biblical faithfulness by making a commitment to be an active participant in the life and witness of your congregation and your presbytery. Take a stand for biblical fidelity, as God sends us into our corners of the church and the world in mission. We also need you to put your mind to work at thinking creatively about reshaping the life of the PC(USA). Through your own experience in the denomination, God may have given you wisdom that would make a sound contribution, however large or small, in the effort to help all of us have the freedom to confess and live out our faith with integrity in the PC(USA).

We need your support, your prayer, your vision, your voice. But more importantly the Body of Christ needs you to recommit your life to our Savior Jesus Christ and to serving him with joy where God has called you.

Together we are the Body of Christ, and individually members of it. Christ is Lord of all. The work of ministry is waiting.

Presbyterians For Renewal 8134 New LaGrange Rd. Suite 227 Louisville, KY 40222 (502) 425-4630

15

What Way Ahead? Part One: Three Options | Regula Fidei-Rule of Faith-...

1 of 5

Home

Reflections

The Notebook

http://www.regulafidei.com/reflections/123-what-way-ahead-part-one-thr...

Book Reviews

About

search

THE N

What Way Ahead? Part One: Three Options Written by Michael R. Walker Friday, 22 August 2008 06:00

For conservative Christians in the PC(USA), facing major challenges is nothing new. But the challenges we are accustomed to facing took on new proportions at the 218th General Assembly.

Though the technical implications of the Assembly’s decisions on sexuality remain unclear, the number and consistent character of those decisions speak with a clear voice. When the misguided statement on interfaith relations is added to the mix, not to mention the embarrassing lack of attention to Christian faith exhibited in the discussions leading up to these decisions, this GA has successfully pulled back the veil, so to speak, enabling us to see more clearly the situation we’ve been facing for quite some time.

For years, many have wondered if the PC(USA) shares a common understanding of the Christian faith. If we don’t, then what is the wisdom of staying together? This should be a reasonable question to address, except that we don’t even agree on how to address it.

Forms of dialogue, appeals to tolerance and proposals for polity solutions that seem neutral in the eyes of some often reflect a de facto embrace of positions conservatives cannot embrace.

I’m not optimistic, but I am hopeful. There is a new degree of clarity about our denominational situation. Many people across the theological spectrum are taking the challenges we face more seriously, and this is helpful. But the road ahead is a difficult one.

Resolving differences over particular issues in a meaningful way requires a common goal, namely fidelity to the Gospel, and the meaning of the Gospel appears to be the very thing about which we are most divided.

I’ll share my own perspective on these and related issues in a series of articles, "What Way Ahead?" In beginning this series, a number of people have asked that I recognize two things: 1) I need to address some of the “bottom line” questions they have first. Fair enough.

What follows here is a preliminary sketch of three approaches that conservatives have pursued and might pursue now. In the next article I will explore a fourth option, which I think is the preferred one. I am sticking with the “big picture” options. The renewal groups can provide particular suggestions about matters such as directing congregational funding, sending overtures to the next General Assembly, or organizing in your presbytery to defeat the proposed amendment to the constitutional ordination standards. 2) People don’t read long articles anymore. That one pains me, but I’ll do my best.

Eccle Turn Jano summ eccle of the turn" anthr and o pursu 1b2 3 4

THE F

Re No Co

BOOK

The following “categories” are used to provide a framework—a heuristic device. Nobody fits neatly into any one, but they do provide generalized options or patterns for how conservatives have responded and might respond now to the state of the PC(USA). I’ll describe each and explore the historical and theological foundations in future articles.

1) To Be Traditional Renewalists One option is to stay the course in our current connectional structures and deepen our commitment to the classic practices that history has proven could foster long-term renewal in congregations and could effect change in the middle and higher governing bodies as well.

This approach recognizes that renewal doesn’t come through decisions about church polity, but it is willing to engage in the polity debates because the corporate witness of the Body of Christ to the truth of the Gospel is important, because we have a responsibility to the wider denomination, and because, if left unchecked, the prevailing ethos of inclusion in the denomination might end up being one that eventually excludes us altogether.

At the moment, conservatives who take this approach seem to be diminishing in number in the PC(USA). To say that they are long-suffering is not to say that they have no limits. As the actions of governing bodies push the denomination further and further into the mode of accommodation to western culture, folks with this disposition pursue one of the next two options below.

Some traditional renewalists embrace a “free to be faithful” posture toward renewal: if God in his providence has placed us in the

1/13/2009 3:32 PM

What Way Ahead? Part One: Three Options | Regula Fidei-Rule of Faith-...

2 of 5

http://www.regulafidei.com/reflections/123-what-way-ahead-part-one-thr...

PC(USA), we should labor in and for it as long as we have the freedom to do so faithfully. When is one no longer free to be faithful?

That’s a major, important question and I’ll explore it in a future article. The limits of other traditional renewalists are dependent upon the perceived possibility of success: if there is no reasonable hope the denomination will change courses in due time, then the effort is no longer a reasonable one to embrace. Obviously assessments of the reasonable chances of success are subjective. In addition, it should be noted that the limits of pastors in this group are often formed by the specific tension of being forced into deciding between two competing loyalties, namely to their congregation and to the denomination.

The approach of the long-suffering renewalist has much to commend it, and recommending this approach at this time would not be a retrenching effort. Rather, it would be a new call to engage afresh in the efforts that have characterized the renewal movement for the last several decades and still characterize one faithful expression of it.

Patient renewalists must, however, confront several significant realities: 1) What we experienced at this last GA was an advancement of a trajectory that shows no sign of abating. It’s not about the “liberal groups,” whose true effectiveness is, honestly, unknown. Rather, the actions of the San Jose Assembly reflect the power of western culture generally to shape the ethos of a denomination that does not have a clear sense of its mission to the culture. Unchecked and unchallenged, the “default” pattern of the PC(USA) will be to continue moving along with the prevailing spirituality of western culture (“moralistic therapeutic deism,” as it has been dubbed recently), and with its embrace of the culture’s obsession with variant forms of sexual expression.

The GA is hesitant to follow “cultural progress” only when an establishment-supported appeal is made to slow down in order to “give conservatives a little more time to catch up,” lest too many leave, catapulting the whole denomination further down the road of demise.

(By the way, when we reach the year 2040, the time at which we’re supposed to have no members left if current trends continue, I’ll have yet to reach retirement age.)

2) Some say the GA is unrepresentative of the denomination as a whole, and that this can be changed. It’s a nice thought and probably true as far as it goes. But changing GA representation involves 173 different established processes in 173 presbyteries, the key decision-making structures of which are often as unrepresentative as the General Assembly. Further, the already slim majority of Presbyterian pew-sitters who answer multiple-choice questions in a way that reflects traditional Christian beliefs and morals is getting smaller. Further still, it is not at all clear how many of those Presbyterians who check the boxes for the “traditional views” are worried about other views becoming a normal part of the church’s beliefs and practices. Many are content with the new brand of diversity, even if they will personally stick with traditional views.

3) Another major factor is that the traditional renewalists have fewer and fewer companions. Many have drifted into the “defect in place” mode, and others have left or are ready to leave the PC(USA). This appears especially to be the case after the recent General Assembly.

Traditional renewalists have sometimes employed the unfortunate slogan, “stay-fight-win.” This is not a felicitous phrase, because it can imply that the goal of renewal is for one group to beat another one. This is both rhetorically damaging and a misrepresentation of the primary intent, namely faithfulness to God, whose “victory” alone it would be should the PC(USA) pursue a faithful course. In addition, it leads folks to become impatient whenever it looks like the conservatives are not going to “win,” prompting the counterslogan, “stay-fight-lose,” which fails to inspire, to say the least, and often represents the anger and bitterness of disappointed expectations.

2) To Defect in Place The second option is to “defect in place” or “ignore the denomination.” As the label indicates, the goal of this approach is basically to leave the PC(USA) without tackling the feat of technically leaving it.

This has been a common approach for years. Under the banner of “post-denominationalism,” this approach would expedite the functional congregationalism that characterizes many conservative congregations. We could feel set free from going to presbytery meetings very often, and pastors/sessions could do their best to shelter their congregations from the bad news of the denomination.

Those who have taken this approach often cease funding the efforts of the middle and higher governing bodies, and sometimes remove references to the PC(USA) from their signage and congregational literature.

This approach is typically easier for larger, more self-sufficient congregations. Smaller congregations often do not have the wherewithal to stand on their own, especially if they are in a “hostile” presbytery, which maintains the ability to intervene in the congregation’s business when certain (ambiguous) criteria are met.

Some congregations are “happy defectors,” who seem glad to let go of any ill will toward the denomination and just move ahead with their own ministries. Some are “angry defectors,” who seem to be shaped more by a deep sense of alienation from a denomination in which they have invested much of their lives.

1/13/2009 3:32 PM

What Way Ahead? Part One: Three Options | Regula Fidei-Rule of Faith-...

3 of 5

http://www.regulafidei.com/reflections/123-what-way-ahead-part-one-thr...

I have found wisdom in the words of Ephraim Radner, a conservative theologian in the Episcopal Church: “There is no point dying with the church, unless one is ready to struggle for the truth. But there is no point struggling for the truth if the struggle leaves one bitter and hostile, aimed against adversaries instead of praying for them in love. If one is not called to the radiancy of joyful sacrifice, it is better to leave.”

Radner’s comment is really intended for individuals, for whom leaving is easy. It is far more difficult for a whole congregation to leave, if it is not practically unanimous in wanting to leave, and if the congregation wishes to retain its property. This all depends on the presbytery and the particular circumstances, of course, but the end result of these factors is that we have many congregations who have basically “left,” though they are still technically in the PC(USA).

3) To Leave the PC(USA) The third option is to leave the PC(USA). A great many individuals have left in recent years, preferring another nearby congregation that does not have the baggage of the PC(USA). Only 44% of current PC(USA) members come from a Presbyterian background, which likely means that a majority of our members feel little spiritual attachment to the PC(USA) as such. Given that the Scriptures teach that Christ intends to guide the church through elders, however, it would be better for individual members to discern their ability to be a part of the local congregation, while allowing the session to provide guidance about the whole congregation’s participation in the denomination.

Several dozen congregations have recently left the PC(USA), including a handful of our largest congregations. Nobody knows how many are in the process of leaving in the wake of the recent Assembly.

I would not question the faithfulness of congregations who are united in their resolve to leave, if they arrive at this conclusion after careful and patient discernment, and out of concern for their faithfulness to God and their witness to the Gospel.

But I do think many conservative congregations go through that process without a clear sense of the nature and purpose of a “denomination” – what they are leaving – and without considering the implications for Christian unity and witness beyond the PC(USA).

I believe those factors are significant elements in discerning whether or not to leave the PC(USA) at this time, so I’ll reflect on those issues in subsequent articles.

Up Next, a Fourth Option: Realignment Within - and Beyond? - the PC(USA) Each of the three approaches above, on their own, presents significant difficulties. In addition to those mentioned above, they do not provide a way forward that gives much hope for the long-term health and witness of the PC(USA), they leave conservatives fractured among themselves, and they cannot well address the major issue of our future relationship to the global Church.

While no approach is free of serious difficulties, in the next article I will present the basics of a fourth option, a “realignment” within the PC(USA) that would allow congregations to become a part of middle governing bodies that are geographically flexible and free to establish standards that would apply to their own members. But the polity angle is only one piece of a vision that is much bigger. I realize there are plenty of questions surrounding such an approach, and we'll need to address them together. In the next article I'll offer initial thoughts that rise out of many discussions over the last two months.

Comments (20) Sort by: Date Rating Last Activity

0

Robert Austell Michael - thank you for this helpful summary of tried (and untried) options.

I look forward to reading about the realignment option. As you put together, would you address whether it is or isn't a glorified "defect in place (with friends)" option? What distinguishes it from the pros/cons of defecting in place, other than the encouragement/strength of numbers?

Is this realignment significantly different from the E-link proposal, which seems to not have gained much traction? » 20 weeks ago

REPORT

POST REPLY

1/13/2009 3:32 PM

What Way Ahead? Part One: Three Options | Regula Fidei-Rule of Faith-...

4 of 5

http://www.regulafidei.com/reflections/123-what-way-ahead-part-one-thr...

Michael Walker • 19p

+1

Robert: Great questions. I'll keep those in front of me while writing about the realignment option. » 20 weeks ago Collapse thread

REPORT

POST REPLY

Thread active 20 weeks ago

0

Viola Larson Thanks Michael,

This is one of the most helpful postings on the crisis in the PCUSA I have read. I will be following your series and pointing others toward it. I am helping at a forum at my daughters Church this Sunday evening and will refer to your work.

I have recently returned to blogging about the Church's Confession and for the first time noticed that attached to the Declaration of Barmen, in the book I am using, some resolutions by the Synod of Barmen about how they would go on being the Church in their time. This is relevant because there was no way they could actually leave a church that was forced into unity by their government. Of course the first thing they did was write a Confession. But there are other actions they took which I think are relevant for Evangelicals or the orthodox in the PCUSA. I will be blogging on it when I finish the Confession part.

One more thought, you wrote, "Unchecked and unchallenged, the “default” pattern of the PC(USA) will be to continue moving along with the prevailing spirituality of western culture (“moralistic therapeutic deism,” as it has been dubbed recently), and with its embrace of the culture’s obsession with variant forms of sexual expression." But it seems to me that at least within the progressive side of the PCUSA it should be moralistic therapeutic, Panentheism. That is an attempt to keep God in the mix but in some parts and ways influenced by humanity.

Anyway thanks for doing this series. » 20 weeks ago

REPORT

Michael Walker • 19p

POST REPLY

+1

Viola: I do think there are theological similarities between the German Church Struggle and the situation in the PC(USA), though the immediate stakes in terms of human life (in this life) are quite different. The key, it seems to me, is that the only Jesus the Church knows and must follow is the Jesus attested to us in Holy Scripture, as Barmen famously states.

As for the "moralistic therapeutic deism" (MTD), that was a reference to the prevailing spirituality in North America that often shapes the faith of church-goers (and non-Christians); i.e. it wasn't a reference to the faith of any "liberal groups" in the PC(USA). One point I was trying to make there is the fact that the trends in the mainline denominations may not in fact have as much to do with the advocacy from "the left" as we often think. Even without such groups, folks are predisposed to embrace a spirituality that serves their particular perceived needs and provides the freedom for others to pursue their particular perceived needs (in so far as they are not harming others in the process (and "harm" there should be understood in a secular sense). MTD is a "parasitic spirituality," in that it latches on to pre-existing religious beliefs and practices and infuses them with a new substance (so there are Christian moralistic therapeutic deists, Muslim moralistic therapeutic deists, etc., all of which are, in many ways, very similar to one another in terms of the "functional religion" that results). It does affect "liberals," of course, but it also significantly affects "evangelicals," though the particular manifestations can be different.

If you're interested in this topic, here's a link to a summary of the sociological study that coined the phrase: http://www.ptsem.edu/iym/lectures/2005/Smith-Mora...

You'll notice that it was a study of "youth culture," but they also found that the youth learned it from their parents, so it has descriptive force for multiple generations. » 20 weeks ago

Viola Larson

REPORT

POST REPLY

0

1/13/2009 3:32 PM

What Way Ahead? Part One: Three Options | Regula Fidei-Rule of Faith-...

5 of 5

http://www.regulafidei.com/reflections/123-what-way-ahead-part-one-thr...

There were a few YADs in the committee for Ecumenical and interfaith relationships that made comments on the Christian /Muslim overtures that are explained by moralistic therapeutic deism. As Christian Smith put it in the article "This helps to explain the noticeable lack of religious conflict between teenagers of apparently different faiths. For, in fact, we suggest that many of them actually share the same deeper religious faith: Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.

What is thereto have conflict about?”

Thanks Michael » 20 weeks ago

REPORT

POST REPLY

Post a new comment Enter text right here!

Name Email (track replies) Blog URL (optional) Sign up for IntenseDebate Why? | Login to comment Receive email updates for this post

SUBMIT COMMENT

Or post using OpenID

© 2008 Michael Ryan Walker for all original content.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.

1/13/2009 3:32 PM

What Way Ahead? Part Two: Initiating the Case for Realignment | Presbyt...

1 of 18

HOME

MINISTRIES

RESOURCES

http://www.pfrenewal.org/issues/301-what-way-ahead-part-two-initiating...

UPCOMING EVENTS

ARTICLES

STORE

ABOUT US

What Way Ahead? Part Two: Initiating the Case for Realignment

CONTACT US

Recent Art When Rene

WRITTEN BY MICHAEL R. WALKER, THEOLOGIAN IN RESIDENCE, HIGHLAND PARK PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, DALLAS, TX

Reso

SATURDAY, 20 SEPTEMBER 2008 17:16

Share this

Print

E-mail

In the first article of this series I outlined three options that traditional Christians have taken and might take now as we face the challenges of life today in the Presbyterian Church (USA). The three options were the long-term approach of renewalists, to “defect in place,” or to leave the denomination. I suggested none of the three options presented a hopeful future for the unity and witness of the PC(USA), nor would they help unify evangelicals, nor do they anticipate the impending challenge of relations with the Ecumenical Church. In this piece, I will outline the basics of a fourth option, which has been dubbed a “reshaping” of the PC(USA) or a “realignment” within the denomination. It is this fourth option that holds the most promise for responsibly facing the theological and institutional challenges before us.

As a reminder, the approach I am taking in this series may strike some as backwards: outlining practical approaches first, followed by more in depth engagement of theological and historical rationales. This approach is by design and request. To begin outlining the nature of and need for a realignment within the PC(USA), I will begin looking at some of the deeper issues involved below.

Declaration The D The D What Way The New T The Challe What W

The Basic Approach of Realignment Put simply, to move forward by way of realignment would mean that congregations who share deep commitments on the most controversial issues in the PC(USA) would be free to align with and govern one another within the institutional structure of the denomination. For instance, on the issue of the day, congregations shaped by traditional Christianity would be free to join presbyteries and synod(s) that are themselves free to maintain the historic standards of the church regarding sexual ethics. In the same way, those congregations who wish to be in a presbytery and synod that favor a new kind of moral diversity would be free to do so.

The PC(USA) would still be one denomination with one General Assembly. The responsibilities and authority of the General Assembly would be modified, to allow some decisions currently made at the GA level to become the domain of lower governing bodies. We would need to articulate carefully the continuing basis of denominational unity. We would also need to set out a pattern of intentional engagement across the alignments, including but not limited to the meeting of the General Assembly, a pattern that has the potential to address the divisions that ail us with dignity and with theological and moral clarity, which has become all but impossible in the present arrangement.

What Ar The Growi PFR Re Soon to a C PFR One Pa

Realignment would not be a panacea, and I do not believe it offers a healthy permanent solution to the divisions within the denomination. However, it does offer a more faithful step forward than the alternatives of forced participation in the present theological and moral revisions, the scattering of Presbyterians to

1/13/2009 3:35 PM

What Way Ahead? Part Two: Initiating the Case for Realignment | Presbyt...

2 of 18

http://www.pfrenewal.org/issues/301-what-way-ahead-part-two-initiating...

various other denominations, or the prospect of widespread litigious departures of congregations. More than avoiding the negative consequences of inaction, however, the intent of realignment is unitive, as it would require extraordinary forbearance, and it would offer a new context in which constructive engagement in the life of the denomination would be possible for everyone. In addition, it holds out the possibility of Christian reconciliation.

The Nature of Current Divisions and Its Consequences At an internal institutional level, the most basic question for the PC(USA) is whether or not we wish the future of our denomination, in all its diversity, to include as active participants those whose beliefs and ethical commitments are shaped by traditional Christianity. The other option is to embrace a revisionist form of theological and moral diversity as the guiding rule across the PC(USA).

The flashpoint of our current division in the denomination is, of course, sexual ethics, in particular the blessing of same-sex unions, our understanding of marriage, and whether to ordain persons who are sexually active outside of marriage. Religious pluralism, a bigger issue, is close behind. Just beneath the surface of these, as most also recognize, are different views of how the Gospel intersects western culture, biblical authority and interpretation, the meaning and requirements of the Gospel, and the nature of Christian unity.

Despite the existence of many nuanced positions on the issue of the day, when faced with decisions about what direction the church should take, the options are few. As theological ethicist Oliver O’Donovan has put it: “In practical decisions there comes a point at which the multitude of options are reduced to two.”

Revisionists believe the Gospel requires we revise Christian sexual ethics to make sexual activity outside of marriage, especially homosexual practice, morally and canonically permissible for ordained officers of the church. Traditional Christians believe the Gospel requires that we respect the basic boundaries God has given in Scripture, as received by the church for the last two millennia. In this case, sex is understood as a gift of God for the context of marriage. Each position offers distinctive, mutually exclusive norms. In the nature of the case, proposals for “compromise” involve a new form of moral diversity and are thus a de facto embrace of the gay-inclusivist position. For this reason (and others), appeals to unity-in-diversity on this issue devolve into appeals to embrace incoherence.

Ultimately, the pursuit of Christian unity in the PC(USA) is not about how to manage the co-existence of these two positions. Ultimately the choice is how we respond to the risen Lord, the Head of the Church, as he is revealed to us in Holy Scripture. Christian unity is formed and maintained as the Spirit enables us to respond to the Gospel of Jesus Christ in faith and joyful obedience. This is part and parcel of a basic Reformed understanding of the nature of the church. And yet it also presents a serious difficulty for the PC(USA) today.

We have clouded the vertical character of discernment, decision, and unity. The controversy over sexual ethics has made this abundantly clear, in a way that previous debates that resulted in change – over women’s ordination, for instance – could not. Previous matters of debate were such that we could study the Scriptures and the Christian tradition and find precedent for change. The gay-inclusivist position of today asks the church to embrace a new moral teaching and canonize a sexual practice that has no scriptural precedent and no historical precedent in the church prior to the second half of the 20th century.

More than that, we are told the Gospel requires the PC(USA) to embrace this change. The resultant controversy over contrasting visions of Gospel requirements, which cannot now take place on the basis of a shared understanding of how the Lord guides his church, has reduced us to the level of political factionalism, mimicking secular politics. When critical theological and moral issues are discussed within the church as though we are debating the relative superiority of one set of human opinions over another, we are no longer in a context in which Christian charity can take root or Christian diversity has any meaningful frame of reference. Fueling this character of debate is the fact we are always moving into votes on the very issues of contention, which inevitably promotes rhetorical sledgehammers and manipulation of church polity, which further damages any semblance of Christian unity, diminishes the deeper issues involved, and is devastating to our Christian witness.

1/13/2009 3:35 PM

What Way Ahead? Part Two: Initiating the Case for Realignment | Presbyt...

3 of 18

http://www.pfrenewal.org/issues/301-what-way-ahead-part-two-initiating...

Given this reality, we cannot discern together what Lord confronts us, or cannot discern together what it means to respond in faith and obedience, or both. And so, we cannot together answer the question perpetually before us: “on what basis unity?”

An Opportunity for Grace, Dignity, Clarity and Forbearance It does not seem possible to continue holding these tensions together indefinitely, and we have demonstrated that it is not possible to resolve them in the midst of the thick cloud that now covers the PC(USA). It is safe to say that the recent General Assemblies have pushed us to a point of decision. In the wake of the recent GA, some are expressing deep pain – and some great joy – that the PC(USA) appears determined to embrace revisionist theology and ethics across the denomination, and appears determined to do so through regular use of irregular polity maneuvers that disenfranchise evangelicals.

To many, it appears inevitable that traditional Christians face either participation in the revision or a journey toward a new home. If we do not choose a different path, then we must admit that we will have chosen “to walk apart.”

The PC(USA) has a narrow window of opportunity to move in a new direction characterized by grace, dignity, theological and moral clarity, and forbearance. While these virtues are consistently under-cut in the present context of the denomination, realignment offers a way to live into them.

Forthcoming In this piece, I have but scratched the surface of the case for realignment, looking at it strictly from the angle of internal divisions within the PC(USA). I will explore the theological character of these internal divisions more deeply, examining particular proposals for the future of the PC(USA) emerging from the Covenant Network of Presbyterians. I will also explore issues of particular interest to evangelical Presbyterians and how realignment would intersect the dispositions of traditional renewalists, those who would “defect in place,” and those who are considering leaving the PC(USA). Finally, I will explore the potential for realignment to address the growing tensions between the PC(USA) and the Ecumenical Church.

Comments (34) Sort by: Date Rating Last Activity Collapse thread

Thread active 16 weeks ago

Robert_Campbell • 1p

0

The idea of theologically diverse presbyteries is not a new one. Before the Old School/New School split in the 1830s both Philadelphia and New York City were divided into theologically different presbyteries. Maybe we should follow the suggestion of the PUP task force and do something old. Just a different something old » 16 weeks ago

Michael Walker • 19p

REPORT

POST REPLY

+1

1/13/2009 3:35 PM

What Way Ahead? Part Two: Initiating the Case for Realignment | Presbyt...

4 of 18

http://www.pfrenewal.org/issues/301-what-way-ahead-part-two-initiating...

Robert: Thanks for posting this thought. I hope to delve into the issue of historical precedent at some point, because there are indeed a variety of historical occasions (and current realities) to which one could point. On the matter of the PUP Task Force and the "authoritative interpretation" they proposed, I do think there are, as you indicate, points of similarity and points of difference with the current discussions about realignment. The similarities revolve around the fact that both would end up with different practices within the PC(USA) on the hot-button issue. The differences, though, are significant, as you hint.

Probably the most significant difference is the fact that the PUP TF's proposal was a polity change designed to force an institutional unity rather than to find a constructive way to address a major theological and moral difference. (Mainline Presbyterianism has a bad habit of trying to solve theological differences through polity solutions.) Realignment does not try to solve a theological issue by means of polity; by its very nature it is designed to dignify the differences (it manifests them institutionally) and so provide a context in which they can be addressed in a more healthy way.

The PUP TF's proposal did not take into account matters of conscience for those who believe the church's historic standards are biblical and should be maintained, but put them in a position where they are participants in the change. Realignment could address the conscience issue.

Finally, the realignment would be achieved through the constitutional amendment process, not by circumventing that process through the use of authoritative interpretations of the constitution, and so it respects the established church order. Those are some thoughts off the top of my head. Thanks for bringing up these issues. » 16 weeks ago

REPORT

POST REPLY

0

Paul Masters

I can’t say that I see the point. Realignment makes sense only if one values the institution that calls itself the PC(USA). Preserving an institution for institution’s sake does not strike me as a particularly attractive option. What we are witnessing in this post denominational age is not the threatened break up of the denomination but the increasing irrelevancy of the denomination.

Functions once the domain of denomination are now being fulfilled by mega churches and affinity groups such as the Covenant Network and the Presbyterian Coalition.

Let us be honest with ourselves. If there does not exist a common, shared confessional language, then we are not able to communicate with one another. If we cannot communicate then we cannot be connectional. If we are not connectional, then why bother? PUP failed in addressing the lack of a common confessional language. No amount of realigning is going to change that. » 16 weeks ago

Michael Walker • 19p

REPORT

POST REPLY

+1

1/13/2009 3:35 PM

What Way Ahead? Part Two: Initiating the Case for Realignment | Presbyt...

5 of 18

http://www.pfrenewal.org/issues/301-what-way-ahead-part-two-initiating...

Paul: Thanks for your comment. A few thoughts in reply: In some ways, I can sympathize with your words. Of course denominations don't play the role that they used to, and it would be unwise to "preserve an institution for institution's sake" (something I have not proposed we do). "Institutions" like the PC(USA) embody particular relationships within the broader Church, and those relationships cannot be reduced to a valueneutral status by appeal to a word nobody likes ("institution"). Formal relationships require "institutions" (like "the institution of marriage"). And I don't think the Scriptures give us freedom to be merely pragmatic when it comes to how we handle the Christian relationships in which God has placed us. Since we find ourselves in those relationships, and since we believe in God's providence, we must contend with the fact that God has placed us in them. He might call us out of them, but we ought not assume that God is calling us to do the more efficient thing, or that we should chase relevance by leaving the PC(USA). God often calls people to do things that seem terribly inefficient, like all the exhortations to bear with one another, to forgive as we have been forgiven, to take up the cross, etc.

We must also think of our responsibility to others. To give but one example: are we prepared to leave behind all those theologically mixed congregations of the PC(USA), who might have a majority of scriptural Christians but not a sufficient super-majority to leave the PC(USA)? Who will walk alongside them? Who will be their next pastor? We would have to own the answers to those questions and be convinced the reasons for leaving outweighed them. I do not think our relationship with and responsibility to them can be dismissed as "institutional," as an empty formalism. In my view that would be an abdication of our responsibility.

Regarding the reality of post-denominationalism, we cannot assume that the existence of a phenomenon means it is a good one. Post-denominational patterns are a mixed bag. On the one hand, it is crucial that denominations admit that they are not respectively "The Body of Christ," and that denominations cannot claim the loyalty that Christ claims. It is possible that we will have to leave the PC(USA) in order to be faithful to Christ, and I understand why some have already come to the conclusion that they must leave. The implications of doing so are not tantamount to leaving the Body. But the convincing reasons to leave are not because the denomination is irrelevant, but because standing with and in the denomination can get to a point where you are then standing against the Lord (and the majority of other Christians in the world). I think you ask the right question at the end, when you indicate that we can't be connectional if we don't share a common confession, and "If we are not connectional, then why bother?" The PUP Report couldn't help address these issues for reasons I noted above in my response to Robert Campbell. Realignment offers a different context, because it puts the issues on the table, rather than sets them aside, and it does so in a way that still honors our responsibility to those within the denomination with whom we do indeed share a common confession.

Missing in most "mega-churches," too, are the healthy and biblical forms of institutional life, like mutual accountability beyond the congregation, or a connection with the communion of saints of previous eras, or the coherence of Christian witness that is fostered by self-consciously living out of a particular Christian tradition, or safeguards against consumerist impulses of preference running roughshod over the cruciform way of the Christian life.

My basic point is that it can't be as simple as rejecting "institutions" or pointing to pragmatic justifications for leaving the PC(USA), because to leave is to leave relationships with Christians God may want us to live with and for, and there are plenty of elements of unfaithfulness waiting for us on the other side as well. What I've written in the article above should make clear I am not an "institutionalist" on the one hand; on the other, I think what Christian responsibility looks like in our present denominational context is less then crystal clear, and realignment would foster Christian virtue on several fronts, as well as fostering the sort of clarity necessary for a clearer picture of a responsible future

1/13/2009 3:35 PM

What Way Ahead? Part Two: Initiating the Case for Realignment | Presbyt...

6 of 18

» 16 weeks ago

http://www.pfrenewal.org/issues/301-what-way-ahead-part-two-initiating...

REPORT

POST REPLY

0

Paul Masters

I see your point, but I am still at a loss for the need to realign. Allow me to put my cards on the table. I believe that we are headed down the path blazed by the United Methodists.

They experience connectionalism within their individual conferences, but not necessarily between their conferences. Each of their 63 conferences is headed by a bishop and functions as a mini denomination. If I understand correctly, the Bishops meet every 4 years.

Denominations were a solution to an American problem, How can one transplant the national churches of Europe onto American soil with its separation of church and state?

We came out of the Church of Scotland; others came out of the national churches of England , Scandinavia and Germany. During the westward expansion denominations became effective mission organizations, the Presbyterians and the Methodists being particularly successful.

Yet by the dawn of the 20th Century, we already saw theological questions being referred to GA after GA. To solve theological disputes, whether they concern the 5 Fundamentals or the Biblical understanding of human sexuality by General Assembly decree is a recipe for disaster. There were (and are!) winners and losers. Worse yet, our upper judicatory bodies saw themselves as judicatory bodies whose task it was to review and approve the decisions of lower judicatories. To the degree the denomination became institutional was the degree that the denomination was not missional.

It has been my experience and observation that ministry, like politics, happens at the local level. Presbyteries need to assert their leadership is initiating and managing mission. I am not one advocating for a defection to another denomination. In a post denominational age, moving from one denomination makes no sense at all. However, as Presbyteries assert themselves, it is inevitable that they will take on their own corporate identities. instead of a federal system we will find ourselves in a defacto confederacy.

Your point, that we are called to recognize and honor the ministries that one another is called to being a genuine call from God is well taken. For those who affirm that our colleagues are placed in their ministries by the act of a sovereign God , realignment is a solution to a problem that they do not have. I am able to honor my colleagues, whether or not I find their positions coherent in the presbytery which I find myself for that recognition is an act of the will, an action that I took ordination vows to uphold. » 16 weeks ago

Michael Walker • 19p

REPORT

POST REPLY

+1

1/13/2009 3:35 PM

What Way Ahead? Part Two: Initiating the Case for Realignment | Presbyt...

7 of 18

http://www.pfrenewal.org/issues/301-what-way-ahead-part-two-initiating...

Paul: Thanks for clarifying where you're coming from. I guess I don't resonate with the strong juxtaposition of "missional" and "institutional." It seems more like your juxtaposition is "congregationalist" vs. "connectional." If I'm reading that right, then you're suggesting that the realities of post-denominationalism lead to a de facto embrace of a congregationalism, with perhaps regional support from presbyteries who will be of increasingly independent identity from the denomination as a national organization.

A few thoughts: In referencing the vows you took as a minister, that brings things back into a denominational context and highlights the reality of the connectedness between your own congregational ministry and those of other congregations and ministers in the PC(USA), since your vows involve not the presbytery so much as the denomination as such. In any case, whether by practical necessity (e.g. through vows) or theologically (e.g. through our corporate identity as an 11,000-congregation expression of the Body of Christ that claims to be guided by a core confession of the faith in our Book of Confessions), we do not live and proclaim the faith -- we do not witness to Jesus Christ -- apart from one another but together. So our own witness at the local level is not undertaken in isolation from what the denomination does and says as a whole. On the issue of the day, If the denomination makes moves to embrace as normative a new moral diversity with respect to sexual ethics, that involves all of us. Realignment addresses that involvement and is a way of making a distinction.

A word of clarification about my own position relative to realignment. In reiterating my position, you noted that I made the point that "we are called to recognize and honor the ministries that one another is called to being a genuine call from God." The need for realignment, though, comes from the fact that many of us do not believe God calls anyone to revise Christian ethics away from the teachings of the Scriptures.

Realignment is not a declaration that different groups are, respectively, called by God to do different things in this case. It is instead a recognition that we do not believe God is calling any of us to make the moral revisions in view. The same thought applies to the next sentence, where you indicate that for "those who affirm that our colleagues are placed in their ministries by the act of a sovereign God, realignment is a solution to a problem that they do not have." Those of us who believe God guides us through the Scriptures do not believe our Sovereign God has called us to ministries of unbiblical moral revision. God has indeed placed us where we are; the question of God's providential placement of us where we are is not to say that everything that happens in the PC(USA) is God's will (in the sense of God's "preceptive will," i.e. that God is pleased by all that comes to pass). It is, rather, to say that we ought not take leaving the PC(USA) lightly, and ought to have a disposition of presumptive unity with those Christians with whom God in his providence has placed us in a special relationship. And this is exactly what we are struggling through at this point. Is the presumption of unity still a faithful and reasonable posture given the clear tension between unbiblical revisions and our unifying confession of the faith? Is God in his providence calling us to stay, to leave, or to find a way to be faithful without leaving? What course would honor the God who guides the disciples of Jesus Christ to be faithful witnesses in his name and to do so together? To many of us, realignment is a difficult but faithful course to pursue. It seeks forbearance, holds out hope for visible unity, and does not embrace what we believe God does not embrace.....

Thanks for sharing your thoughts here. I invite you to keep 'em coming.

-Michael

1/13/2009 3:35 PM

What Way Ahead? Part Two: Initiating the Case for Realignment | Presbyt...

» 15 weeks ago

http://www.pfrenewal.org/issues/301-what-way-ahead-part-two-initiating...

REPORT

POST REPLY

0

Linda Lee

Would relignment, within the PC(USA) force individual congregations to discuss the issues and cause more division at the local level especially for churches that have been complacent or that are divided on these issues? Churches, sessions, members would be looking at the "lack of unity" on the hot button issues in order to make the decision of how to be realigned. Many members are unaware of the lack of unity - the things that divide us or even what took place at the GA or with the PUP report. It isn't talked about at most churches in the denomination. Wouldn't realignment - for each congregation - open a potential tidal wave of discontent among members? Are pastors equiped to handle the questions and up roar of their congregations? what are your thoughts on this? » 16 weeks ago

REPORT

Michael Walker • 19p

POST REPLY

+1

Linda: Thank you for raising a crucial question. I and others have spent a great deal of time contemplating this very issue. I think the answers to your questions depend very much on the particular way in which realignment is conceived as well as the way in which we would move into realignment. I personally think it would not work to make every congregation make a choice. As you say, that would likely plunge too many congregations into turmoil. While some advocate a two synod model, it is difficult for me to conceive of any way to move into a two synod model that would avoid this problem. Consider the following scenario as an alternative example: a cluster of conservative presbyteries overtures the GA with the identical proposal that these presbyteries, together, be allowed to form a 17th synod with distinct policies that are indicated, to become "welcoming presbyteries" for congregations outside their current geographical bounds, and to be allowed to create a certain number of additional presbyteries within the synod for the sake of geographical proximity to congregations that seek membership in the new synod. Congregations within those conservative presbyteries that do not wish to join the realigned synod would be taken into neighboring presbyteries whose boundaries would be expanded accordingly. The "default" position of all congregations in the PC(USA) would be to remain where they are -- no "decision" is required, because no change is necessary. At the same time, those congregations who so desire may request transfer from their current presbytery to the appropriate presbytery in the 17th synod. (It would be necessary for congregations making such requests to be granted permission to transfer as a matter of course, with their property, barring special circumstances such as the presbytery recently purchasing the property, etc.) I am not at all committed to this particular scenario, but I raise it just to indicate that those who are thinking these things through from top to bottom have considered the important questions you raise as a critical piece of the discernment for a responsible proposal for realignment.

Hope this helps.

-Michael » 16 weeks ago

Matt Ferguson

8 of 18

REPORT

POST REPLY

0

1/13/2009 3:35 PM

What Way Ahead? Part Two: Initiating the Case for Realignment | Presbyt...

http://www.pfrenewal.org/issues/301-what-way-ahead-part-two-initiating...

I think there is more good to this proposal than others brought forth so far. I think we may be surprised at how many churches would opt to move into this (what shall we call it) "orthodox evangelical" cluster of presbyteries.

I would have a concern of time. It may well be that we lack the time needed to create such a structure (with all that would mean) due to the actions coming before us from the last GA and actions that will be coming out of the next GA (such as the new form of government).

I will be very interested in hearing more of this firsthand at Gathering XI. » 16 weeks ago

REPORT

POST REPLY

0

Mark D. Roberts Michael: I need to reflect on your insights for a while. Thanks so much for pursuing this conversation. It's so helpful and needed at this time. » 16 weeks ago

REPORT

Chris_Scruggs • 1p

POST REPLY

+1

Dear Michael: Thank you for your thoughtful examination of one of the possible options for congregations which feel they need relief from the actions of the two most recent General Assemblies.As you say, the kind of proposal you are making may not be perfect, but it does allow for congregations which want to remain attached in some way to the PCUSA but pursue an orthodox vision of Christian faith and morals a way to do so. This is a helpful place to begin thinking for all of us.

The fear that some congregations may have conflict deciding which "synod" with which to affiliate, while real, can be solved by either simply allowing those who dissent from the most recent decisions to have their own synod and presbyteries (at least for ordination purposes) or by having a place for those who simply want to live with local option or (the way things are today).

You have given all of us something to think about. Thank you.

Chris Scruggs » 16 weeks ago

REPORT

POST REPLY

0

Pete Smith

Michael: With such an arrangement, every congregation would have to be asked one thing - will you accept homosexual church leadership? This is how we have come to apply our diverging theological frameworks in the life of the PC(USA). With theological "lines drawn," every congregation would have the choice to which kind of governing body it wants to adhere. If we are offering the choice, it has to be for all, but it is a choice all must make. As a previous replier noted, the majority of congregations, though perhaps not outwardly vocal in evangelical circles, would rather associate with evangelical presbyteries. The tone is that the revisionist congregations are the normative group (the evangelical congregations are the audience here), that they would keep the existing presbyteries/synods by and large, and that the evangelicals would forge new ways of being together. What if it is reversed? What is the fallout?

Yes, GA handles the matter, but if a choice is to be made, it must be made with a picture of what the governing organizations will resemble following a realignment. Once the dust settles, the two streams of PC(USA) truly will head in their own directions. » 16 weeks ago

David L. Bierschwale

9 of 18

REPORT

POST REPLY

0

1/13/2009 3:35 PM

What Way Ahead? Part Two: Initiating the Case for Realignment | Presbyt...

10 of 18

http://www.pfrenewal.org/issues/301-what-way-ahead-part-two-initiating...

Thanks, Michael!

Appreciate your your continued engagement of the issues through PFR. I rejoice, as well, to read of your ministry through Highland Park Church. As an Austin Seminary grad, I have many dear brothers and sisters in Christ who were classmates, and came out of the excellent grounding of HPPC. I applaud your focus on theology as the key to the way forward, as opposed to what many see as the key of polity. It is my prayer that the Quincentenary of Calvin's birth next year will bring about much deeper discussion of what it means to be a theologically Reformed denomination.

I presently service in Twin Cities Area Presbytery. Though the theological contrasts are stark between many congregations in this area, there are a fair number with a theologically orthodox majority--but lacking the super-majority you mention. I fear that their lament in any such re-alignment proposals may be (in the words of the great spiritual) "Sometimes I feel like a motherless child".

The process of such congregations choosing a path would, I believe, be quite messy and fraught with peril--perhaps leading such congregations to tragic splits. After all, the theological divisions among us are not only limited to the flash point of debates over sexuality. Careful steps need to be taken to ensure that this issue alone does not become some sort of theological "litmus test". » 16 weeks ago Collapse thread

REPORT

POST REPLY

Thread active 15 weeks ago

0

Jim Gates Michael,

Interesting ideas. The benefit of reallignment is clear for a variety of reasons. However, I cannot image the existing power structure of the denomination consenting to this process. A realligned set of presbyteries and synods would inevitably (and perhaps correctly) be viewed first as a denomination within the denomination, and second as an organized group that could easily become a new denomination separate from the PC(USA).

The evangelical motivation for reallignment is clear; what is the liberal motivation for allowing it? » 15 weeks ago

Michael Walker • 19p

REPORT

POST REPLY

+1

1/13/2009 3:35 PM

What Way Ahead? Part Two: Initiating the Case for Realignment | Presbyt...

http://www.pfrenewal.org/issues/301-what-way-ahead-part-two-initiating...

Jim, Thanks very much for your thoughts. In answer to your closing question, the first thing to note is that it's a question for the whole denomination, and even if those with liberal stripes chose not to embrace realignment, it could still happen. Those who by default favor denominational unity should favor it because this may be the only way at this point to maintain denominational unity, especially for any length of time into the future. I think the liberal motivation for allowing it is similar; the far left won't embrace the idea, for in their minds it would create a safe-haven for injustice. For the more "moderate liberals," they have said for a long time that they want a church that includes all of us. Now is the test of that conviction. They have often said that they want both revisionist sexual ethics and a denomination that includes everyone. I tried to show in the article above that that is not a coherent position on the face of it; realignment, however, is really the only way to hold those things together. If they do indeed favor denominational unity and do not wish for theological conservatives to have to go elsewhere, they will either favor realignment or mainstream Christian sexual ethics. Since the latter is highly unlikely, they are left with realignment. On a more pragmatic level, I think many moderate liberals recognize that it will be extremely difficult for the denomination's financial decline to be a steady decline rather than a precipitous one if many conservatives decide they must leave. They would be right about that. So they may favor it also on the basis of institutional self-preservation.

-Michael Âť 15 weeks ago

REPORT

POST REPLY

0

John Paderson

This conflict is intractable and to continue to engage in it will only exhaust our resources and damage our witness. What is needed is a way to disengage the conflict without theological compromise. Realignment is the best way to do that. It frees up both sides to be faithful as they see fit and leaves room for the Lord to sort it all out through the "Gamaliel solution" of Acts 5:34-39.

In my opinion the way to make the realignment you propose practical is to do two things. First give the Synods the GA's polity powers and give the GA the Synod's missional powers. In this way mission would form the basis for the "Intentional engagement" that you rightly see as necessary for unity. Second is to allow the denomination to realign on the basis of theology rather than geography.

The question that will need to be addressed is how to assure fair representation under any new constitution especially when it comes to future amendments to the constitution. Will representation be based on the number of active members or churches in each judicatory, or the number of judicatories? Âť 15 weeks ago

Randy Metz

11 of 18

REPORT

POST REPLY

0

1/13/2009 3:35 PM

What Way Ahead? Part Two: Initiating the Case for Realignment | Presbyt...

12 of 18

http://www.pfrenewal.org/issues/301-what-way-ahead-part-two-initiating...

Michael: Thank you for your leadership and clarity of thought in this critical issue. You and the entire denomination are in my prayers.

My sideline observation of your proposal for a "separate but equal" realignment is that it does solve some of the conflicts, at least temporarily. But it reminds me of another ethical disagreement that was solved by letting some states keep slaves while allowing other states to abolish slavery. We know how that solution worked out.

Couple of questions regarding leaving the denomination: What happens to the congregations that leave the denomination? Do they move out of the church property owned by the denomination? What happens to the retirements of their pastors? Are they forfeited? Who loses when a church leaves the denomination? Âť 15 weeks ago

Michael Walker • 19p

REPORT

POST REPLY

+1

1/13/2009 3:35 PM

What Way Ahead? Part Two: Initiating the Case for Realignment | Presbyt...

http://www.pfrenewal.org/issues/301-what-way-ahead-part-two-initiating...

Thanks Randy. Your prayers are very much appreciated.

Regarding the "separate but equal" analogy, I agree that there are parallels for those who view the ordination of gays and lesbians as a "justice issue." Some who use the rhetoric of justice would be satisfied with realignment, although it's not really consistent with the use of the justice platform. Others, of course, would see the realigned bodies as a safe-haven for injustice, and so will not support it. From my conversations so far, only those on the far left, at present, take such a stance on the issue.

Regarding the factors surrounding leaving the denomination, some things are universal, and others depend on the circumstance. Pastors' benefits are "vested" after three years of "eligible service" and participation in the pension plan, so pastors who leave the denomination would still be entitled to the vested pension benefits accrued during their term of service in the PC(USA). Regarding the property issue, this is a point of significant dispute in the PC(USA) right now. Mark Roberts, a PC(USA) minister and very thoughtful commenter on denominational issues, has recently written a series of blog articles on this topic (see www.markdroberts.com). According to the PC(USA)'s constitution, all property is "held in trust" for the use and benefit of the PC(USA). However, it's a lot more complicated than it might appear. First, presbyteries have the constitutional (PC(USA) constitution) authority to dismiss congregations with their property. If a presbytery is willing to dismiss a congregation with their property, and if they do so in proper order, that should be definitive. Some presbyteries are symphathetic with congregations wishing to leave with property, others not.

And the presbytery can establish terms of dismissal, which might include some type of payment in return for permission to leave with property. What happens to the property when a presbytery is not willing to let the congregation go with their property? In this case the civil courts often become involved, and property laws vary state-by-state. My understanding of the technicalities is limited, but the biggest factor seems to be whether the state will choose to handle such cases on the basis of neutral principles of law or on the basis of the ecclesiastical laws in question. In the former case, if the deed is in the name of the congregation and if the congregation paid for its property, then it is likely to win a civil court case. In the later case, that is if the decision is based upon church law, then the PC(USA) as such has the stronger hand and the congregation is less likely to end up with their property and it would become the property of the presbytery or, depending on the case, the minority in the congregation that may choose to stay in the PC(USA). There was a big case decided just a few weeks ago in Tulsa, OK, where the congregation having left for the EPC ("Kirk of the Hills") lost the case in civil court. My understanding is that it is being appealed to the Oklahoma State Supreme Court. Again, I don't know all the legal technicalities but that's my general understanding of the matter.

As for "who loses," I imagine it depends on what scale of value you use! And it of course depends on the case. In many cases, though, everybody loses. » 15 weeks ago

REPORT

POST REPLY

0

Steve Robinson

Michael: Thank you for the clarification on the issue of pastors’ benefits. Should not a pastor bent on leaving over theological issues find it morally conflicting to latter accept a pension from the former “non-biblical” denomination, whether or not the benefits were vested? Should he/she not be willing to also walk away from the pension benefits? I would suggest that this raises an interesting quandary that, without necessarily being a self-motivated moral compromise, gives reason to work for a thoughtful resolve, such as the renewal structure you propose. » 15 weeks ago

Greg Wiest

13 of 18

REPORT

POST REPLY

0

1/13/2009 3:35 PM

What Way Ahead? Part Two: Initiating the Case for Realignment | Presbyt...

14 of 18

http://www.pfrenewal.org/issues/301-what-way-ahead-part-two-initiating...

I am so pleased to read this discussion on Realignment. As one of the writers of the elink overture which asked GA to allow non-geographic presbyteries and synods, It it good to see this conversation moving forward. The first time our overture came on the floor in Birmingham, it received 20 percent of the vote. This is not unsubstantial. As more folks see the practicality of realignment, this could become a reality in the near future. In Birmingham and in San Jose, evangelicals opposed this kind of idea because we've always assumed that we had a mandate based on a majority in our denomination. We have neither a mandate, nor a majority. We must work with those in the middle to accomplish anything. For this to pass we must have those on the other side of the fence as well. And there are liberals, isolated in conservative presbyteries who would love to realign. This is a a way forward for those who are called to the PCUSA, but are evangelical with a high view of Scripture. Thanks for the well thought out articles and responses. » 14 weeks ago

REPORT

Tim_Woodruff • 11p

POST REPLY

+1

Unlike many who have posted before me, I see the proposaled realignment creating more problems, not less.

Here are some of the questions and difficulties I see, 1.The struggle to create “safe havens” for ourselves will be long and difficult. It will consume a great deal of time, energy and money. Is this really where we want to put our energies? Is this really what Christ wants?

2.One of the stated objections to other ways forward is “nor would they help unify evangelicals.”

Unifying evangelicals certainly should be one of our main goals, but many evangelicals disagree strongly with the idea of realignment at this time. At a recent meeting of about twelve evangelical pastors in our presbytery only one was enthusiastic in support of this idea and several strongly opposed it, myself being one of them. How do you propose to unify evangelicals whose responses to this are all over the map?

3.If you cannot persuade me that these non-geographic presbyteries are not a ruse to create governing bodies that will allow the participating churches to leave with their property in a few years, how will you persuade the rest of the PCUSA? » 13 weeks ago

REPORT

Tim_Woodruff • 11p

POST REPLY

+1

More questions 4.We WILL take conflict with us. The history of every attempt to form a pure ecclesiastical group makes this very clear. We are a headstrong opinionated group. Anybody attending a Coalition Gathering who has not seen this did not attend the same meetings I did. Jerry Andrews has done a most excellent job of herding cats. When we are not united in struggles within the PCUSA that matter deeply to us, what will unify us?

5.If we invest heavily in pursuing this and fail to win the approval of the next GA, what kind of position would we be in? Would all Renewalists, regardless of their position on this initiative, find themselves in more difficult situations?

6.Do we serve Christ more faithfully by seeking to restructure the denomination, or by unifying, restructuring and strengthening the Renewal movement?

7.Since when did Jesus call his followers to build safe havens for themselves where we would be free of trials and conflicts? » 13 weeks ago

Tim_Woodruff • 11p

REPORT

POST REPLY

+1

1/13/2009 3:35 PM

What Way Ahead? Part Two: Initiating the Case for Realignment | Presbyt...

15 of 18

http://www.pfrenewal.org/issues/301-what-way-ahead-part-two-initiating...

Discerning the time As we consider our response to the 218th General Assembly, it is important to recognize that the amendment to replace G:0601b (Fidelity-Chastity) is unlikely to succeed if we put our resources into defeating it. Forty presbyteries would have to change the way they voted last time this issue was before the church, which is quite unlikely.

The A.I. designed to allow people to scruple G:0601b runs contrary to the GAPJC’s decision in the Bush, et al v. Presbytery of Pittsburgh case. The GAPJC would have to reverse itself to allow this to go forward, which is also unlikely. When the dust settles, the 218th GA may well have done more damage to the PUP report than they have to Biblical ordination standards.

After the GAPJC renders a decision on this A.I., and when we see the results of the 219th General Assembly, we will be in a much better position to clearly and rationally think through the status of the PCUSA and our role in it. » 13 weeks ago

REPORT

Tim_Woodruff • 11p

POST REPLY

+1

Presbyterians for Renewal announced on their website on June27, the day before the GA ended, “We believe it is necessary for the different visions of Christian faith and life in the PC(USA) to be expressed in formally distinct bodies without a formal split in the denomination.” PFR did not take the time necessary for emotions to calm down and think things through clearly. It certainly appears that PFR had already made up its mind to pursue this prior to the 218th General Assembly.

This is a complete change from Presbyterians For Renewal’s past role in the church. I was at the conference in St. Louis that launched Presbyterians for Renewal, and have followed it and supported it until now, so I feel qualified to say that. » 13 weeks ago

REPORT

Tim_Woodruff • 11p

POST REPLY

+1

The Way Forward__Honesty compels me to admit that in the past I did used the phrase, “stayfight-win.” Mike is justified in criticizing this slogan in Part One: Three Options. We must find a more excellent way. At the same time, the response of “stay-fight-lose” is simply inaccurate. We have not always gotten everything we wanted, but we have never yet lost a church-wide vote on sexuality and ordination standards. Over all, Theological Conservatives/ Renewalists/ Evangelicals are in a position of strength, not weakness. It seems a strange time to pursue realignment.____The foundation of any way forward must be corporate repentance. One starting point -- how little we have done to support one another except when there is a crisis, as now.____If our goal is to be more faithful and effective Christians in more faithful and effective missional churches, a national restructuring is not necessarily the best way to move forward. Do we serve Christ most faithfully by rearranging the deck chairs on a potential Titanic or by taking steps to be a more disciplined and effective crew? Do we serve Christ more faithfully by seeking to restructure the denomination, or by restructuring the Renewal movement? » 13 weeks ago

REPORT

Tim_Woodruff • 11p

POST REPLY

+1

Stay, Stand Firm for Our Convictions, Be an Influence, and Rely on God for the Results A Neo-traditional Renewalist path does not mean either the “Stay-Fight-Win” philosophy or “Defecting in Place” and ignoring the Presbytery. It means being involved with the Presbytery, serving it in various ways, but not with the expectation of taking over and becoming the dominant force in the Presbytery. One way of expressing their motto could be, “Stay, Stand Firm for Our Convictions, Be an Influence, and Rely on God for the Results.” » 13 weeks ago

REPORT

POST REPLY

1/13/2009 3:35 PM

What Way Ahead? Part Two: Initiating the Case for Realignment | Presbyt...

http://www.pfrenewal.org/issues/301-what-way-ahead-part-two-initiating...

Tim_Woodruff • 11p

+1

We certainly need to look for ways to do it better in the future than we have in the past. But the reality is that many among us, myself included, are committed to being the most faithful and committed followers of Jesus Christ that we can be within the existing structure. By whatever name this approach may come to be known, this option is already being lived out in most if not all presbyteries of the PCUSA. The 218th GA calls for a strong and united response, but it does not call for anything as drastic as restructuring the PCUSA. It does call for us to consider seriously how we can improve our own faithfulness to our calling. Restructuring and strengthening the renewal movement is by far the better option. » 13 weeks ago

REPORT

POST REPLY

0

Duncan MacLeod

Thanks, Mike, for the conversation you've held here. It was very useful for me to read through you're doing good work. Hope you and the family are well! » 13 weeks ago

REPORT

POST REPLY

0

LaVera Parato

How does the GA's decision not to allow nongeographic presbyteries except for ethnic/language reasons work with realignment? Is realignment even possible in light of that decision? » 13 weeks ago

Amy Flack

16 of 18

REPORT

POST REPLY

0

1/13/2009 3:35 PM

What Way Ahead? Part Two: Initiating the Case for Realignment | Presbyt...

http://www.pfrenewal.org/issues/301-what-way-ahead-part-two-initiating...

Hi Mike, If like-minded people gather in non-geographical presbyteries or other like groupings, they leave behind the opportunity to witness to the truth of the good news in Jesus Christ. God has entrusted us with a witness to the gospel here. Are we going to abandon what God has placed in our hands to do?

Of course not only would conservatives leave behind their call and witness they leave behind those who stay and generations to come who desperately need to hear about Jesus and his bride the church, and how marriage is between a man and a woman.

Contrary to the viewpoint of the world, "romance" (between God and and Zion as pictured in Isaiah 53 and 54) is essential. Romance is not a side issue as many like Paul Capetz would have us believe, neither in the Bible nor in life. The sufferings of the servant of Isaiah 53 lead directly to the joy and triumph of "Lady Zion." The Bible is the only book in my knowledge that has the romance between a man and woman as its central message. Our marriages, our romances are inspired and in imitation of the divine romance. Summing up, if we say that it's okay for men to be with men, women with women, we are denying the good news of Jesus and his cross and resurrection. It's that simple. If we go off all by our lonesome where everyone agrees and things are nice, we leave behind children who will grow up in bondage, never knowing the truth of Adam and Eve, the servant and Zion, Jesus and the Bride.

There is no "stay, fight and lose" or even "stay, fight and win." Jesus and his bride have already won and we are simply witnessing to that costly and beautiful victory, a victory by the way that for our salvation!

I know that people are weary and sorrowful. Me too! But read in Ezekiel about how God puts his mark of blessing on all those in agony over wickedness. And you know, it comes down to this: God has entrusted us (us who are such dim-wits a lot of the time!) with a cross to carry. He is going to make adults of us yet I guess! Don't we read of a crown given to those who suffer for the sake of the gospel? We are going after the crown!

Amy Flack » 9 weeks ago

REPORT

POST REPLY

0

Matt Ferguson

Mike, How long until we get to see Part Three? I eagerly await to see where you are in this.

Also, how do you (and the thoughts you present here) relate to what PFR is working up (the 17th Synod model presented in rough form at Gathering XI)? » 9 weeks ago

REPORT

POST REPLY

0

Dana Feltner

I believe the denomination has to continue to address the rural church in america and other parts of the world. Most of which are concerned about being obedient to God , not to the PC.USA. We Should all live for repentence and bilding our faith in the Lord as we walk with him daily.

Those who refuse to obey God are only hurting themselves and the denomination. As for me and my house we will serve the Lord. » 8 weeks ago

Bill Gestal

17 of 18

REPORT

POST REPLY

0

1/13/2009 3:35 PM

What Way Ahead? Part Two: Initiating the Case for Realignment | Presbyt...

http://www.pfrenewal.org/issues/301-what-way-ahead-part-two-initiating...

PfR... thanks for encouraging this dialogue... As I read through the idea statement and then the responses I suspect that realignment is an uphill battle. With conservative/evangelicals divided how can we hope to persuade those steaming ahead with "the present theological and moral revisions."

My larger question is this... realignment, should it succeed, allows those of like theological minds to band together on both sides of the issues. Thus I would suppose that those on the liberal end of the spectrum will more easily carry their presbyteries and I can see overtures flying fast and furious to move their agenda along. With conservatives in a few non-geographical presbyteries our national voice will actually be smaller becasue we will no longer hope to sway swing presbyteries because we have left them for a non-geographical like-minded presbyery. So the way I see it, yes I will be in a presbytery where I have fellowship (as best as can happen in a non-geographical setting) with like-minded sisters and brothers but the denomination itself will continue its move, likely at a more rapid pace, towards a theology I cannot defend. » 8 weeks ago

REPORT

POST REPLY

0

Bill Gestal

I have another point that couldn't fit in my first post. Am I not ordained into the denomination?

How does a denomination within a denomination concept aswage my connection with others who bear the same denominational name who are promoting activities, lifestyles and ordinations that I find to be contrary to scripture?

Thanks for listening... » 8 weeks ago

REPORT

POST REPLY

Post a new comment Enter text right here!

Name Email (track replies) Blog URL (optional) Sign up for IntenseDebate Why? | Login to comment Receive email updates for this post

SUBMIT COMMENT

Or post using OpenID

Back to Top

© 2002-2008 Presbyterians For Renewal. All rights reserve

18 of 18

1/13/2009 3:35 PM

GROUPS WITHIN PCUSA

 Presbyterian Global Fellowship

Our Mission and Values: Presbyterian Global Fellowship

1 of 1

Why PGF?

Who Are We?

http://www.presbyterianglobalfellowship.org/pgf/index.php?id=66

Cast Vision

Collaborate

Coach

Celebrate

Contact

Home | Who Are We? | Our Mission and Values

PGF Vision MISSION – Why do we exist?

The purpose of the PGF is to transform mainline congregations into missional communities following Jesus Christ.

VALUES – What makes us distinctive?

Christ-Centered Demonstrated by a steadfast commitment to Jesus as the living and reigning Lord of all life and the only true hope for the world.

We confess that we have neglected the source of all life and have chased other gods. This idolatry is particularly apparent in our context with regard to issues of wealth, poverty and power.

Outwardly-Focused Demonstrated by a conviction that Christ calls us not primarily for our own benefit but for the sake of others.

We confess that we have become distracted from our primary calling of discipleship and love of neighbor.

Biblically-Reformed Demonstrated by a loyalty to Scripture as God’s unique and authoritative message of salvation and as our guide for daily living.

We confess that we have created standards of convenience instead of remaining true to God’s Word. This moral confusion is evident in our context with regard to the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman as God’s desire for human sexuality.

Globally-Connected Demonstrated by our commitment to use relational networks and new technologies to build vital relationships with the global church.

We confess our tendency to trust in our own culture and to confuse it with the gospel. We acknowledge our need for global partners, for their support, admonition and example as we seek to be congregations that display the unity of the Church and “lead lives worthy of the calling with which we have been called.”

Locally-Empowered Demonstrated by the reality that the local movement of the church is still God’s primary means of justice, mercy and love in the world.

We confess that our churches have become less effective in our local communities and we pray that God will enable us to find strength and courage for Christ’s plan of redemption.

STRATEGY – How do we do it?

Cast Vision Pronounce the heart and character of the missional church and its imperative in the world.

Collaborate Connect with one another to share best practices, exchange ideas, provide inspiration for living as a missional community following Jesus Christ.

Coach Provide support, leadership training, and encouragement to clergy and lay persons who are choosing to live and serve in a missional community following Jesus Christ.

Celebrate Share and applaud when communities of faith live out the apostolic calling.

Home | PGF Conferences | Outbox Blog | Missional Web | PGF Store | Support God's Mission | E-newsletter | Search

© 2008 Presbyterian Global Fellowship

1/13/2009 4:14 PM

July 01, 2008

Do You Know The Way FROM San Jose?

by Vic Pentz, Pastor Peachtree Presbyterian Church To most observers, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has been a slow motion train wreck for the past thirty years. Year by year, membership dwindles, conflicts mount, finances shrink and trust in the existing leaders and structures dissipates. With the most recent General Assembly in San Jose, the smoke seems at last to have cleared, and the steaming debris of the PC(USA) has settled into place. It’s not a pretty sight. One thing for sure: this Humpty won’t be getting back together again for a long time, if ever.

My purpose in writing is to offer the Presbyterian Global Fellowship (PGF) Conference in Long Beach, August 14-16, as a hopeful way forward. But first I want to take my best shot at explaining where we are as a denomination and how we got here.

Some folks are elated. Justice/Love has been served. Others feel hurt and betrayed. Others say that what has been true for a long time simply at last has come out into the open. These folks ask, “So what has really changed with this latest General Assembly?” The answer is that the PC(USA) rejected unequivocally what has long been considered—and still is in the global church-- the biblical standards for sexual practice. In a clean sweep that even successfully included a move to expunge an inconvenient Bible verse out of the venerable Heidelberg Catechism, the culturally progressive wing of the PC(USA) had their way in San Jose. The battle is lost for evangelical renewal groups within the system. The old “stay-fight-win” strategy is history.

The options now remaining seem to be: 1) to live with the new ascendant ideology; 2) to enter into the legal complexities of trying to get permission for one’s congregation to be dismissed to another denomination; or 3) to find a way to be “in the denomination but not of the denomination.”

This third option is the one Presbyterian Global Fellowship affirms. Let me explain why our postSan Jose context makes PGF so important.

The Christian life is unfashionably tough today. The difficult cruciform task of loving one’s neighbor as Jesus did in the gospels becomes far easier when reduced to a kind of beige “tolerance” and “justice love” equaling little more than “live and let live.” California, my native state, famous for its pop expressions of this understanding of love, was an apt setting for this General Assembly.

The church is not the plaything of its leaders. We are accountable before God to Scripture and, to a far lesser degree, before the communion of saints to the creeds they left for us. We’re not making this up as we go along. We have a charter and a divine calling to be the people of God in the world. The Christian faith is about grand tensions. God is immanent and transcendent.

Jesus is fully God and fully human. The church is reformed and always being reformed.

33

Christians are to be in the world but not of the world. We are called to love the sinner and hate the sin.

When these grand tensions have been collapsed in favor of one way or the other throughout church history the result, theologically, has been heresy. For today’s church, the collapse simply means irrelevance. As Douglas John Hall writes, “The church that is simply of this world has nothing to bring to this world. It does not engage the world, it only reflects it.”

The Rev. Bruce Reyes-Chow, moderator of the General Assembly, was quoted by the New York Times as saying, ''My biggest concern is, 'How does the church move forward?'''

That’s fine, but the biggest concern of people, including Christians, around us runs deeper.

They’re asking “Why even have church—any church? What good is it?” Pollster George Barna reports that for the first time the majority of adults believe there are biblically legitimate alternatives to conventional church when it comes to experiencing and expressing their faith.

Says Barna, tens of millions of people are experiencing and expressing their faith in God independent of any connection to a conventional church. Thus the PCUSA announced the loss of 57,000 members at this GA. Echoing again Douglas John Hall, “The church that is simply of this world has nothing to bring to this world.”

So then is the answer for us to be against the world, or against today’s PC(USA)? Evangelicals have often fallen into the Christ-against-culture trap. The problem is that when we see ourselves as countercultural or alternative we’re still letting the culture define us in a negative way.

I for one am not interested in living against something. I want to live for something!

That’s why I’m excited about the Presbyterian Global Fellowship. The Presbyterian Global Fellowship seeks to be a parallel society living a new vision for the church within the PC(USA).

In PGF we treat the PC(USA) for what it is: a relic of a Christendom that is disappearing before our very eyes. I’ve called our denomination a rotary dial phone wanting to be taken seriously in a digital world. I’ve personally appealed to the leaders in Louisville to become the Gorbachev who will bring about the painful perestroika to make our denomination viable in a new era.

One of the most helpful ways of understanding the missional vision of PGF is from Craig Van Gelder, and plays out the grand tension of “the church always forming and reforming.” While ecclesia semper formanda is missional, ecclesia semper reformanda is confessional. The interplay creates the balance between change and continuity. Thus, the church lives both “outside in” and “inside out.” “Outside in” means we must always be contextual, taking the outside—culture—and bringing it into our structures. We are always forming. We renew our identity in keeping with the changing context.

But we also are always reforming “inside out,” confessionally, by looking inside to our past for the timeless truth which will enable/empower us to have a faithful/real/transformative impact in our context. The Spirit-led missional church carries within its DNA both the passion to engage the new (outside in) while stewarding a proper understanding of the old (inside out). This continuous forming and reforming are the dynamics of gospel and culture.

It is at this point that today’s PC(USA) failed. San Jose offered an unconditional invitation for the “outside” to come in without asking the “outside” to be transformed by “inside.” Anything inside

34

(confessions, Scripture, Book of Order) that did not fit comfortably with the outside was asked to leave. Or as I heard someone say, “The Bible got voted off the island.”

PGF has a very high view of “the outside!” We acknowledge with sadness and regret that the church has much to confess in our poor treatment of women, homosexual persons and Muslims through the centuries. We are sinners. We continue to believe, however, that conversion and transformation are at the heart of the church’s mission. Most of all we do not believe that the power to accomplish this lies with us, the PCUSA or even the Church.

The heart and soul of missional Christianity is that God himself is the primary acting subject, not the church. PGF is about the missio dei—the missioning God or the God of mission. We seek to join the in-progress, kingdom-building work of the Holy Spirit in persons, families, cities and nations. God is bringing in his Kingdom and we want to be part of it!

PGF is a lot about going back to the basics: how to share faith, new ways to see God at work in the world, building authentic Christian community, along with a few high techie things like a great website. We’re not into marketing or adapting corporate tactics to the church. When a sports team is on a losing streak, a good coach takes them back to the fundamentals.

Then in another sense, PGF isn’t looking back. There’s so much excitement in looking forward.

It’s more fun to be at the beginning of something new than to be at the dying end of something old. PGF is a place to learn together who we are and what we are about to become.

What if we’re wrong? As an evangelical I sometimes wonder. How could so many good people on the other side be wrong about these things? How can I be so sure that my reading of Scripture and Spirit is correct?? And if it’s not, what then? Should that possibility stop me in my tracks? I don’t think so, but it calls for humility and civility toward those with whom we disagree, knowing that in the end God will sort it all out.

13

Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. 14 For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil. Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 (The Holy Bible : New International Version. Grand Rapids : Zondervan, 1996, c1984, S. Ec 12:13) Along with my friends in PGF, I am passionately praying that our meeting this August 14-16 in Long Beach will show the way from San Jose toward God’s future.

Yours in Christ, Vic Pentz Posted by Outbox Administrator on July 01, 2008 at 07:54 PM

July 10, 2008

On The Road From San Jose: A New Vehicle For A New Day?

By Vic Pentz I recently wrote an open letter, “Do You Know the Way FROM San Jose?” [see above] inviting readers to join us at the Presbyterian Global Fellowship Conference in Long Beach, August 14-16. In the letter I ventured my analysis of where we are at the moment as evangelicals

35

within the PC(USA), given the troubling actions of the recent General Assembly.

In emphasizing a missional vision, I gave the impression to some that I believe that the political and institutional realities post-GA are not important and that the work of others to create a new system of connectionalism within our PC(USA) is not relevant to PGF’s work of missional transformation.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Ecclesiological integrity and connectional effectiveness are critical factors in our witness to the world. Regarding integrity, our denominational connections must be grounded in a common understanding of Christian faith and life, otherwise they hinder rather than enhance our ability to be Christ’s witnesses. The current state of the PC(USA) presents serious challenges to such a basis for our connections. Regarding effectiveness, in the classic Frank Lloyd Wright sense, form indeed does follow function. We need to operate within a structure that facilitates the missional transformation of mainline Presbyterian congregations, something we do not currently have.

PGF was founded in 2006 on the bedrock of orthodox Christian faith. Our thrilling vision of a global network of Presbyterians joining the “God of mission” in today’s world came from obedient surrender to the inspired, infallible Word of God. Behind the “F” in PGF has always been our dream of a vibrant connectional network expanding geographically beyond, but grounded theologically in the Reformed identity of the PC(USA).

All this is to say, PGF is about much more than providing “skills” and “tools” to be effective Christians in postmodernity. We are a response to the God we discover in Scripture and the Confessions of the PC(USA). Therefore, while we are not the driving force behind efforts at institutional reform, as many have noted, nonetheless, we will join with others in these efforts and consider them important to the fulfillment of our core mission of transforming mainline Presbyterian congregations.

We look forward to working with Presbyterians for Renewal and others to foster a fellowship that tries to model what a faithful 21st-century network of Reformed congregations might look like.

As congregations, we need to focus our financial resources where they will have their greatest impact for Christ. We need to make sure that all pastors and congregations who share our grave concerns about recent decisions have the freedom to follow their conscience and convictions while remaining here with us. The issue for evangelicals in the PC(USA) is no longer power but freedom. The levers of power are firmly in the hands of those pursuing a different agenda. The question is whether in the shadow of the dominant machinery we will be granted the freedom to invest our resources, arrange our ministries and order our life together in ways that honor God. For that, we need to bring together wise leaders who can accomplish this network building within the PC (USA) and who will create the form for missional function.

Again, PGF enthusiastically supports these efforts. We will join with others in the work of engineering the vehicle. We hope to provide the fuel of inspiration along with a map and a route we hope many will want to travel together.

Come to our Inside/Out Conference in Long Beach, August 14-16, to pray, discuss and strategize next steps, both missional and connectional.

Together we can move beyond San Jose.

Yours in Christ, Vic Pentz ###

36

GROUPS WITHIN PCUSA

 New Wineskins

http://www.newwineconvo.com

Vision Statement We envision a connectional structure that . . . 

Serves the ministry and mission of the local congregation



Is united by a mutual commitment to a broadly evangelical and biblical theology



Fosters relational networks based on ministry context as well as regional proximity



Provides accountability, support, and discipline in a healthy, balanced, biblical way



Is flexible and responsive to changing needs and cultural dynamics



Supports and encourages partnerships for cooperative mission between congregations



Encourages partnerships for ministry and mission with Christians of other denominations and parachurch ministries



Draws upon proven programs, curricula, and other resources available from across the broader body of Christ



Functions like a missions agency more than a regulatory agency

What does it mean to be a New Wineskins congregation in the PC(USA)?

An explanation to our fellow evangelical Presbyterians.

Let’s begin by addressing some common concerns that our fellow evangelicals in the PC(USA) might have about our work and our purpose: Q: Why should we consider joining the New Wineskins Association when there are already so many renewal groups in the PC(USA) that do important work?

A: To answer this, it first needs to be said that the New Wineskins Association, within the PC(USA), is not really a ‘renewal’ group. The renewal groups within our denomination work from within the system, to bring not only spiritual and doctrinal renewal but also organizational change, for the purpose of calling the PC(USA) to remain confessionally sound and constitutionally viable. In these efforts, the New Wineskins networks and their member congregations within the PC(USA) will certainly work alongside them and pray for a positive outcome. But in a fundamental sense, the New Wineskins effort is an effort to live out a biblicallybased missional and Reformed witness right now. We will not allow the present institutional malaise and theological confusion of the present denomination to hold us back in seeking to go about the work of our ministries to which Christ has called us. We intend to be fully missional and Reformed as New Wineskins congregations, regardless of whether or not the PC(USA) hears this call to reform and renewal.

This does not make our fellowship better than or superior to any of the renewal groups in the PC(USA), it simply differentiates us and gives is a distinct vision and witness that is unique in our denomination. We invite any congregation to read our documents and discern if God is calling them to join us in this effort for the sake of the gospel in this time and place where God has chosen to locate us.

Q: What other aspects make your group different from the renewal groups?

A: We are unique in that we have decided to define for our officers and congregations the essential tenets of the Reformed faith. Further, we ask that all officers in our association subscribe to this statement, as a basis for membership in New Wineskins. But lest we think that our theology is separate from our behavior and lifestyle as disciples of Jesus Christ, we also require that officers affirm a statement of ethical imperatives. We encourage the study of the confessions that are consonant with the Reformed faith and we have chosen to allow defined essentials to shape our life together. Also, while some renewal groups have begun the process of networking congregations together for common ministry, we have taken this to the next level. Our ministry networks are really covenant fellowships, that not only assist in ministry development and the sharing of educational resources, they allow us to begin living out a missional structure for our churches and they allow our pastors to stay mutually accountable for their pastoral work and personal spiritual development as teachers of the Word. Rather than taking on the old model of institutional governance by a ‘top down’ approach, the New Wineskins structure has all congregations setting direction in our delegated meetings.

Delegates from each New Wineskins’ congregation get a vote in the actions of the organization! In addition, all ministers in the New Wineskins networks are required to be in a pastor covenant group and they are accountable to their fellow ministers for their faith and growth in Christ. We believe these aspects make our effort truly

unique and therefore we are offering a way forward that is hopeful, clear on what is essential and missionally focused for the future.

Q: Isn’t the whole purpose of the New Wineskins effort an attempt to get evangelical congregations to leave the denomination?

A: The short answer to this question is, “No.” That is not the purpose for New Wineksins. Certainly some of our congregations are either in the process of realignment with the transitional presbytery of the NWAC in the Evangelical Presbyterian Church and many are considering this option. However, it must be said that there are no expectations about the ultimate choices that any New Wineskins congregation will make in the future. We trust God and each other enough to allow each congregation to discern through their study of Scripture and prayer where God is calling them to serve. A congregation may decide to realign with another Reformed body or it may decide to stay and work for reform within the PC(USA). Whatever choice the congregation makes, they will still be a member of the New Wineskins Association and they will have full representation and voting privileges in our delegated meetings. The particular denominational affiliation in which the congregation resides is thus a matter of congregational decision and no one in New Wineskins will pass judgment upon this decision of the people of Christ in that congregation. It should be noted that the decision of the last Convocation, to allow congregations to realign with other Reformed denominations was approved unanimously, by both those who will leave PC(USA) and those who are staying.

Q: Are you compromising the affirmation of the gifts of leadership of women in ordained ministry in any way?

A: One of the most unfortunate misconceptions about our work is on the issue of women’s ordination and leadership. There is much that is being said of our effort that is simply not true. The New Wineskins’ essentials and constitution make clear that God calls women and men into all forms of ministry. The same standards of leadership development and opportunities for service apply to all ministers within the New Wineskins Association regardless of gender. We have been clear on this from our beginning and will not change our position on this issue. We believe this to be fully in accord with Scripture and the Reformed tradition. Our work with the Evangelical Presbyterian Church does not change either our theology or practice of fully affirming the gifts of women to all forms of service in all of our member congregations.

Q: Won’t the New Wineskins congregations who elect to stay within the PC(USA) be ‘second-class citizens’ in the Association?

A: Certainly not! That would destroy the biblical mandate that the New Wineskins constitution lays out for our association, namely that we are all one in Christ, in the unity of a commonly-held faith and within the ministry networks that will be formed among equals. The answer to the second question in this paper also addresses this concern. Denominational affiliation is not relevant to the status or representation of any congregation that is a part of the New Wineskins Association, as all member congregations have equal voice and voting privileges.

The Essential Tenets of our Reformed Faith "Hallelujah! Salvation and glory and power belong to our God!" (Revelation 19: 1)"In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead." (1 Peter 1: 3) Joyfully and humbly, as undeserving recipients of the gracious work of God through Jesus Christ, we confess these essentials of our shared faith: 1. God is majestic, compassionate, and lovingly desires to be known ([Deut 4:31; Ps 62:12; Ps 27:4]; [4.026-4.027; 4.121-4.122; 10.3]) who lovingly desires to be known ([Hebs 1:1,2; Gals 1:11,12]; [6.001; 3.04;]). God is revealed generally through creation ([Roms 1:19,20; 2:14]; [6.001; 6.022; 9.16]), specifically through the Holy Scriptures ([Tim. 3:16]; 3.19), and finally in the living Word who became flesh, Jesus Christ our Lord ([Jn 1:14; 1 Jn 1: 1-3] [8.11; 9.27]).

2. The Bible is the only infallible rule of faith and practice ([1 Thes 2:13; 2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:21] [3.19; 5.001; 6.004]). The Holy Spirit spoke through its authors ([Gals 1:11,12; Is 8:20] [6.001; 6.004]), and witnesses to us today that it is indeed and in truth the very Word of God, God's gift to the world and guide for His people ([1 Cor 2:10,11; Jn 16:13,14] [6.005; 6.006]).

3. In the beginning, the sovereign God created all things good ([Gen 1:1-3; Exod 20:11; Heb 11:3] [5.032; 7.125-127; 6.022]). Humanity, bearing God's likeness, crowns creation ([Gen 1:26; Cols 3:10; Eph 4:24] [3.02; 4.006; 6.023]). Through the disobedience of those made in the image of God, the whole of creation fell into the darkness of sin and rebellion ([Gen 3:68; 2 Cor 11:3; Roms 5: 12] [4.007; 5.036; 7.131-133]). In love, God initiated the plan of redemption ([Roms 8:29,30; 1 Cor 2:7; Roms 16:25,26] [3.04; 5.062; 6.055-056]), which stands upon the historic events of the crucifixion, resurrection, and exaltation of Jesus the Messiah ([Heb 5:5-6; Roms 3:26; Eph 1:19,20 7.023, 025-026, 028; 9.08-11). God's gracious redemptive work results in the Church ([Matt. 16:18] [9.22-23]) and culminates in the new creation ([Roms 8:20-21] [9.26]).

4. The LORD our God, the LORD is one. ([Mk 12:29] [1.1; 5.015]) The one true God exists in three Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit ([Matt 28:19; 2 Cor 13:14] [3.01; 5.016]). We believe that each Person of the Trinity is engaged in all that God has done, does now, and will yet do ([2 Cor 3:17; Cols 1:16; Jn 1:3] [5.015,017; 3.01; 6.022]). The LORD our God is the One who is, who was, and who is to come, the Almighty ([Rev 1:8; 4:8; 11:17] [6.011; 7.044; 9.56]).

5. We believe in God the Father, who created all things in, through, and for His Son ([Cols 1:15-17; Roms 11:36] [5.032; 5.062]). The Father adopts as children ([Eph 1:5] [7.034]) all who are drawn by the Holy Spirit to believe in His Son (Jn 6:44,45] [7.031]), giving to them all the riches of God's glorious Kingdom ([Jn 1:12] [6.074]). The loving heart of our Father is poured out in eternal redemption through Jesus Christ ([Eph 1:5-7] [4.018-019]), and in the ongoing discipline that shapes God's children into the image of Christ (Heb 12:3-11; Prov 3:11,12; Ps 94:12; 119:67,75] [6.075,077; 5.198; 3.13]).

6. Jesus Christ is the living Word ([Jn 1:1] [8.11]), the promised Messiah ([Is 11:1-4] [5.077]), the eternal Son of the Father ([Matt 16:13-20] [4.033]), sent in mission to the earth ([Is 42:1; Jn 3:16; 1 Pet 1:19,20] [5.077; 6.043; 9.08]). Incarnated in the womb of the virgin Mary ([Lk1:26ff] [4.035]), He is fully God and fully human ([Roms 1:3,4] [10.2]), come to reconcile God and humanity ([1 Tim 2:5] [5.076]). During His earthly ministry Jesus lived a sinless life ([Jn 14:30] [6.044]), healed the sick, raised the dead, drove out demons, befriended sinners, preached the gospel to the poor ([Lk 7:22] [10.2] ), and died as our substitute on the cross ([Matt 20:28] [6.046]). He rose bodily from the dead, ascended to the Father, and remains our faithful Mediator and High Priest ([1 Cor 15:4; Lk 24:50,51; 1 Tim 2:5] [3.10; 1.2; 6.043-046]). He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father but by faith in Him ([Jn 14:6; Hebs 9:11-14; Acts 4:12] [9.11; 9.42; 4.029]). He is the only Head of the Church, our Lord and Savior ([Eph 1:22,23; 1 Cor 12:3; Matt 1:21] [4.050; 5.131; 6.043]).

7. The Holy Spirit has come to glorify Jesus Christ ([Jn 16:14] [5.062]) and to apply His saving work to our lives ([Roms 5:5] [7.169]). By the Spirit, the redeemed cry "Abba" as God's adopted children ([Roms 8:15,16; Gals 4:5; Is 56:5] [6.097-6.098; 7.190]). The Spirit awakens from spiritual death those whom God has chosen ([Eph 2:5] [3.12]), convicting them of sin ([Jn 16:8] [6.185]), comforting their hearts with the hope of the Gospel (2 Cor 1:21,22] [6.053]), uniting them to Christ ([Eph 3:16-19] [6.146]), making Christ real to them ([Jn 14:26] [7.031]), gathering them into a people of His own possession ([1 Pet 2:9] [10.4]), and sealing their salvation ([2 Cor 1:22] [6.185]). Indwelling their hearts ([Roms 8:9-11] [6.186]), the Spirit sanctifies them for lives of holiness ([Acts 20:32] [6.075]), and empowers them for ministry in the Church and mission to the world ([Acts 1:8,22; 4:33] [9.31,32,38]).

8. From the beginning God has sovereignly elected and called a people, who are the true Church, the Body of Christ ([Deut 32:6; Eph 1:4; 2:10] [1.3; 3.05; 4.054; 5.126,130]). The Church is the fruit of God's redemptive work ([Jas 1:18] [5.125]); a covenanted community of worship, prayer, and service, called to love God and neighbor and to live out the ethical and moral imperatives revealed in Holy Scripture ([2 Chron 30:12; Acts 2:42-47; 4:32,34,35] [9.35,36,48]). All believers are baptized in one Spirit into this Body ([1 Cor 12:13] [10.4]), which finds expression in local congregations ([1 Cor 1:2] [5.128]). In these believing communities the loving presence of God is embodied ([Acts 9:36-43] [9.07]), the Gospel is preached in truth, the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are rightly administered, compassionate and godly discipline is exercised, and Kingdom mission is faithfully carried out ([Matt 28:20; 16:19] [7.218; 9.31]). The Church is a connectional and confessional community in which theological, ethical, and moral accountability is demonstrated ([1 Thes 2:14; Titus 2:1; 1 Cor 5:9-13] [5.125-126,130]).

9. The Church is called to make disciples of all nations, proclaiming the Gospel to the spiritually lost and equipping believers so that they may be presented mature in Christ ([Matt 10:5-23; Luke 10:1-12; 2 Cor 11:12] [8.12; 9.21,48-50]). The Lord calls all believers to be ministers and witnesses to God's amazing grace, and readily to participate in the task of making disciples, for which God gives the Church powers, gifts, and talents ([Matt 9:36-38; Acts 13:2-4; Cols 3:16] [4.055; 6.058,088]). It is the responsibility of the Church and its leaders to develop, equip, and release people into their God-given ministries in the Church and the world ([Acts 9:15; 13:1,2; Gals 2:7-10] [5.163; 6.054; 6.186]).

10. In death, the believer is made whole, and enters eternally the loving presence of the Father and the Son ([Phil 1:21; Rev 14:13; 2 Cor 5:1-5] [7.037,196; 3.17]). Finally, in the fullness of time, Jesus Christ will leave the Father's side to return to earth in glory ([1 Thess 2:19; 4:13-18; 1 Cor 15:23] [7.028,166; 8.17]). Christ will liberate creation from its bondage to corruption ([Roms 8:20,21; Acts 3:21] [9.52; 7.197]), judge the living and the dead, ([Acts 17:31] [6.180-181]) usher in a new heaven and earth, and establish God's everlasting Kingdom. "Even so, come Lord Jesus!" ([Rev 21:1-4] [7.196]) "Amen, Hallelujah!"

A Declaration of Ethical Imperatives Jesus said, "If anyone loves me he will obey my commands." (John 14: 23) 1. Genuine Christian faith is more than mere assent to propositions of truth. Saving faith issues forth in an ethical life: a life of love, obedience, and holiness. ([Jas 2:14-26; 1:22; Matt 7:21,2427] [5.115; 6.088; 146]) 2. Christian ethics are grounded in the character of God the Father. Neither an abstract formulation nor an arbitrary rule of conduct, our ethical standard is nothing less than likeness to the holy God whom we love and serve. ([Matt 5:45; Lk 6:35; Roms 3:23] [7.035; 185; 9.15]) 3. As Jesus is the Divine Exemplar, "the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being" (Hebrew 1: 3), His life of love and self-sacrifice becomes the pattern for our own. The follower of Christ is called to conform to the character of Christ. ([Phil 2:1-11; Matt 11:29] [9.15; 7.179; 4.031]) 4. As the Holy Spirit is the Divine Counselor, sent by the Son from the Father to convict of sin (John 16: 8 - 11) and to guide into truth (John 16: 13 - 15), His presence empowers us for transformed living. It is the work of the Spirit to transform us into the character of Christ. ([Gals 5:22] [5.090; 093; 6.053]).

5. We also confess that we are incapable of meriting the love of God through any effort of our own. Right standing before God is His gift apart from any holiness, love, or obedience which may be present in our lives. The ethical life is the fruit of, not the basis of, our reconciliation with God through the work of Jesus Christ on the cross. ([Jas 1:18; Jn 1:12,13; Roms 3:20] [6.068; 088; 089]).

6. We likewise confess that we are incapable of producing holiness in ourselves. Holy living is possible only as we cooperate with the transforming work of God's Spirit within us. The ethical life is God living His life through us by His Spirit. ([1 Pet 1:3; Titus 3:5; Jn 3:5] [6.089; 185; 7.035]).

7. Ethical living involves more than mere avoidance of wrongdoing. We are called not only to shun what is hurtful and wrong, but also to seek what is good and right. The moral life is one that vigorously pursues the good. ([Roms 12:1-2; Eph 5:10; 4:17-23] [7.044; 097; 214])

8. The parameters within which God desires us to live as His children have been lovingly revealed for us in the Scriptures. ([Ps 19:7-11; Roms 7:12; Ps 119:137-144] [7.267; 8.04; 9.27]).

9. The Scriptures define the good we are called to pursue. Prescriptive ethical standards for Christian conduct, grounded in the covenant with Moses (Exodus 20: 1 - 17), were summarized positively by Jesus in the Great Commandments: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' Here is the first and greatest commandment. The second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" (Matthew 22: 37 - 38) 10. The Scriptures also define the sin we are called to avoid. Proscriptive guidelines for Christian conduct, grounded in the covenant with Noah (Genesis 9: 1 - 17), were summarized negatively by the Jerusalem council in its guidance to the Gentile church: "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything but the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.' (Acts 15: 28 - 29) These categories of prohibitions suggest useful boundaries for Christian behavior in all times and circumstances. In order to honor God, we encourage one another to avoid the following sins: Idolatry Love of God requires that the Lord alone be adored and worshipped. The Lord our God is our ultimate source of joy and contentment. We reject the worship of anything other than God, including: work; wealth; health; success; progress; family; race; nation; political ideologies; economic systems; religious institutions and structures. We reject the practice of tolerance that refuses to discriminate between good and evil, and of embracing sin in the name of diversity. We reject those forms of pluralism and syncretism that misrepresent God as revealed in Scriptures. ([1 Kgs 18:21; Josh 24:15; Ezek 20:39] [4.095; 125; 5.101]).

Sexual Immorality Love of neighbor requires that the sanctity of marriage be honored. The Lord our God is the source of our sexuality, which is to be cherished and expressed in the covenant of marriage between one man and one woman; all other sexual interaction falls outside of this biblical norm.

We reject such practices as premarital and extramarital intercourse, homosexuality, bisexuality, adultery, polygamy, pornography, sexual objectification, predatory behavior and abuse. ([Roms 1:18-32; Eph 4:19; Matt 19:5] [7.071; 248; 9.47;]).

Bloodshed Love of neighbor also requires that the sanctity of life be honored. The Lord is the author and giver of life. We affirm all human life to be sacred to God. We therefore, reject all practices in which life is diminished, demeaned or indiscriminately destroyed. Abortion, euthanasia, infanticide, domestic violence, oppression, acts of revenge, unjust wars are symptoms of an ethos of death that repudiates God's culture of life. So too are destructive speech, unforgiveness, treating people as objects, and all unjust partiality against persons based on race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or social class. ([Ex 20:13; Matt 5:21,22; Provs 1:8-19] [7.246; 9.12; 9.17]).

We confess these behaviors to be sin, and urge our brothers and sisters in Christ to flee from these and other forms of disobedience. ([Eph 4:17, 31; Cols 3:5-8] [3.13; 3.15; 4.070]).

11. Embracing the power of God's love to overcome sin's mastery and to heal sin's wounds, we affirm a grace filled, redemptive approach to discipline and restoration, one that leads to repentance, forgiveness, and wholeness in Christ for those who fall prey to the idolatries and perversions of our age. ([Gals 6:1; 2 Cor 2:5-7; Eph 4:32] [5.105; 165; 9.38]).

12. Honoring God, marriage, and life is a high standard of Christian discipleship, one for which we need and receive grace. While this is the standard for all the people of God, it is a requirement for leadership in the church. ([1 Pet 3:4; 5:1-4; 1 Tim 2:10] [5.150; 155; 164]).

13. While we believe these ethical principles are universally binding, we also recognize that some may hold reservations concerning some particular application or implication of these ethical imperatives that is not directly addressed in the Scriptures. It is expected that such reservations will be dealt with within the bounds of freedom and structures of accountability established by the covenant community. ([1 Cor 11:16; Roms 14:1; 15:1] [6.174; 109; 7.215])

GROUPS WITHIN PCUSA

 The Outreach Foundation

A LETTER FROM THE OUTREACH FOUNDATION FOLLOWING THE 218TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY July 3, 2008 In the light of the recent 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA), we want to make clear our continuing beliefs and commitments.

There was much in the Assembly’s actions to give thanks for, including approval of: • • • • •

A mission budget that will allow, for the first time in decades, an increase in the number of PC(USA) missionaries; from 196 this year to 215 in 2009 and 220 in 2010 “An Invitation to Expanding Partnership in God’s Mission,” a statement about new patterns of collaboration in mission that The Outreach Foundation helped to write A Christ-centered commitment to foster the growth of “Christ’s Church Deep and Wide” through a focus on discipleship and evangelism A new Strategy for Church Growth for African American Congregations More balanced statements on working for peace in the Middle East.

But we disagree with and deeply regret other actions by the Assembly which compromise the Presbyterian Church (USA)’s capacity to participate fully in God’s mission in the world. Despite the prayerful work of the commissioners, the Assembly in San Jose erred in dramatic ways.

•

•

•

•

In wrestling with matters of ordination and human sexuality, issues that reflect tensions within the broader culture, the Assembly set aside the plain teaching of Scripture and adopted positions which put our denomination at odds with nearly all of our mission partners and with the global body of Christ.

In its attempt to foster more open relations with other faiths, the Assembly did not adequately lift up the uniqueness and sufficiency of Jesus Christ and his call to be his witnesses among all the peoples of the earth.

Although it approved a mission budget which seeks to reverse the historic decline in the number of PC(USA) missionaries, the Assembly voted down an annual special offering that would have helped to fund the reversal.

At a time when the PC(USA) needs to focus on missional integrity instead of institutional retrenchment, the Assembly remained fixed on matters related to church property and congregational affiliation.

Amidst all of the discord in the PC(USA), we are thrilled at the ways we see God at work in the world. We rejoice at how God continues to use faithful Presbyterians in his work of gathering up all things in Christ Jesus, and we are more committed than ever to proclaim Christ’s good news together with our global partners.

The Outreach Foundation, July 3, 2008, Page 2

We believe that Jesus Christ is the one true Lord and Savior. There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved.

(Acts 4:12, NRSV) We believe that the church’s only true authority is the Lord who has given his Word to the church as the supremely trustworthy guide for faith and practice.

We believe that humankind’s highest purpose is to live for the glory and honor of God. We believe that each congregation is called to organize its life and to focus its resources around its primary purpose of being an agent of God’s mission in the world.

We believe that the usefulness of any church organization or body, including The Outreach Foundation, is determined by its faithfulness to the mission of God into which Christ calls us.

Therefore, at this time when the needs of the church and the needs of the world are great, we recommit ourselves to connecting Presbyterians with God’s mission in vital, transforming ways, and we open ourselves to the Spirit to expand our vision and extend our reach, for Christ’s sake.

We will continue to invite congregations and individuals to partner with us, receiving mission gifts in our office and sending those gifts directly to missionaries and mission partners around the world who proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ in word and deed.

We will continue to help congregations build relationships with global partners, seeking together to learn from the faith and faithfulness of the global church.

We will continue to work to further the peace, unity and purity of the church, and we will pray that the church will increasingly be built up for God’s mission, trusting not in ourselves but in the One who gives us good news to share.

Now to him who by the power at work within us is able to accomplish abundantly far more than all we can ask or imagine, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations, for ever and ever. Amen. (Ephesians 3:20-21, NRSV) The Trustees of The Outreach Foundation Rick Wesley, Chair Rob Weingartner, Executive Director Copyright © 2008 The Outreach Foundation Source: http://www.theoutreachfoundation.org/News/onlinenews/TOFletterfollowingthegeneralassembly.html

GROUPS WITHIN PCUSA

 The Presbyterian Coalition

http://www.presbycoalition.org/email-218.htm

Press Release from The Presbyterian Renewal Network on Actions by the 218th GA June 27, 2008 Today the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) lies gravely wounded, by the hand of its own General Assembly. This Assembly has struck multiple blows, threatening to sever the sinews that hold us together as a Christian body and as a part of the larger body of Christ. This is a day for grieving.

The General Assembly today, by majority vote, has conveyed to our congregations and to the world that it rejects the Bible’s teaching and our Reformed confessions’ affirmation that homosexual behavior does not comport with Christian faith.

The Assembly also is asking our presbyteries to remove by their vote the constitutional requirement of “fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness” as a standard for officers in this denomination.

Moreover, this Assembly has adopted a constitutional interpretation that is intended to strip the church of its ability to set any binding standards for the behavior of its officers.

These decisions place the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) in spiritual jeopardy. They threaten to cut us off from God’s ancient law, given for our good, by which God prohibited adultery and all other sexual relations outside the marriage of man and woman. They threaten to cut us off from the apostolic Church, which laid only a few behavioral requirements on the new Gentile believers—among them that they “abstain from sexual immorality.” These actions threaten to cut us off from the PCUSA’s birthright in the Reformation, with its insistence that all matters of faith and practice be decided on the basis of “Scripture alone.” They threaten to cut us off from the vast majority of the global Church today, which holds firmly to the orthodox faith that this Assembly so lightly casts aside. These actions threaten to cut us off from our own denomination’s members and congregations, which also by large majorities affirm the biblical teachings on these matters.

We grieve for the Assembly’s terrible loss of faith. We grieve for the thousands of churches in our denomination who receive this news with shock and dismay. And we grieve for all those who are encouraged by this action to engage in sinful behaviors that God does not bless. The Church’s calling is to hold out to them the Gospel message of forgiveness and redemption through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

As pastors and members of this denomination’s 11,000 churches, it is our turn to recall the response of Nehemiah, and weep over the news of this destruction of God’s house. It is our turn to say that we have sinned. It is our turn to come together to repent and to rebuild.

This is not a day without hope. We join the hundreds of thousands of faithful Presbyterians in looking to the Church’s Savior in this hour. We reaffirm our love for the Savior and his Church.

We invite Presbyterians to join us in seeking God’s help to turn back this effort to lead the

39

Church to a place where it is in danger of becoming no Church. None of the damage done by this Assembly is final or irreversible.

Marie Bowen Moderator, Presbyterian Renewal Network Executive Director Presbyterians Pro-Life

Alan Wisdom Vice-President Institute on Religion and Democracy Presbyterian Action

Bradley Long Executive Director Presbyterian Renewal Ministries, Int’l

Charles Burge Executive Director Presbyterian Lay Committee

Tim Meredith Constitutional Presbyterians

Sue Cyre Executive Director Presbyterians for Faith, Family, and Ministry

Robert Pitman John Snyder Co-Moderators Knox Fellowship

Sylvia Dooling President Voices of Orthodox Women

Terry Schlossberg Executive Director Presbyterian Coalition

Paul Detterman Executive Director Presbyterians for Renewal

Sid Rice Executive Director Literacy & Evangelism, Int’l

Renee Guth Executive Coordinator New Wineskins Association of Churches

Bill Young Executive Director Presbyterian Frontier Fellowship

Melany Hamilton Co-Director Presbyterian Elders in Prayer

Gabrielle Avedian Executive Director Presbyterian Forum

Kristin Johnson Executive Director OneByOne

Jim Berkley Director Presbyterian Action for Faith & Freedom

email: terry@presbycoalition.org

Additional signatures will be added as they are received from members of the network.

phone: 703-987-7490

###

40

web: http://www.presbycoalition.org

A resource from The Presbyterian Coalition 4222 Fortuna Center Plaza, #802 Dumfries, VA 22025 703-680-4571 www.presbycoalition.org

What Happened at General Assembly of 2008? And Where Do We Go from Here?

Part 1: A Summary of Outcomes from the 218th GA Presbyterians will remember San Jose in June of 2008 less for several days of unseasonably hot temperatures than for the heat generated by actions of the 218th General Assembly (GA).

Not every action was negative, but in a number of significant actions the faith of the Church took a beating at that meeting.

It can be argued that no General Assembly writes the future of the denomination and that no General Assembly adequately represents the will of the churches that make up our denomination. The churches that make up our denomination now need to respond in ways that make it clear that truth will be defended and correctives will be applied. This will be done by the actions of presbyteries, which have ordinarily shown themselves collectively to be more representative of our churches and of Christian orthodoxy than is our General Assembly.

In this series of reports of the GA we will begin with a summary of critical actions taken and proceed to several specific reports, including the meaning and implications of a number of the actions. And we will include the avenues of recourse available to us to bring the necessary correction. We begin with the summary.

• The General Assembly is organized into periods in which it is broken into committees and periods in which it acts as one body, called plenary. The GA begins and ends in plenary. Most of its business begins in committee and ends with a final decision in plenary. Overtures from presbyteries and synods, and recommendations from General Assembly task forces, committees, councils, and entities are considered first in committee. The committees’ recommendations are then sent to plenary for action by the body as a whole. We are reporting the final outcomes.

A few items of business are decided only in plenary. Elections are an example. This GA elected its Moderator Rev. Bruce Reyes-Chow of San Francisco; a new Stated Clerk: former Associate Stated Clerk, Rev. Gradye Parsons; and scores of Presbyterians—members, elders, and ministers—to General Assembly entities.

Actions on the Big Issues The biggest issues at this General Assembly fall into three categories: 1. Standards for sexual relationships; 2. Matters directly related to faith and theology; and 3. A proposal for a new Form of Government. These were the areas most closely attended to by the joint renewal team at the GA. There were a number of decisions in other areas that are of interest to Presbyterians. We are reporting a few of those decisions as well. For a complete report of decisions, we refer you to http://www.pcbiz.org/Committee2.aspx. We record the GA item number in parentheses following each item reported.

41

1. Standards for sexual relationships The GA had a large number of items before it in this area.

• GA is recommending that the presbyteries vote to strike the current text of the Book of Order that requires officers to “lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church,” including living “either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness.” In its place, the GA is recommending the following language, Those who are called to ordained service in the church, by their assent to the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003), pledge themselves to live lives obedient to Jesus Christ the Head of the Church, striving to follow where he leads through the witness of the Scriptures, and to understand the Scriptures through the instruction of the Confessions. In so doing, they declare their fidelity to the standards of the Church. Each governing body charged with examination for ordination and/or installation (G-14.0240 and G-14.0450) establishes the candidate’s sincere efforts to adhere to these standards. (05-09) Within the next few months presbyteries will vote to reject or to ratify this change. The results of the voting will be known within a year.

• In an associated action, GA adopted an authoritative interpretation (AI) of the constitution that rendered existing AIs of “no further force or effect.”

Interpretive statements concerning ordained service of homosexual church members by the 190th General Assembly (1978) of the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, and the 119th General Assembly (1979) of the Presbyterian Church in the United States and all subsequent affirmations thereof, have no further force or effect. (05-09) • GA approved the following AI: “The 218th General Assembly (2008) affirms the authoritative interpretation of G6.0108 approved by the 217th General Assembly (2006). Further, the 218th General Assembly (2008), pursuant to G-13.0112, interprets the requirements of G-6.0108 to apply equally to all ordination standards of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Section G-6.0108 requires examining bodies to give prayerful and careful consideration, on an individual, case-by-case basis, to any departure from an ordination standard in matters of belief or practice that a candidate may declare during examination. However, the examining body is not required to accept a departure from standards, and cannot excuse a candidate’s inability to perform the constitutional functions unique to his or her office (such as administration of the sacraments).” (05-12) The effect of this AI is to permit each candidate to judge whether he or she has departed from an ordination standards, either in belief or practice. We do not expect the new AI to pass constitutional muster.

• In addition, the GA adopted a response to a question which may obligate session moderators to ordain and install any candidate approved by the session. The question raised was whether a moderator has a constitutional obligation by virtue of office to perform an otherwise constitutional ordination or installation if it is contrary to his or her conscience. The GA response reads, in part, that the Book of Order “suggests the moderator has a positive obligation to preside at the service of ordination and/or installation….Without the concurrence of the session, there is no provision on the basis of conscience for a moderator to refuse to fulfill the functions of the office of moderator….”

(04-14)

42

• An overture was disapproved that would have changed language regarding marriage in the Book of Order from a man and a woman to “two persons,” thus allowing same sex marriages if the change were ratified by the presbyteries: “Marriage is a gift God has given to all humankind for the well-being of the entire human family. Marriage is a civil contract covenant between a woman and a man two people and according to the laws of the state also constitutes a civil contract.

For Christians marriage is a covenant through which a man and a woman two people are called to live out together before God their lives of discipleship. In a service of Christian marriage a lifelong commitment is made by a woman and a man to each other between two people, publicly witnessed and acknowledged by the community of faith.” (W-4.9001) (04-08) • GA amended and then adopted an overture affirming the PC(USA) commitment to equal rights under the law for “lesbian and gay persons” and further to: Direct the Moderator of the General Assembly to appoint a special committee, representing the broad diversity [and theological balance] of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), to study the following, and report to the 219th General Assembly (2010), including any policy recommendations growing out of the study: a. The history of the laws governing marriage and civil union, including current policy debates. b. How the theology and practice of marriage have developed in the Reformed and broader Christian tradition. c. The relationship between civil union and Christian marriage. d. The effects of current laws on same-gender partners and their children. e. The place of covenanted same-gender partnerships in the Christian community.

An amendment to add language clarified the Assembly’s intent: This overture seeks to renew and strengthen the commitment of the PCUSA to equal protection under the law, encourage steps to reinforce this commitment and to affirm the importance of pastoral care and outreach to non-traditional families, including those same-gender commitment partners. This overtures advocates for equal rights and does not seek to redefine the nature of Christian marriage. (04-13) • GA began an effort to create new resources on sexuality for teens. This action was in the wake of finally discarding a sexuality curriculum for children and teenagers that promoted acceptance of homosexual practice and abortion and that had been in contention since the mid-1980s.

The Presbytery of Grace overtures the 218th General Assembly (2008) to direct the General Assembly Council to produce adolescent human development resources based upon Scripture and the Reformed theological tradition. These resources would explore all facets of adolescent development including human sexuality.

GA added a comment: We choose to plant the seed of peace. We set aside our individual desires to “win” and to further our own agendas and put our faith in God, and send this overture on without trying to advocate one position or another, trusting not only God, but our fellow Presbyterians to do what is right not only for our children but for our denomination. We send this overture on in the hope that the next step of the process will cultivate the seed we have planted, faithfully stepping out in mutual trust. (12-08)

43

2. Matters directly related to faith and theology The GA began the process of amending the Book of Confessions to change a catechism and to add a new confession. The Book of Order requires that a committee be appointed to study the proposed changes and bring recommendations to the next GA. The response of the 2010 GA to those recommendations will determine if the changes to the Heidelberg will proceed to a vote by the presbyteries and the required additional vote of a subsequent GA (See Book of Order, 18.0200 for the process of amending the Book of Confessions).

• Amend the language of the Heidelberg Catechism. As of 7/9/08 the precise action had not been verified by the Office of the General Assembly. The overture that was the subject of the action is as follows: “The Presbytery of Newark overtures the 218th General Assembly (2008) to correct translation problems in five responses of the Heidelberg Catechism as found in The Book of Confessions and to add the original Scripture texts of the German Heidelberg Catechism. The following changes are proposed: “1.

Amend the answer to 4.019 as follows: [Text to be deleted is shown with a strikethrough; text to be added or inserted is shown as italic.]

“A. From the holy gospel, which God himself revealed in the beginning in the Garden of Eden, afterward proclaimed through the holy patriarchs and prophets and foreshadowed through the sacrifices and other rites of the Old Covenant ceremonies of the law, and, finally, fulfilled through his own well-beloved Son.” “2. Amend the answer to 4.033 as follows: [Text to be deleted is shown with a strikethrough; text to be added or inserted is shown as italic.]

“A. Because Christ alone is God’s own eternal Son natural son, whereas we are accepted adopted for his sake as children of God by grace.”

“3. Amend the answer to 4.055 as follows: [Text to be deleted is shown with a strikethrough; text to be added or inserted is shown as italic.]

“A. First, that believers one and all, as partakers of the Lord Christ, and all his treasures and gifts, shall share in one fellowship. Second, that each one ought to know that he is obliged to use his gifts freely willingly and with joy for the benefit and welfare of other members.”

“4. Amend the answer to 4.074 as follows: [Text to be deleted is shown with a strikethrough; text to be added or inserted is shown as italic.]

“A. Yes, because they, as well as their parents, are included in the covenant and belong to the people of God. Since both redemption from sin through the blood of Christ and the gift of faith from the Holy Spirit are promised to these children no less than to their parents, infants are also by baptism, as a sign of the covenant, to be incorporated into the Christian church and distinguished from the children of unbelievers. This was done in the Old Covenant Testament by circumcision. In the New Covenant Testament baptism has been instituted to take its place.”

“5. Amend the answer to 4.087 as follows: [Text to be deleted is shown with a strikethrough; text to be added or inserted is shown as italic.]

“A. Certainly not! Scripture says, ‘Surely you know that the unjust will never come into possession of the kingdom of God. Make no mistake: no fornicator or idolater, none who are guilty either of adultery or of homosexual perversion, no thieves or grabbers or drunkards or slanderers or swindlers, will possess the kingdom of God.’ Certainly not; for as Scripture says no unchaste person, idolater, adulterer, thief, greedy person, drunkard, slanderer, robber, or anyone like that shall inherit the kingdom of god.” (13-06) • GA set in motion approval of Belhar Confession as an addition to the Book of Confessions: “1. Direct the Moderators of the 216th, 217th, and 218th General Assemblies (2004, 2006, and 2008)—in consultation with the Stated Clerk, the Advocacy Committee for Racial Ethnic Concerns (ACREC), the Presbyterian Peacemaking Program, and the Office of

44

Theology and Worship—to initiate the process described in G-18.0201b by appointing a committee separate from any committee assigned to the Heidelberg Catechism, to consider amending the confessional documents of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to include the Belhar Confession in The Book of Confessions and to report to the 219th General Assembly (2010).” (13-07) • GA approved a study guide on the Trinity paper that was received, but not adopted, by GA in 2006. (13-13) • GA approved by voice vote a call for “understanding, mutual respect, and peaceful relations between the Christian and Muslim communities.” They set in motion a study “of current and evolving Presbyterian theological understanding of our relationship with our Muslim sisters and brothers,” and urged that “such a study be done in a context of relationships and dialogue.” The action included: Encourage and provide resources to presbyteries and local congregations to improve good relations and mutual understanding between Presbyterians and Muslims at the local level for the same reasons. Practices might include participation in sacred and holy observances in each other’s traditions, shared meals, dialogue groups, and joint community projects, among others. (07-07) • GA amended and adopted a second overture on Christian/Muslim relationships: “1. Commend to the church for study the actions of previous General Assemblies calling for tolerance, mutual respect, and peaceful relations between the Christian and Muslim communities.

"2. State that [the PC(USA) affirms that Jews, Christians, and Muslims worship a common God, 1 although each understands that God differently] though we hold differing understandings of how God has been revealed to humankind, the PC(USA) affirms our belief in one God, the God of Abraham, whom Jews and Muslims also worship; and that, as children of this loving God, we share the commandments of love for God and neighbor 2, the requirement to care for the poor; and acknowledge Abraham as an expression of our common commitment to one God." “3. Build on this understanding by calling for further dialogue among Jews, Christians, and Muslims, viewing each other as equals, and learning from one another to o promote peace, resolve conflict; o ensure human rights, prevent discrimination; o develop dialogue, emphasize commonality; o recognize differences, celebrate diversity; o advocate justice, oppose bias.

“4. Commend the First Presbyterian Church of Rockaway and other Presbyterian congregations that have initiated dialogue with Muslim and Jewish communities, and to encourage other congregations to initiate three-way dialogues among Jews, Christians, and Muslims consistent with the Presbyterian Principles for Interfaith Dialogue. 3 o To encourage congregations of these faiths to celebrate religious holidays together, setting aside days of worship during which there can be congregational suppers, and dialogue groups. 4 o To encourage sustained activities that will promote understanding, respect, and good will, using worship resources and promotional materials prepared by the Offices of Interfaith Relations and Theology and Worship, the Presbyterian Peacemaking Program, and other General Assembly Council (GAC) and Office of the General Assembly (OGA) offices as appropriate.

45

“5. Commission a study on Islam and Christian-Muslim relations that would have the same scope and authority as the 1987 study on Christian-Jewish relations, 5 to be carried out by the Interfaith Relations and Theology and Worship Offices of the General Assembly Council.

“6. Call for identification of violations of the civil rights of Christians, Jews, and Muslims in the United States and other areas of the world, along with other incidents of violation of religious freedoms, as part of the regular human rights report to the General Assembly. 6” (07-01; footnotes can be found on PC-biz) • GA approved by voice vote: The Presbytery of Baltimore overtures the 218th General Assembly (2008) to support A Common Word Between Us and You, an invitation to dialogue and cooperation from 138 Muslim clerics, and to commend this document to our congregations, governing bodies, and seminaries for study and consideration as a primary source for engaging in substantive interfaith dialogue with the goal of greater understanding and cooperation among members of the Abrahamic faith traditions as the pathway to a new era of global peace and justice. (07-02) • GA approved a resolution on Growing God’s Church Deep and Wide: The 218th General Assembly (2008) strives to help Christ’s Church Grow Deep and Wide under the guidance of the Holy Spirit by: 1. Declaring a churchwide commitment to participate in God’s activity through Jesus Christ in transforming the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) during the 2009–2010 biennium in keeping with Jesus words, “… Just as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself unless it abides in the vine, neither can you unless you abide in me” (John 15:4) and the Great Commission found in Matthew 28:18–20, “… All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

2. Encouraging synods, presbyteries, sessions, and all agencies, entities, and networks of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to commit to foster the growth of Christ’s Church Deep and Wide in the following areas: a. Grow in Evangelism: Share the good news of Jesus Christ. Invite persons to join in the church’s worship and fellowship. Baptize children and adults… b. Grow in Discipleship: Rediscover Scripture, including daily reading and study.

Nurture relationships with Jesus Christ in the context of our Reformed heritage…. (12-02 See PC-biz for complete wording of the action.)

3. Proposed New Form of Government The GA chose not to send a new Form of Government (nFOG) to the presbyteries for a vote.

Instead, they referred the nFOG to the Office of the General Assembly with a comment that includes a plan to bring it back to the GA in 2010: Comment: The referral to the Office of the General Assembly is for a period of consultation and study with churches and presbyteries through a system or systems designed and implemented by the Form of Government Task Force and members of the 218th General Assembly Committee on Form of Government Revisions. The participation of every presbytery in the period of consultation and study will be strongly urged. New members of this expanded task force are to be chosen from the 218th General Assembly (2008) Assembly Committee on Form of Government Revisions by the Moderator of the 218th General Assembly (2008), in consultation with the moderator and vice moderator of the 218th General Assembly (2008) Assembly Committee on Form of Government Revisions.

The new task force will revise the Form of Government Task Force Report, taking into account the concerns and suggestions gleaned from the consultation and study process.

The guidance of the Advisory Committee on the Constitution, the overtures, and the

46

testimony received by the 218th General Assembly (2008) Assembly Committee on Form of Government Revisions and the committee’s comments are referred to the task force for serious and studied consideration. The revised report of the Form of Government task force is to be submitted to the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly no later than October 15, 2009, for distribution to the church at large no later than January 15, 2010, for consideration by the 219th General Assembly (2010). The Assembly Committee on Form of Government Revisions submits the following unedited comments, from subcommittees of the committee, for consideration in the continuing study and revision of the Form of Government:(06-01; the comment includes a long list of revisions suggested by the GA committee that can be found on PC-biz) Other Actions of the GA Per capita.

• GA disapproved overtures that would have limited per capita to administrative and operating expenses and removed from per capita such items as support for the NCC and WCC. (3-10; 3-11) • GA approved an OGA publication titled “Introduction to the Per Capita Budget” as “a statement of the principles, values, and purposes for the General Assembly per capita budget.”

• Relationship with churches seeking dismissal • GA established a legal fund for defense against the New Wineskins: • Provide funds to the Office of General Assembly for the purpose of sharing the cost of legal fees defending our Constitution against the New Wineskins Non-geographic Presbytery of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church and a group which has joined that denomination.

• From these funds, reimburse the Presbytery of Northern New England for half of all of its remaining legal costs up to a maximum of $185,000.

• That the Office of the General Assembly establish and promote an Extra Commitment Opportunity (ECO) account that will be the source of this support and welcomes contributions from the whole church.(3-21) • GA adopted a commissioners’ resolution to encourage a pastoral approach to churches seeking dismissal: • The 218th General Assembly (2008) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) • Directs the Stated Clerk to send this resolution to the presbyteries, synods, and sessions, indicating the will of the assembly that presbyteries and synods develop and make available to lower governing bodies and local congregations a process that exercises the responsibility and power “to divide, dismiss, or dissolve churches in consultation with their members” (Book of Order, G-11.0103i) with consistency, pastoral responsibility, accountability, gracious witness, openness, and transparency.

2. Believing that trying to exercise this responsibility and power through litigation is deadly to the cause of Christ, impacting the local church, other parts of the Body of Christ and ecumenical relationships, and our witness to Christ in the world around us, [the General Assembly] urges [congregations considering leaving the denomination], presbyteries and synods to implement a process using the following principles: • Consistency: The local authority delegated to presbyteries is guided and shaped by our shared faith, service, and witness to Jesus Christ.

• Pastoral Responsibility: The requirement in G-11.0103i to consult with the members of a church seeking dismissal highlights the presbytery’s pastoral responsibility, which must not be submerged beneath other responsibilities.

• Accountability: For a governing body, accountability rightly dictates fiduciary

47

and connectional concerns, raising general issues of property (G-8.0000) and specific issues of schism within a congregation (G-8.0600). But, full accountability also requires preeminent concern with “caring for the flock.”

• Gracious Witness: It is our belief that Scripture and the Holy Spirit require a gracious witness from us rather than a harsh legalism.

• Openness and Transparency: Early, open communication and transparency about principles and process of dismissal necessarily serve truth, order, and goodness, and work against seeking civil litigation as a solution. (4-28) General Assembly Council: • GA changed the name to “General Assembly Mission Council” (8-05) • GA added a voting representative from Presbyterian Men (Presbyterian Women have had a voting representative for several decades) (8-04) • GA created “a review committee to review the service of the whole of the Presbyterian Church (USA) and its six agencies in implementing the General Assembly’s mission directives,” and another review committee of the GAC to review its “permanent, advocacy, and advisory committees,” and report to the next GA. (8-22; 8-16; these reviews are somewhat revolutionary in providing reviews not conducted entirely by the entities themselves) Social Justice: GA adopted a “Social Creed for the Twenty-First Century” (9-09; see PC-biz for the complete wording) Peacemaking & International Relations: GA adopted two overtures that called for evenhandedness toward the parties in the Middle East struggle (11-06; 11-26), but a third which affirmed the “Amman Call,” (11-01) a 2007 WCC document that clearly leans in opposition toward Israel and in support of Palestine.

Nevertheless, the GA rejected hostile actions against Israel along with overtures that would have re-energized the divestment process targeted at companies doing business with Israel. Overtures that would have urged the suspension of U.S. military aid to Israel were disapproved.

Health, Life Issues and Abortion: • The 218th General Assembly (2008) directs the appropriate PC(USA) entities to redevelop congregational resource materials, on the subject of reproductive options, to more adequately reflect the full spectrum of biblical, theological, and pastoral counsel, while remaining consistent with the policy of the 1992 report of the Special Committee on Problem Pregnancies and Abortion and the 2006 policy on Late-Term Pregnancies and Abortion. The General Assembly Council will report back to the 219th General Assembly (2010).(10-03) • GA endorsed the principle of single-payer universal health care: “1. [Advocate for, educate about, and work toward] [Endorse in principle the provision of] singlepayer universal health care reform [in which health care services are privately provided and publicly financed.] [through national health insurance that is privately provided (improved Medicare for all in principle) and publicly financed.]” (10-06; see the item on PC-biz for the complete wording) • GA approved an annual “Relief of Conscience Plan Report” that includes details of the plan, the process for participation, an accounting of the total number of participating churches, the dollar figure paid under the plan and the dollar figure of funds dispensed under the Board of Pensions adoption programs. (15-02)

48

Two new committees: This GA created two committees to experiment with alternative methods of discernment and decision making: Committee 16 on Worship and Spiritual Renewal, and Committee 17 on Youth. Committee 16 brought no items to plenary for action. The Youth Committee brought a number of action items to plenary. See their reports on PC-biz.

The Presbyterian Coalition 4222 Fortuna Center Plaza, #802 Dumfries, VA 22025 703-680-4571 terry@presbycoalition.net www.presbycoalition.org

###

49

Coalition co-moderator on “The State of the Denomination”

1 of 2

http://pres-outlook.net/news-and-analysis/1-news-a-analysis/8015-coaliti...

Coalition co-moderator on “The State of the Denomination”

Vote

Written by Erin Dunigan, OUTLOOK special correspondent Tuesday, 14 October 2008 16:43

DAIO “Our team lost this Assembly. Badly. But the Coalition has already reloaded,” said Presbyterian Coalition Co-Moderator Jerry Andrews in his presentation, “The State of the Denomination,” at the 11th annual Presbyterian Coalition gathering Oct. 13 in Newport Beach, Calif.

“The progressives have had great success in taking over the church,” Andrews explained, “but like all false paths they too have lost their way.”

Three words— post-modern, post-denominational, and post-Christian — describe the denomination in the aftermath of the General Assembly, he added.

Coalition Co-moderator Jerry Andrews converses with Gathering XI participant.

OUTLOOK photo by Erin Dunigan

The term post-modern, Andrews suggested, “is insufficient for those who desire to be faithful.” Referencing the decision to delay passing of the FOG report in favor of a two-year period of study, Andrews suggested that the General Assembly was not, in fact, ready for a denomination that is post-denominational.

The phrase post-Christian is the most serious, according to Andrews, in reference to the actions of the General Assembly. “We abandoned all teaching on homosexuality. < The faith was absent from the conversation.” The 218th General Assembly “was an assembly that had left its faith behind,” said Andrews, making it functionally post-Christian.

“The church has a faith without which she cannot live faithfully,” Andrews reminded. “How did we begin to doubt that?”

Liberalism in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is the key factor in this situation. “I know it is an easy target,” he admitted, “it is an easy target because it is such a large target.” Liberalism at its best plays the role of the prophet, but at its worst the role of the teenager, he pointed out.

The task at hand for Coalition members, in light of the current situation, is a rightly-defined and implemented discernment, said Andrews. “If discernment is going to be defined not as knowledge of the Word, but of the sense of self or of each other, then I’m uninterested,” he continued. Getting to know others in the church is of course a blessing, but it is not discernment. “It is not about hearing each other,” said Andrews, “but about hearing that one voice which we all need to hear.” It’s also not about sharing stories.

“That’s how we build friendships,” he pointed out. Rather, it is hearing THE story.

The most promising conversation is not with the left, suggests Andrews, but with the Christian who acknowledges homosexual orientation and wants to engage the church. Relationships are needed “not with the person’s advocate, but with the person,” he argued. “We do not think of gays and lesbians as victims in need of advocates, but first and foremost, like us, as sinners in need of a Savior.” This, according to Andrews, is the church that “preaches the gospel to the sinner, is reminded of the gospel itself, and repents daily.”

“It is not clear to me that the church will take that path,” he admitted.

Hits: 411

Email This

Set as favorite

Trackback(0) TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0) Subscribe to this comment's feed

Write comment Name

Email

Title

Comment

10/17/2008 2:07 PM

Cultural aliens in a Caesarea Philippi modern

1 of 2

http://pres-outlook.net/news-and-analysis/1-news-a-analysis/8030-cultura...

Cultural aliens in a Caesarea Philippi modern

Vote

Written by Erin Dunigan Thursday, 16 October 2008 15:37

DAIO Christians sensing they are almost aliens in their own cultures have a lot in common with the first century believers, according to Jim Edwards of Whitworth University, who taught a Bible study at the closing session of this year’s Presbyterian Coalition 11th Annual Gathering in Newport Beach, Calif., October 15.

“If we are going to resist the culture we have to know what we are resisting and why,” said Edwards. Jesus addressed both the questions of who he was and who his followers were in an unexpected way, he indicated. “Caesarea Philippi is a strange place for a Jewish rabbi to take his disciples in order to ask them who he is,” noted Edwards. It was a place on the outer edge, where Judaism met paganism. It was not Jerusalem or Galilee, in the center, but on the edge where things were less fixed. “A lot of conservative churches have found themselves on a journey to Caesarea Philippi, taken out of a situation that we had found very comfortable” suggested Edwards. “We now find ourselves in a very uncomfortable situation because we have walked hand in hand with our culture and now we find ourselves unable to do so.”

But it is possible that this cultural edge is where God is calling the church, according to Edwards.

Is this just bad luck, he asked, “or is this perhaps Jesus taking us to a liminal region in order to ask us “Jim Edwards addresses questions and to press us to come to new understandings of God?” crowd at Presbyterian Part of the problem, according to Edwards, is that we have given the culture more weight than Scripture.

Gathering XI” “Christianity cannot become something else and retain its offensive ability to save,” he pointed out.

“Whenever we try to remove the offense, we undercut its saving power.” The church, insisted Edwards, must decide if it has any beliefs and standards of its own on which to stand.

“I’ve been involved in this fight for a long time,” Edwards admitted, “and I’ve always thought if I could just get the liberals straightened out, help save our denomination from jumping off a cliff, just keep the car on the road, then we will have succeeded.” The problem with that line of thinking though is its focus on the problems of the other side. “Maybe I should worry less about what those who oppose us think and say and do and ask more seriously, what is God doing to me, what is God saying to me, what insights do I need to learn through this?”

Edwards admitted that the idea of leaving, of escaping what often seems like futile gridlock and protracted struggle can often be an enticing one. He is often asked why he doesn’t leave behind the gridlock and get involved in the third world churches that are growing by leaps and bounds. It is a question that gives him pause. “What do I have to give to the third world if I have fled the battle in my own world?” asked Edwards. “If I cannot or will not bear witness to the gospel in the world that I know best, that speaks English, middle class America, the Presbyterian Church, educated,” he questioned, “if this world is one in which I will or cannot bear witness to the gospel in an indigenous manner, what do I have to give if I go to Africa or China or Thailand?”

Edwards suggested that the answer is to be faithful in the current situation. “That may mean being far more risk taking, bolder at presbytery meetings and at General Assembly,” he said — a lesser emphasis on being nice, being liked and a greater emphasis on speaking the truth. The point, suggested Edwards, is to bear witness irrespective of the consequences.

Hits: 107

Email This

Set as favorite

Trackback(0) TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0) Subscribe to this comment's feed

Write comment Name

Email

Title

10/17/2008 12:46 PM

Detterman, Roberts point Gathering to possibilities and opportunities

1 of 2

http://pres-outlook.net/news-and-analysis/1-news-a-analysis/8018-detter...

Detterman, Roberts point Gathering to possibilities and opportunities

Vote

Written by Erin Dunigan, OUTLOOK special correspondent Tuesday, 14 October 2008 22:05

DAIO “How are we called to minister where we are, until God by his Spirit says move?” asked Paul Detterman, executive director of Presbyterians for Renewal, on day two (Oct. 14) of the Presbyterian Coalition’s 11th annual gathering. “I got the closest thing to an audible from God that said to me, ‘You are not going anywhere,’ and it was not fun,” admitted Detterman.

These sentiments of trying to find a way to both be faithful to the truth of the Scriptures and to remain within the context of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), were expressed in the previous evening’s presentations as well. “This moment offers us tremendous possibilities and rich opportunities for the church,” said Mark Roberts, senior director and scholar-in-residence for Laity Lodge, Leakey, Texas, in his remarks on Monday evening.

Roberts began by reading the opening paragraphs of the Book of Order. “I have come to understand that what I want is not all that important,” Roberts admitted. “All that really matters is what Jesus wants me to do, and if Jesus wants me to hang in there in the PC(USA), then that is where I am going to hang, and if he wants me to leave then I am going to kick the dust off my feet.”

He reminded participants that no one can know the future shape of the PC(USA), but they can remain faithful to the call of God. He admitted that taking this position is to embrace a bit of uncertainty. “I live with a bit of uncertainty, but I have complete certainty about who is my Lord,” Roberts concluded.

“Mark Roberts addresses attendees at The Gathering Paul Detterman, in his workshop, Evangelical and Reforming, seemed to take a similar stance. “We are XI” absolutely committed to what needs to happen in presbyteries to reverse the actions of the General Assembly,” he said. “It is imperative that we are Christ’s ambassadors in the places where we have been planted.”

Addressing the need for some way of moving forward in the midst of the current impasse, Detterman introduced the Presbyterians for Renewal four step plan: Where do we go from here? “Somebody has got to take a step,” explained Detterman, “and this is where we felt God literally calling us to be.”

Detterman urged his hearers to remember that the issues at hand are not like working on the merger between GM and Chrysler, but are “holy things.” He also warned against the tendency to caricature those in Louisville. “There are some who will say, ‘Good luck dealing with 100 Witherspoon Street because we know what they’re like,” Detterman commented. “No we don’t. We’ve got to stop talking about them,” he cautioned, noting that there are folks in Louisville, and also in the Covenant Network, who want to enter into conversation.

In a time of open questions one of the workshop participants asked to hear from Covenant Network’s Pam Byers, who was in attendance. “I don’t ever get to hear from the Covenant Network folks,” he acknowledged in his request. As Byers walked up to the “Pam Byers, Executive Director of Covenant microphone she was greeted with a round of applause. “This is my 11th Coalition Network, answers question at the Gathering Gathering,” said Byers, “and I come because I always find things that are up-building to XI, as Paul Detterman, Executive Director of me personally.” In reference to an earlier question from the floor she said, “I am a BiblePresbyterians for Renewal, looks on.” believing, Jesus-loving Christian who has seen these same traits in many gay people, I just have to testify to that.”

Other questions from the floor related to the idea of creating a 17th Synod that would allow presbyteries and congregations to align themselves with others who are sympathetic. “This would give us an entity where we could be distinct, but still in,” said Detterman in imagining this type of scenario. Jin S. Kim, pastor of Church of All Nations in Minneapolis, then questioned whether or not this model would allow for the creation of an 18th Synod which would be GLBT friendly. Detterman acknowledged that possibility was an issue.

Detterman also responded to questions surrounding property, pensions and per capita. “We are suggesting that whether a session decides to give per capita or not, that they do it with integrity, take ownership of their spending, and explain to the congregation what they are doing and why,” he suggested. In response to property he said, “We are working on it.”

“We are all here because we want to be used by God C whatever conclusions we come up with,” Detterman observed.

Hits: 356

Email This

Set as favorite

Trackback(0) TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0) Subscribe to this comment's feed

10/17/2008 1:17 PM

So What Became of the Big Issues?

A look back at General Assembly 2008  Jim Berkley Presbyterian Coalition Gathering  October 13–15, 2008  Newport Beach, CA

The General Assembly atmosphere   

Progressive, pro homo-sex Moderator elected as clear choice Rainbow scarves ubiquitous; San Francisco lifestyle evident Approximately a 60:40 split on progressive vs. conservative issues

Berkley top-ten issues from the Pre-Assembly Meeting 1. New Form of Government (Committee 06)  Issue: Would replace the current FOG with a troublesome new one.  Desired result: Defeat it or delay it for major reworking.  Actual result: Being reworked by revised committee for 2010.  To do now: Follow the work; critique it; defeat the revision unless it is vastly improved.

2. Ordination issues: remove G-6.0106b or rescind PUP (Comm. 05)  Issue: Assault on ordination standards from every angle.  Desired result: Retain G-6.0106b (fidelity and chastity) and 1978 Authoritative interpretation; maintain ordination standards.  Actual result: 1978 AI removed; deficient amended wording for G-6.0106b sent to presbyteries for votes.  To do now: Overtures to reinstate the 1978 AI; decisively defeat “Amendment B” on G-6.0106b in presbytery votes.

3. Election of a new Stated Clerk (plenary)  Issue: Kirkpatrick’s retiring necessitated electing a new Stated Clerk.  Desired result: Elect a Clerk who defends the Constitution.  Actual result: Gradye Parsons was elected over evangelicals.  To do now: Monitor Parsons’s work; applaud the good changes; seek redress if Parsons misuses the office.

4. Palestine/Israel resolutions (Comm. 11)  Issue: History of imbalance and anti-Israel propaganda.  Desired result: Restore/maintain fairness in Middle East advocacy.  Actual result: Muddled. Conflicting, logically inconsistent resolutions.  To do now: Press for fairness and moderation in PCUSA advocacy.

5. Election of the Moderator (plenary)  Issue: The moderator ought to represent well PCUSA beliefs and policy.  Desired result: Elect an evangelical moderator for a change.  Actual result: Bruce Reyes-Chow—young, funky, progressive.  To do now: Give feedback on his blog; bring out his fairness.

6. Gay marriage (Comm. 04)  Issue: Pressure to approve homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage.  Desired result: Maintain biblical moral standards; defeat revisionist efforts.  Actual result: Gay marriage was not approved (the only such “win”).  To do now: Provide caring theological reasons to maintain our standards.

7. Open meetings (Comm. 03)  Issue: A good Open Meetings Policy has been circumvented; needs support.  Desired result: Maintain current policy; make it clearer and more iron-clad.  Actual result: Policy maintained; mostly good amendments approved.  To do now: Insist on openness whenever the policy is skirted or defied.

8. Ecumenical funding/per capita (Comm. 03)  Issue: Per capita assessments fund controversial ecumenical activities.  Desired result: Remove ecumenical funding from the per capita budget.  Actual result: Good efforts failed; per capita yet funds ecumenical work.  To do now: Publicize the sometimes-scandalous use of per capita funds; pass overtures to address the same problem in 2010.

9. Elections to key responsibilities (plenary)  Issue: Most GA-level entities lack evangelical representation; GAPJC and Advisory Committee on the Constitution may be abandoning impartiality.  Desired result: Elect floor nominees for to replace worrisome candidates.  Actual result: No floor nominees were elected.  To do now: Get good names to GA Nominating Committee; be proactive.

10.    

Social Creed/Iraq/Environment/Rights (Comm. 09) Issue: A proliferation of politically/theologically liberal resolutions flood GA. Desired result: Shorten, strengthen, or defeat radical resolutions.

Actual result: With occasional minor improvements, everything passed.

To do now: Overtures needed to rein in ACSWP; speak out with wisdom.

Overall Assessment of the 218th General Assembly      

Hugely disappointing: Tossed off biblical ties to conform PCUSA to culture.

Largely unrepresentative: Not at all reflecting convictions of the people.

Overwhelmed with business; diverted from priorities; lacking in facts.

Experiments with consensus were weak; it needs to be opposed vigorously.

Evangelical commissioners were superbly capable and committed; this assembly beat up on them and sent them home vastly discouraged.

This is only one assembly; tomorrow comes and demands our courage and efforts; all that was negative can and should be reversed.

James D. Berkley, Bellevue, WA, jimberkley@msn.com, (425) 688-0815

Why Not Just Leave the PC(USA)?

1 of 14

http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/whynotleave.htm

markdroberts.com newsletter Enter your e-mail address to receive my newsletter and series update notices. For more info and a sample newsletter, click here.

Note: If you get an error message when you try to subscribe, let me know. I will not use your e-mail for any other purpose. You can unsubscribe at any time using the button below.

Subscribe Go to homepage

Unsubscribe

Presbyterian Church (USA); Leaving the PC(USA)

Syndication

Why Not Just Leave the PC(USA)?

XML/RSS

by Rev. Dr. Mark D. Roberts The High Calling

Copyright © 2008 by Mark D. Roberts Note: You may download this resource at no cost, for personal use or for use in a Christian ministry, as long as you are not publishing it for sale. All I ask is that you give credit where credit is due. For all other uses, please contact me at mark@markdroberts.com. Thank you.

Why Not Just Leave the PC(USA)?

Part 1 of series: Why Not Just Leave the PC(USA)?

Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series This series is an extension of my recent series, The End of the Presbyterian Church USA? Revisited. That series took a brief detour into a related topic, Presbyterian Exegesis Exam Changed. Now I want to finish up my thoughts about the crisis in the PC(USA), and to do so in a personal way.

I finished The End of the Presbyterian Church USA? Revisited with the question: Where do we go from here? I began to answer that question by urging us to move thoughtfully and prayerfully, yet with full awareness of the deep problems we evangelical Presbyterians Note: You can find face in a denomination that has been moving further and further from its biblical roots. my Daily Reflection This movement shows no signs of abating, and, in fact, it seems to be accelerating. The at The High recent changes in the PC(USA) exegesis exam provide a striking illustration of this Calling. acceleration, and one that has nothing to do with homosexuality, our usual flash point.

The High Calling of Our Daily Work

The High Calling Blogs

Laity Lodge

Throughout my discussion of the PC(USA) crisis, I have tried to be as honest as I can be about the problems we face in this denomination, as I see them. For a long time, my evangelical colleagues and I have had a tendency to look on the bright side, to focus on mission, and to believe that things in the PC(USA) will, by God's grace, improve. But in light of events at the 2006 General Assembly, and even moreso at the 2008 General Assembly, such a positive approach seems unduly pollyanaish. We can’t live in denial anymore about the deep theological fissures in our denomination and the negative trends we are facing. We can’t simply focus on the mission of our churches and ignore denominational issues because our mission is becoming increasingly impacted, one might even say hampered, by our denominational connections.

My effort to be blunt but fair about where I think we are in the PC(USA) has been distressing to some of my readers. A few have expressed frustration that I’m hanging in there. They think it’s well past time to leave, and believe I’m dragging my heels. Other readers have seen in my candid criticisms of the PC(USA) clear signs of my imminent departure from the denomination. "Mark's on his way out," they say with a sigh. They believe that I have moved too hastily, without giving internal reform, or even the Holy Spirit, a chance to make things better. I expect I have other readers (or former readers!) who are tired of this issue and hope I’ll leave it alone one way or another. As one person

10/17/2008 12:53 PM

Why Not Just Leave the PC(USA)?

2 of 14

http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/whynotleave.htm

said to me: Why not just leave the PC(USA)?

That’s a good question, one I intend to chew on for the next few days. I’m going to answer this question, not as some sort of representative of the evangelical members of the PC(USA), but personally, as an individual who has wrestled with this question for several years. I’m going to try and explain why, as of this moment, I have not left the PC(USA), and why, in fact, I don’t have plans to do so, though my plans could change in the future.

Laity Lodge Website Laity Lodge News: Click here to sign up for our newsletter

Featured Book

Ironically, I’m in a position now where I’m much freer to leave the PC(USA) than I have been for many years. From June 1991 through September 2007, I was the Senior Pastor of Irvine Presbyterian Church. If I had chosen to leave the PC(USA) during that stretch of time, I would have had to resign my pastorate. Or I would have found myself in the messy position of leading a church out of the denomination. In either case, my personal decision would have impacted more than 1,000 people, not to mention my own family.

Today, however, I could leave the PC(USA) with minimal impact on others. My ministry at Laity Lodge requires me to be an ordained pastor, but I expect that, without too much trouble, I could find another denomination or church that would endorse my ordination. I could even continue to be part of the fellowship at my PC(USA) church, though I’d no longer be an official parish associate. So, my current situation gives me a freedom to leave the PC(USA) that most of my pastoral colleagues do not share. This fact is perplexing to some, who still want to know: Why don’t you just leave the PC(USA)?

Here begins my answer to that question.

1. I’m not leaving the PC(USA) because my church is part of the PC(USA).

Yes, I know it sounds like I just contradicted myself. I could leave the PC(USA) and still worship at St. Mark Presbyterian Church in Boerne, where I live.

I’m quite sure nobody in Can We Trust the the church would kick me Gospels? by Mark out. But, even though, as an ordained pastor, I’m D. Roberts not technically a member of St. Mark, but a member Website for of Mission Presbytery, I Linda Roberts consider this church to be my home church. My wife is a member there. My children are actively involved there. I’m enjoying getting to know the people there. They have warmly welcomed me and my family. The pastor at St. Mark is a man of admirable integrity and biblical commitment, as are his staff colleagues.

I appreciate the theological solidness of My wife, Linda, is a preaching and worship at St. Mark. So, if anything, I want to strengthen my ties with this Marriage and Family Counselor, congregation, not weaken them. If things with the PC(USA) get worse, as I fear they will, I want to wrestle through these challenges with my fellow believers at St. Mark, because a Spiritual they are my church family. (Photo: The chancel of St. Mark Presbyterian Church in Director, and a Boerne).

Retreat Speaker Books

I realize that it may seem odd to some of my readers that my first reason for staying in a denomination has to do with my personal relationship with a particular church. Why not just stay with this church but cut ties with the PC(USA) as a whole? The reason is that my relationship with the PC(USA) as a whole has never been primarily a matter of

10/17/2008 12:53 PM

Why Not Just Leave the PC(USA)?

3 of 14

http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/whynotleave.htm

denominational affiliation so much as a personal relationship with a particular church and its people. I became a pastor in the PC(USA), not mainly because I affirmed denominational beliefs and practices, but because I was actively involved in a PC(USA) congregation, the First Presbyterian Church of Hollywood. I am a Presbyterian today mostly because of relationships I have had and continue to have with other Presbyterians.

Because these relationships matter greatly to me, I am not inclined to break or injure or threaten them. If I’m ever in a place where I must leave the PC(USA), I hope I’ll be doing so with many others of like conviction, and not as a solo venture. This isn’t just about feeling connected. It’s a matter of theological conviction about the importance of corporate discernment and fellowship.

I'll have more to say about why I'm not leaving the PC(USA) next time.

Why Not Just Leave the PC(USA)? Part 2 Visit Books

Some of My Books: Click on book for more info

Part 2 of series: Why Not Just Leave the PC(USA)?

Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series Yesterday I began to answer the question: Why don’t you just leave the PC(USA)? My first reason was: I’m not leaving the PC(USA) because my church is part of the PC(USA).

Today I’ll add a couple more reasons.

2. I’m not leaving the PC(USA) because I have dear friends and partners in ministry in this denomination.

My second reason for staying put, at least for now, is like the first. It’s a matter of relationship and partnership in ministry. This answer points to a network of relationships that is broader than my local church. I’ve been a member of the PC(USA) for about 40 years, and an ordained pastor in this denomination for about half that time. Over the years I’ve built close friendships with many outstanding Christians in the PC(USA). Many are fellow pastors with whom I have shared in fellowship and mission. Most of these folk are in Los Ranchos Presbytery (Orange County and part of Los Angeles County, California), where I was a member for sixteen years. Since I moved to Texas, I joined Mission Presbytery, where I’m getting to know some fine folk.

Now I should mention that many of my brothers and sisters in the PC(USA) share my deep concerns about what’s happening in the denomination. We are not just sitting around enjoying each other’s company, that’s for sure. It’s possible that the day will come when many of us will feel compelled to leave the PC(USA). Or it’s possible that we will be involved in some sort of major restructuring of the denomination. Or it’s possible that we will feel called to remain in the PC(USA), standing for biblical truth and authority even though we might be in the minority. Or . . . well, God only knows. But, as I said with respect to my church, I hope that whatever happens between me and the PC(USA), it happens not just with me, but with those who share my commitments and vision for the church.

3. I’m not leaving the PC(USA) because, as of this moment, I have not been required by the denomination to do something that is contrary to my conscience.

Let’s take the most obvious example. As a Minister of Word and Sacrament in the PC(USA), I have always been free to act according to my conscience in all matters, and with regard to gay and lesbian ordination, in particular. Even though the General Assembly of the PC(USA) (our bi-annual national meeting) has voted three times to change our Book of Order to allow for the ordination of actively gay people, so far the church as a whole has not supported this change. We’ll see what happens in 2009, as the presbyteries vote on the latest recommendations from the 2008 General Assembly. But, as of September 5, 2008, I am not required to support the ordination of gays or to condone their lifestyle choices.

If, in 2009, the presbyteries vote to change the Book of Order so as to allow the ordination of active gays and lesbians, then my situation will be different. I have promised

10/17/2008 12:53 PM

Why Not Just Leave the PC(USA)?

4 of 14

http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/whynotleave.htm

to uphold the polity of the PC(USA). If that polity allows for gay ordination, I will be expected to support this practice. I’ve heard people say that perhaps an allowance will be made for people to remain faithful to their convictions if they believe gay ordination is wrong. But, given our history when it comes to ordination, and given the very nature of our connectional polity, it’s hard for me to imagine that the PC(USA) would allow for gays to be ordained, but somehow also allow those of us who think this is wrong not to recognize their ordination.

St. Mark Presbyterian Church, Boerne, TX

Click here for website of my new church

Recent Series

If the presbyteries vote in 2009 to allow for the ordination of active gays and lesbians, I may feel led to leave the PC(USA).

But, before I do this, I would need to pray long and hard about whether God wanted me to remain in the denomination as an advocate of biblical truth. I know quite a few Episcopal pastors who disagree with their denomination’s current position on homosexuality, yet who feel called to remain in the Episcopal Church and to bear witness to biblical teaching. This may be my calling as well in the PC(USA). Then again, it may not be. Time will tell. (Photo: No, not a gathering of Presbyterians, but penguins in Antarctica.)

I have friends who left the PC(USA) because they believed that they had been required to do that which was contrary to their conscience. The most obvious example has to do with money. A small portion of the offerings we give to PC(USA) churches ends up in the coffers of the denomination as a whole. (Some churches withhold all support for the denomination, but this is unusual, at least right now.) This means that whenever the denomination does something I find offensive, whether it has to do with changing the exegesis exam or making outlandish statements about Palestine and Israel or any number of other things, I am in a tiny way providing financial support for such actions. Yet I this has not led me to leave the PC(USA) because I still believe that much of what we do as a network of churches is consistent with the mission of Christ, and because the actual amount of my contribution to things I don’t support is miniscule. I don’t always like what my government does either, but I haven’t felt the need to leave the U.S. in search of a country that would never offend me. I just can’t imagine living in Antarctica.

The Growing Church: A Bible Study in Ephesians (PFR Breakfast Talk)

Why Not Just Leave the PC(USA)? Part 3

Choosing a Church: Some Recommendations

So far I’ve offered three answers to the question: Why don’t you just leave the PC(USA)?

They are:

Pride and the Power of the Pulpit Passionate Spirituality Ivy League Congress: Discerning God's Call My Statement of Faith

Part 3 of series: Why Not Just Leave the PC(USA)?

Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series

1. I’m not leaving the PC(USA) because my church is part of the PC(USA).

2. I’m not leaving the PC(USA) because I have dear friends and partners in ministry in this denomination.

3. I’m not leaving the PC(USA) because, as of this moment, I have not been required by the denomination to do something that is contrary to my conscience.

Here’s another reason: 4. I’m not leaving the PC(USA) because there is no perfect denomination or

10/17/2008 12:53 PM

Why Not Just Leave the PC(USA)?

5 of 14

Planning, Goals, and the Holy Spirit

http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/whynotleave.htm

church.

The PC(USA) has problems, plenty of them. But it’s not as if other denominations and churches are hassle-free. The Southern Baptists aren’t exactly having a happy church picnic. Neither are the Episcopalians. Nor the Methodists. In fact, every denomination of Being the which I am aware has its share of problems. So if I were to switch from the PC(USA) to a People of God denomination what was theologically and missionally more in line with my own You Know You're in convictions, before long I’d realize that the grass really wasn’t too much greener on the other side of the fence after all. a Small Town Praying in Jesus's Name

When . . . Police Blotters and Other Proofs

I have learned this lesson indirectly from several friends who have left the PC(USA). For example, about ten years ago, a friend I’ll call Greg decided that he’d had enough of the PC(USA)’s theological “all-over-the-mapness.” He wanted to be in a denomination that God at Work: A Review of the Book was theologically conservative and clear. So, though he as a PC(USA) pastor and had

by David W. Miller graduated from Princeton Seminary, a PC(USA) flagship, he determined to leave the denomination. Before long he was called to be the pastor of a PCA church. The Letting Go of a Presbyterian Church in America is a conservative denomination, which, in 1973, broke off Church from the denomination that became the PC(USA) over issues of biblical authority, theological clarity, and the ordination of women. In the last few years, the PCA has been Considering N.T. Wright growing steadily, unlike the shrinking PC(USA), though it continues to be considerably smaller than the PC(USA). There are many outstanding PCA churches, notably Redeemer Thanksgiving 2007 Presbyterian Church in New York City, where Tim Keller is the senior pastor.

Only in Texas

Anyway, back to my story about Greg. He and I remained friends after he left the PC(USA), though we didn’t have much contact for a while. A couple of years after he had joined the PCA, Greg and I had lunch. I asked him how it was going in his new Why Move? denomination, expecting to hear how much happier he was now than before. “I’ve got to Stewardship, be honest,” he said, “though I’m in much greater in agreement with the PCA theology, I’m Wineskins, and the getting tired of debates about whether the days in Genesis 1 are literal or not. Sometimes Enigmatic Will of I wish I were back in the PC(USA), where I could be a conservative standing up for biblical God truth, rather than someone whose conservative credentials are suspect. Plus, we have Grace in the plenty of churches with lots of problems. I’m glad I’m pastoring the church I’m in, but Rearview Mirror: A sometimes I regret leaving the PC(USA), in spite of all of its issues.”

Sharing Laity Lodge

A Pastoral Retrospective Ancient Ephesus and the New Testament

There isn’t a prefect denomination. Were I to switch to something else, I’d leave behind one set of problems but take on another set.

I expect that, at this point, some of my readers might want to shout: “Then why not join an European independent, non-denominational church? You Reflections 2007 wouldn’t have denominational hassles to worry god is not Great by about.” Indeed. Sometimes non-denominationalism seems to offer much Christopher Hitchens: A greener grass. I know of some fantastic Response non-denominational churches, like RockHarbor The Mission of God Church in Costa Mesa, California, near where I and the Missional used to live. This is a dynamic, growing, theologically-solid church. I know several of the Church pastors there, and hold them in high regard.

Sainthood, Service, (Photo: Todd Proctor is the Lead Pastor [i.e. and Suffering Senior Pastor] of RockHarbor. Curiously enough, Suffering, he’s not the primary teacher/preacher. Todd is Learning, and the an accomplished worship leader and composer Virginia Tech who has strong leadership gifts.)

Tragedy

But even RockHarbor has its problems.

Moreover, I’ve watched lots of independent churches struggle mightily in ways Fifty Days of Easter denominational churches often avoid. Because The Stations of the they’re free to make it up as they go along, rather than follow denominational wisdom and be held accountable by denominational Cross bodies, non-denominational churches sometimes get into huge messes. For example, I Words to Weigh know of one megachurch in which the board of elders was unhappy with its Senior Pastor.

How Does God So the board got together and fired the pastor, hiring a brand new pastor in the same Guide Us? meeting. When people arrived at the worship service on the next Sunday morning, they Handel's Messiah and Easter

10/17/2008 12:53 PM

Why Not Just Leave the PC(USA)?

6 of 14

Start Here, Don Williams, and the Kingdom of God Christmas According to Dickens (2006) Advent and the Christian Year (2006) The Nativity Story and The Real Mary Unintended Lessons from Ted Haggard Andrew Sullivan, Hugh Hewitt, and Retrofitted Christianity What is a Church?

Biblical Basics for Christian Community Sunday Inspiration Churches, Elections, and the IRS 9/11 and Faith Summer Sights 2006 The PCUSA Book Crisis Are the New Testament Gospels Reliable? Further Thoughts What's Good About Denominations?

On Baptists and Blogging The End of the Presbyterian Church USA?

http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/whynotleave.htm

were informed that they had a brand new Senior Pastor. You can imagine the reaction from the people, most of whom had no idea there were problems with the former pastor.

The lack of any sort of pastoral transition contributed to the ultimate demise of this once thriving church.

I’ve also had friends who have been summarily fired without due process by their independent churches. In one case, a pastor who thought he was doing a good job was terminated, given only two weeks notice and compensation. The fact that he was supporting a family of four children didn’t seem to matter to the board. This man had no recourse other than to sue his church, which he refused to do on biblical grounds. So he and his family entered an extended season of grief, anger, and financial hardship.

Now I expect some of my readers are wondering why we should bother with the church at all. I can understand such wondering. Sometimes I’ve thought the same myself. But I believe that the church is, in addition to being a human institution with plenty of problems, the body of Christ and the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit. Yes, the church in general and churches in particular have lots of problems. That’s the way it is this side of the new creation. But churches also do lots and lots and lots of good, often representing Christ quite faithfully. Moreover, there are strong theological reasons to be committed to the church, and even to hang with a denomination in crisis. I’ll touch upon some of these reasons in my next post.

Why Not Just Leave the PC(USA)? Part 4 Part 4 of series: Why Not Just Leave the PC(USA)?

Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series To this point I’ve given four answers to the question: Why don’t you just leave the PC(USA)? They are: 1. I’m not leaving the PC(USA) because my church is part of the PC(USA).

2. I’m not leaving the PC(USA) because I have dear friends and partners in ministry in this denomination.

3. I’m not leaving the PC(USA) because, as of this moment, I have not been required by the denomination to do something that is contrary to my conscience.

4. I’m not leaving the PC(USA) because there is no perfect denomination or church.

My next reason is biblical and theological.

5. Scripture calls us to make “every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph 4:3).

The New Testament letter known as Ephesians begins by revealing God’s grand plan for

Colorful Arguments the cosmos: “to gather up all things in [Christ], things in heaven and things on earth” (Eph for the Existence of 1:10). This bringing together of all things happens through Christ, whose death leads not God only to individual salvation, but also to the unifying of divided people (Eph 2:1-22). The The Da Vinci Code FAQ: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions About The Da Vinci Code The Gospel of Judas: A Special Report Easter: Still More Than Just a Day

church, through its unity, becomes a demonstration to the cosmos that God’s plan has been implemented and has begun to work (Eph 3:7-13). Thus, when Ephesians gets to practical matters of how to live out this theological vision, it’s no surprise to read Paul’s appeal: I therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all (Eph 4:1-6).

The Seven Last Words of Christ: Reflections for Holy Since the unity of the church is grounded, not only in the gospel, but also in the very nature of God, it is essential that Christians make every effort to maintain that unity. The Week (2006)

10/17/2008 12:53 PM

Why Not Just Leave the PC(USA)?

7 of 14

The Da Vinci Opportunity How Lent Can Make a Difference in Your Relationship with God A Tale of Two Bodes Reflections on the ONE Campaign Ruminating on the National Prayer Breakfast

http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/whynotleave.htm

English phrase “making every effort” translates the Greek participle spoudazontes, which means “being eager or zealous, exerting great effort, or acting with haste.” Unity is not something to be taken for granted or ignored. It is to be sought with eagerness and effort.

One of the main reasons I remain a member of the PC(USA) in spite of years of unhappiness with many of our decisions and actions is that I believe I need to “make every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” I will confess that I am not always eager to preserve Presbyterian unity. But even when my zeal lags, I still exert effort in the cause of unity.

The NRSV translation “making every effort” seems to imply that there would never be a time to step back from unity, since there would be no end to possible efforts on could make. This implication, however, does not capture the precise sense of the Greek verb spoudazein. Paul is not saying that there never is a time to back away from Christian unity. But such a time should be very unusual, and should come only after a significant effort to preserve unity.

Oprah, James Frey, and the Question One of Paul’s letters to the Corinthians provides an example of a time when unity in Christ of Truth should be broken, at least for a season. In 1 Corinthians 5, we learn of a believer who is The Bible, the Qur'an, Bart Ehrman, and the Words of God The Daily Psalm: What? How? Why? Christmas Reflections

engaging in sexual relations with his stepmother (5:1). The Corinthians, probably misconstruing what freedom in Christ is all about, have been boasting about this man’s actions. Paul is incensed: “Should you not rather have mourned, so that he who has done this would have been removed from among you?” (5:2). The Corinthians are not to maintain the appearance of unity by tolerating the sinful behavior of the fornicating man.

His persistent sin and unwillingness to repent has, in fact, fractured the unity of the Spirit.

Breaking fellowship with the man is required, though with the hope that, in the end, he will be saved (5:5).

The second letter of John provides another scenario in which Christians are not to remain Celebrating Christmas in Public in fellowship together. The context is one of false teaching. Specifically, “many deceivers King Kong vs.

Aslan Reflections on the Narnia Movie Christmas Tree Controversies Advent and the Christian Year (2005) Thanksgiving Reflections 2005

have gone out into the world, those who do not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh” (v. 7). John counsels his church to respond in this way: Everyone who does not abide in the teaching of Christ, but goes beyond it, does not have God; whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. Do not receive into the house or welcome anyone who comes to you and does not bring this teaching; for to welcome is to participate in the evil deeds of such a person (vv. 9-11).

So, if a supposedly Christian teacher denies the incarnation of Christ, this person is not to be welcomed or received into the house (church). The church is not to tolerate heretical teaching on the central issues of faith. Heresy can lead to the breaking of tangible unity because, in a way, heresy itself shatters the unity of the Spirit.

Churches, Elections, and the IRS

So how does all of this relate to the PC(USA)? There have been a few in the PC(USA) who have denied such basics as the deity of Christ. I heard one pastor do this very thing in a Presbytery meeting where he was involved in examining a candidate for ordination. This pastor was upset that the candidate has said so plainly that Jesus was God incarnate. At Are the New Testament Gospels the time, I thought the examination was going in the wrong direction, and the candidate Reliable? should have been examining the pastor! But the vast majority of Presbyterians, including those who are more liberal in their theology, profess such central doctrines as the deity Vocation and and humanity of Christ and salvation through him alone. Moreover, the PC(USA)’s Relationship Constitution is very clear about the basic doctrines of the Christian faith, and these are not Do Demons Exist? being denied or debated by most people in the denomination. Thus, the “making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit” command prevails over the “do not receive into Unmasking the the house command” at this time, at least in my opinion.

Jesus Seminar In the Aftermath of If, however, the PC(USA) were to vote in the next year to approve of the ordination of Hurricane Katrina active gays and lesbians, or if our top judicial body endorses that which allow for such ordinations even without a change in the Book of Order, then we who are seeking to be Pope Watch: Reflections on the faithful to Scripture may find ourselves in situation analogous to 1 Corinthians 5. We may Papacy of Benedict end up in a church that approves of what Scripture identifies as sin. And if the XVI denomination fails to exercise appropriate discipline with a person who sins and intends to Summer Vacation 2005

continue, then we’ll have to consider whether it’s right for us to remain the denomination.

In this case, the call to make every effort to maintain unity is in tension with the call to uphold biblical standards of righteousness. We’re caught between our commitment to

10/17/2008 12:53 PM

Why Not Just Leave the PC(USA)?

8 of 14

Seeking the Peace of Christ: Christianity and Peacemaking VBS Fun Evangelical Christians and Social Activism Reflections on Fatherhood The Great Commission and the "Christers" No Holds Barred: Ruminations on Publishing and Prayer

http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/whynotleave.htm

unity and our commitment to purity.

Some have argued that if the PC(USA) officially endorses what Scripture reveals as sinful, then the PC(USA) itself has broken the unity of the Spirit. There is no more unity to be maintained, or so the argument goes. I’m not quite sure I buy this argument, though I do believe that it’s possible for the denomination to do that which effectively severs our covenantal bonds. Some have argued that the actions of the 2008 General Assembly did, in fact, severely damage or even break our covenantal unity. (See, for example, a declaration that is being presented to the Beaver-Butler Presbytery for a vote later this month. Thanks to Presbyweb for publishing this declaration.)

Returning to Ephesians 4, we see that part of preserving the unity of the Spirit involves “bearing with one another in love” (Eph 4:2). One might just as well translate the original Greek as “putting up with one another in love.” This “putting up” does not have to do with our response to those who sin against us. This requires the response of forgiveness.

Rather, we put up with each other when they do things that bother us, things that get on our nerves, things that make us want to run in the other direction.

One of the recent commentators on my blog made a helpful distinction, one he learned from Richard Lovelace. It’s the distinction between “tolerable stupidities” and “intolerable stupidities.” (Thanks, Paul.) I rather like that difference. Much of what has bugged me about the PC(USA) over the years has fallen into the “tolerable stupidities” category. But, The Lure of the increasingly, the tolerable seems to be morphing into the intolerable. So when a General Dark Side: Star Wars and the Bible Assembly votes to allow for the ordination of active gays, and when it votes to endorse lawsuits against a sister denomination, and when it encourages us to worship alongside What To Do When Muslims as if our theological differences were minor, and when it votes to approve of Someone Sins those who reject our accepted church rules, I begin to wonder whether I should continue Against You: to “bear with the PC(USA) in love.” I wonder if the unity of the Spirit I am seeking to Guidance from the preserve still exists.

Cinderella Man: Some Reflections

Master

God's Guidance for Christians in Conflict Blogging and Sainthood Easter: More Than Just a Day The Protestant Mary? Reflections on the TIME Cover Story - Catholics and Protestants in Conversation Is the TNIV Good News? Examining the Translation Debate Ash Wednesday: Practice and Meaning

Why Not Just Leave the PC(USA)? Part 5 Part 5 of series: Why Not Just Leave the PC(USA)?

Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series So far in this series I’ve given five answers to the question: Why don’t you just leave the PC(USA)? They are: 1. I’m not leaving the PC(USA) because my church is part of the PC(USA).

2. I’m not leaving the PC(USA) because I have dear friends and partners in ministry in this denomination.

3. I’m not leaving the PC(USA) because, as of this moment, I have not been required by the denomination to do something that is contrary to my conscience.

4. I’m not leaving the PC(USA) because there is no perfect denomination or church.

5. Scripture calls us to make “every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph 4:3).

Greeting in Church: Should We Today I want to mention a reason that is not keeping me in the PC(USA). This is a reason Do It? I sometimes hear, but do not find persuasive.

The Force of Freedom: The Political Theology of George W. Bush A Rolling Stone Gathers No . . .

Bible?

Happy TIME: Does God What Us to Be Happy?

I am not staying in the PC(USA) because I believe the theological diversity in the denomination is good for me. I’ve heard this sort of thing from my friends, both evangelicals and progressives. An evangelical will say, “I need to be in a church with [supply name of your favorite liberal] because she challenges me and helps me to think more clearly and truly and not to get into an evangelical rut.” A liberal will say, “I need to be in a church with [supply name of your favorite evangelical] because he challenges me and helps me to think more clearly and truly and not to get into a liberal rut.”

I’m not persuaded by this argument. I have plenty of friends who are more conservative than I am theologically, and plenty of friends who are more liberal than I am

10/17/2008 12:53 PM

Why Not Just Leave the PC(USA)?

9 of 14

http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/whynotleave.htm

All Things New: theologically. These friends challenge me and help to keep me honest in my theology and New Year's and the discipleship. I appreciate these friends and I am glad they’re in my life. But they are not Tsunami members of the PC(USA). In fact, given their views on various issues, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for us to be in the same denomination. Yet we can be friends. We can Christmas join together in certain kinds of short-term ministry. We can talk theology and challenge According to Dickens each other. We can love each other with the love of Christ. We can be in the church of Christmas Carol Surprises The Birth of Jesus: Hype or History?

Advent and the Christian Year Euthanasia in the Netherlands A Week of Thanksgiving Tod Bolsinger & Show Time: Interview and Excerpts The Presidential Election: A Christian Response Was Jesus Divine?

The Early Christian Perspective The Church and Politics in America Christian Inclusiveness The Soul of Worship: What is Worship from a Biblical Perspective?

American Reflections Church. . . What Really Matters?

Same-Sex Marriage: A Sober Assessment The Greatest Danger We Face?

The Los Angeles County Cross Controversy European Reflections Salt and Light Harvard Ironies An In-Depth Review of Mel Gibson's film, The Passion of the Christ

Jesus Christ together. But our differences are such that we’d have a very hard time being in the same particular church or denomination. If we tried to be a denomination together, we’d exhaust ourselves trying to manage our differences, leaving very little time for mission.

When folks say, “I need so-and-so in my denomination to challenge me and keep me honest,” it almost sounds as if they’re limiting their Christian relationships to people of the same denomination. Yet if this is not true, won’t they be challenged and kept honest by Christian brothers and sisters from other denominations?

Admittedly, I’m making certain assumptions about what a denomination ought to be. A denomination, it seems to me, exists primarily to further the mission of Jesus Christ through supporting, building upon, and expanding the mission of individual churches. If churches are to be united in mission, they need to agree on many basic things, like, for example, the nature of Christian mission. If they don’t agree on this, then their efforts to join in mission together will be hampered. To be sure, liberals and conservatives can come together for certain projects, like hurricane relief. But they have a much harder time doing mission together when, for example, they don’t agree on what evangelism is, or on how Christians ought to be involved in politics, or on sexual ethics, etc.

In my opinion, one of the main reasons the PC(USA) is failing in its mission and losing members at such a rapid rate is the ineffectiveness that comes from untenable theological diversity. We have been trying so hard to stay together in spite of our differences that we don’t have the energy and focus needed for effective mission. For example, years ago I served on the Evangelism Committee of Los Ranchos Presbytery. We were a relatively strong and effective committee, partly because committee members all agreed on a few basics, like what evangelism was. But then a woman joined our committee who saw evangelism as something other than sharing the good news of Christ in order to help people become his disciples. For her, evangelism meant doing good works, working for justice, and not saying anything about Jesus. For one year this woman made our committee work extremely difficult, not because she was hard to work with, but because we were all making such a giant effort to include her and not hurt her feelings. We wanted to be a “big tent” committee. We were a big tent, I suppose, but didn’t get much done.

Our mission of helping the churches in Los Ranchos Presbytery to do evangelism effectively was stymied by our theological diversity.

Now I’m all in favor of contexts in which those who are committed to evangelism are challenged to consider the biblical call to social justice. And I’m equally open to conversations that challenge the justice folk to consider how their efforts should be a reflection of the Christian gospel. But I believe that efforts of people actually to do evangelism and efforts of people actually to do justice can be hampered if they can’t agree on what evangelism is or what justice is. A certain measure of theological diversity will strengthen a denomination or a church or a committee. But too much diversity will weaken them and make it almost impossible for them to fulfill their mission.

Again, let me emphasize once again that I’m not saying theological diversity is always to be avoided. In fact, I work now at Laity Lodge, a ministry with strong evangelical convictions that has, nevertheless, a wide ecumenical reach. We have at Laity Lodge both conservative Southern Baptists and progressive Episcopalians, not to mention all sorts of different Methodists, Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Pentecostals, Church of Christ folk, and independents. I enjoy our fellowship in Christ and conversations about our theological differences. But if we all tried to start a church together or form one denomination, we’d have quite a mess in our hands because our theological and practical diversities are too broad for this kind of institutional and missional unity.

I should add, by the way, that I think certain kinds of diversities are crucial beyond just theological ones. In fact, it may be more important for Christians to have significant relationships with other believers who are diverse in non-theological ways than for us to have lots of friends with different theologies. For example, as a middle-aged, Anglo-

10/17/2008 12:53 PM

Why Not Just Leave the PC(USA)?

10 of 14

Easter from the Other Side of the Pulpit Holy Week: The Seven Last Words of Jesus Mad Max & the Maccabees Visual Arts in Faith and Worship Developing a Biblical Worldview in 2004 Cultural Impact or Cultural Irrelevance: A Christian Dilemma

http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/whynotleave.htm

upper-middle-class-American-male-intellectual, I need to have fellowship with Christians who are other than I am, including: people who are older and younger than I am, persons of color, persons both wealthier than I am and poorer than I am, people who are not Americans, women, people who are freer in expression and more in touch with their emotions than I am, etc. etc. etc. Denominations can help to foster relationships of this sort, though often they bring together people who are more or less the same, even if they have theological differences.

So, in sum, I’m not staying in the PC(USA) because I need to be in fellowship with people who have different theologies than I have. I have plenty of non-PC(USA) friends who fill this bill, and could always find more if needed. I do believe that a certain amount of theological diversity is healthy in a church or denomination. But, in my opinion, what we have in the PC(USA) is too diverse to support effective mission. We PC(USA) folk are like a team of backpackers who are carrying such a giant tent on our backs that we can’t make it up the mountain we’re supposed to climb. As a result, we’re unable to fulfill our mission. At some point we’ll have to choose, I expect, whether we want to keep hanging on to our big tent and remain missionally stuck, or whether it’s time to carry smaller tents that will enable us to start moving up the mountain. (Photo: The High Sierra in California from Kaiser Wilderness.)

The Da Vinci Code FAQ: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions About The Da Vinci Code The Da Vinci Opportunity

Jesus Series The Birth of Jesus: Hype or History?

Was Jesus Divine?

The Early Christian Perspective Why Did Jesus Have to Die? Was Jesus Married?

A Careful Look at the Real Evidence What Was the Message of Jesus?

How Can We Know Anything About the Real Jesus?

What Languages Did Jesus Speak and Why Does It Matter?

Recovering the Scandal of the Cross The Seven Last Words of Jesus

Links in categories Blogs Transformed Daily

Why Not Just Leave the PC(USA)? Part 6 Part 6 of series: Why Not Just Leave the PC(USA)?

Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series This post is Part 6 of the series Why Not Just Leave the PC(USA)? It is also Part 1 of a new series called The PC(USA) and Church Property.

So far in this series I have given five reasons why I am not currently planning to leave the PC(USA). In my last post I explained one reason frequently given for not leaving that is not persuasive to me. In today’s post I want to explore one of the stronger reasons for not leaving the PC(USA), a reason that is fraught with complication and controversy.

If you are committed to your local Presbyterian church, whether as the church’s pastor or a member, then you’d tend not to want to leave the PC(USA) unless your church leaves with you. But, in many cases, it’s a very difficult and painful thing for a church to leave the PC(USA). There are two main reasons for this.

10/17/2008 12:53 PM

Why Not Just Leave the PC(USA)?

11 of 14

Christian Intellect & Apologetics RedBlueChristian Theologica It Takes a Church Tabletalk Porch Pondering Hugh Hewitt Evangelical Outpost Better Living Smart Christian

http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/whynotleave.htm

First, when churches vote to leave the PC(USA), they rarely do by a vote of 100% for leaving and 0% for staying. (In June of this year, Lancaster Presbyterian Church in New York did vote 243-0 to leave the denomination, but this sort of unanimity is unusual.) This means that when a congregation votes to leave the PC(USA), it is also voting to split itself into two different congregations. People who have worshipped together, prayed together, and served together will now be in separate churches. Friends may very well end up on different sides of the vote and therefore in different churches. From a relational and emotional perspective, therefore, it’s hard for a church to leave the denomination.

Second, when a church votes to leave the PC(USA), it is not entitled to keep its property.

Unlike the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, which allows congregations to leave the denomination with its property if two-thirds of the members vote to leave, the PC(USA) claims to own the church property even if 100% of the members vote to leave. This claim is ensconced in the PC(USA) Book of Order, which reads: G-8.0201 Property Is Held in Trust

Leithart.com Adrian Warnock Trommetter Times Broken Masterpieces Neophytepundit My Damascus Road World Magazine 1 Hand Clapping Bill Hobbs The Living Room Parablemania In the Agora Ship of Fools All About God Jollyblogger titusonenine Radio Blogger Better Bibles Blog Stones Cry Out Dash House 21st Century Reformation Reason to Believe AmbivaBlog World of Your Making Daddypundit

All property held by or for a particular church, a presbytery, a synod, the General Assembly, or the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), whether legal title is lodged in a corporation, a trustee or trustees, or an unincorporated association, and whether the property is used in programs of a particular church or of a more inclusive governing body or retained for the production of income, is held in trust nevertheless for the use and benefit of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

This means, in effect, that a particular church does not really own its own property. If it leaves the denomination, it leaves its property, or at least it surrenders the right to keep its property. This is true, in principle, even if, as is almost always the case, the property was purchased and developed by the members of the church, with relatively little assistance from denominational bodies.

The Book of Order does not address directly a situation when a church votes 100% to leave the PC(USA). It does speak of what should happen when a congregation has a split vote to leave.

G-8.0601 Property of Church in Schism The relationship to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) of a particular church can be severed only by constitutional action on the part of the presbytery.

(G-11.0103i) If there is a schism within the membership of a particular church and the presbytery is unable to effect a reconciliation or a division into separate churches within the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the presbytery shall determine if one of the factions is entitled to the property because it is identified by the presbytery as the true church within the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). This determination does not depend upon which faction received the majority vote within the particular church at the time of the schism.

What this means is that, in theory, the presbytery of which a church is a member has the right to dismiss that church to another denomination. (I say “in theory” because presbyteries that have voted to let churches leave with their property are being challenged by their synods.) In most cases, however, the presbytery will decide that the faction that has voted to remain in the PC(USA) is “the true church” within the PC(USA), and therefore entitled to the property. This has nothing to do with the percentage of the vote. Even if 95% of a church voted to leave the denomination, the presbytery could decide that the “true church” was the remaining 5%.

Grace is Sufficient Religion, Law, & Culture Review unResolved Tensions A-"Muse"-ing Thoughts

In fact, as more and more churches are voting to leave the PC(USA), presbyteries are responding quite diversely. Some have allowed churches to leave with their property without any payment. Other presbyteries have required churches to pay some relatively small amount of money to keep their property. Other presbyteries have required departing congregations to leave without their property. When congregations have refused, these presbyteries have taken them to court. So you end up with a situation where a presbytery and a former congregation of that presbytery are suing each other in civil court.

10/17/2008 12:53 PM

Why Not Just Leave the PC(USA)?

12 of 14

tallskinnykiwi Blah, Blah, Blah withallyourmind Rhett Smith Between Two Worlds

http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/whynotleave.htm

In my next post I’ll have a few things to say about this regrettable situation. For now I simply want to note, by way of summary, that it is not an easy thing for a church to leave the PC(USA). I’m not suggesting, by the way, that it should be easy. But sometimes you’ll hear people recommend that evangelical churches leave the denomination as if it was a simple and painless thing to do. In fact, it is neither simple nor painful.

This discussion will be continued in the series: The PC(USA) and Church Property.

Logan's Blog David Wayne: Jolly Blogger Rebecca Stark: Rebecca Writes Arch Van Devender: Gadfly's Muse Tim Challies Bill Meisheid: Beyond the Rim Shayne Raynor: Wesley Blog Fulcrum

Professor Blogs Ben Witherington Scot McKnight Douglas Groothuis Al Mohler John Mark Reynolds Claude Mariottini Ryan Bolger Mark Goodacre Jim Davila Phil Harland Evangelical Textual Criticism Bible Dudes James Crossley Andreas Köstenberger

Resources for Leaders Worship Team Training The High Calling BetterWebBuys BetterWebSearch Kingdom Rain The Voice

10/17/2008 12:53 PM

Presbytery Votes on G‐6.0106b

Number of Prresbyteries

140

127

100

Keep Standard Remove Standard

114

120 97 74

80

57

60

46

159 remaining

40 13

20

1

0

1996/97 1997/98 Source: Presbyterian Coalition.

vote history.xlsx (Summary)

2001/02

2008/09

1/13/2009 4:55 PM

GROUPS WITHIN PCUSA

 National Korean Presbyterian Council

David Marshall The Presbyterian Coalition [office@presbycoalition.org] Tuesday, January 13, 2009 1:06 AM dwmarshall@agrimgt.com News from The Presbyterian Coalition

From: Sent: To: Subject:

National Korean Council calls PC(USA) to uphold "fidelity and chastity" January 13, 2009 Dear David, The National Korean Presbyterian Council is sending a letter to every Presbyterian Church encouraging a "no" vote on Amendment B. In their strongly worded letter, our Korean brothers and sisters urge Presbyterians to "stand firm and uphold our current Constitution (G-6.0106b) concerning ordination standards." I hope you are encouraged by their boldness:

Dear Presbyterian sisters and brothers: Greetings in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ! This letter has come out of genuine love for our "Mother Church," the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). As a body within the denomination, we Korean Presbyterians, represented by 400 congregations, 800 ministers, and 50,000 members would like to express our concerns over the current state of the PCUSA. In response to the crucial decisions of the 218th General Assembly of the PCUSA, the National Korean Presbyterian Council (NKPC) has decided to call upon all Presbyterians to stand firm and uphold our current Constitution (G-6.0106b) concerning ordination standards.

In spite of our sinfulness, we firmly believe that the power of the triune God can transform our lives and liberate all of us from the oppression of sin, whether our particular vices are sexual or nonsexual, and if the former, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual in kind. The transformation can happen at the cross where God's righteousness and grace is manifested. Therefore, we urge all congregations in the PCUSA to be united at the foot of the cross in repentance and humility. Behold a new creation in Christ, created according to the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness!

Previous generations of Presbyterian missionaries brought to Korea the gospel of Jesus Christ that has powerfully transformed countless Korean people. As immigrant Korean Presbyterians, we are deeply concerned about the alarming decline in membership within 1

the PCUSA. That symptom coincides with the loss of energy and focus on the Great Commission - evangelism and mission. The PCUSA has too long been in this debate on ordination standards resulting in further deterioration of mutual trust among Presbyterians and possible schism. We call all Presbyterians to redirect our energy and resources to the great ends of the church.

The NKPC is very concerned about the direction of our current path that will ultimately cause irreparable tension among reformed churches of the world. We believe in one universal body of Christ. If our denomination decides to unilaterally depart from historical confessions and biblical beliefs that tie our bond with other reformed churches, we will further isolation from the global faith community. As a result, our mission in the world is going to suffer embedded distrust and hinder God's mission. We hope that the sessions and congregations better understand the context and implications of the upcoming presbytery vote on ordination standards.

We the NKPC, as members of our beloved denomination, pledge to pray and work without ceasing for the unity and mission and evangelism of the PCUSA for the glory of God. Faithfully in Christ,

Praying with you as we work together for the defeat of the new Amendment B, Terry Schlossberg Campaign to Defeat Amendment B (703) 680-4571 or terry@presbycoalition.org Did you know that you can make a contribution to The Presbyterian Coalition online? Click here for more information and a user-friendly form.

Forward email This email was sent to dwmarshall@agrimgt.com by office@presbycoalition.org.

Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribeâ&#x201E;˘ | Privacy Policy.

The Presbyterian Coalition | 4604 Grove Avenue | | Richmond | VA | 23226

2