What Way Ahead, Michael Walker

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

1 of 7

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

What Way Ahead? Part Two: Initiating the Case for Realignment Written by Michael R. Walker, Theologian in Residence, Highland Park Presbyterian Church, Dallas, TX 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.

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.

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 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 ature 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,

9/24/2008 11:52 AM

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

2 of 7

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

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 unityin-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.

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

9/24/2008 11:52 AM

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

3 of 7

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

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 Sort by: Date Rating Last Activity Collapse thread

Robert_Campbell • 1p

Thread active 3 days ago

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 » 3 days ago Michael Walker • 16p

REPORT POST REPLY

+1

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. » 3 days ago Paul Masters

REPORT POST REPLY

0

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. » 3 days ago Michael Walker • 16p

REPORT POST REPLY

+1

9/24/2008 11:52 AM

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

4 of 7

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 value-neutral 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.

Enough for now‌God be with you and your own discernment on the way ahead.

-Michael Âť 3 days ago Paul Masters

REPORT POST REPLY

0

9/24/2008 11:52 AM

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

5 of 7

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

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. » 3 days ago Linda Lee

REPORT POST REPLY

0

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? » 3 days ago Michael Walker • 16p

REPORT 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 » 3 days ago

REPORT POST REPLY

0

9/24/2008 11:52 AM

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

6 of 7

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

Matt Ferguson 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. » 2 days 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. » 1 day ago Chris_Scruggs • 1p

REPORT 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 » 1 day ago Pete Smith

REPORT POST REPLY

0

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. » 1 day ago David L. Bierschwale

REPORT POST REPLY

0

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".

9/24/2008 11:52 AM

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

7 of 7

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

Âť 1 day ago

REPORT POST REPLY

Post a new comment Enter text right here!

Name * Email (track replies) Blog URL Sign up for IntenseDebate Why? | Login Or post using OpenID

SUBMIT COMMENT

Get better comments

Back to Top

9/24/2008 11:52 AM