Guest Viewpoint by The Rev. Dr. Doug Harper

A number of my colleagues are in churches either seeking to leave the PC(USA) or have already left. They have left for many of the same reasons that we are leaving, which I have articulated in previous posts. We are not new to ministry, but we are also not able to see the issues from the experience of a lifetime of ministry, which means that we are at risk of what C. S. Lewis calls chronological snobbery. To keep myself in check, I value the ideas of Teaching and Ruling Elders with far more experience than me. On the matter of seeking dismissal, what I hear from respected "elder statesmen" is that leaving is a faithful and right choice. FPC Douglasville heard from two of our retired pastors, Leon Jeffords and Sandy Fox, that leaving is a faithful and good decision. I have heard that same affirmation from many other elder statesmen of the church. I thought it would be helpful for you to hear from another retired pastor, in particular my father. He has watched the denomination drift for a long time and he has worked for decades towards its renewal. He has never before endorsed leaving, but that has changed. He believes that the PC(USA) has crossed a rubicon. If you know my father's history of dedication to the denomination, you know he does not arrive at this position lightly and you know that the problems are quite serious. His perspective his helpful for my own thoughts on leaving and may help you as well.


One Step Too Far
by Dr. M. Douglas Harper Jr.

After 60 years of ordained ministry in the Presbyterian Church U.S. and in the Presbyterian Church (USA), with great sadness I have concluded that if I were Pastor of a congregation today I would be willing to lead that congregation so seek dismissal to another Reformed denomination.  Specifically, I would advocate their becoming part of ECO. This conclusion is all the more surprising because from 1978-1981 I worked diligently as a member of the Joint Committee on Church Union to end the 120+ year-old Civil War-induced split between the major Southern and Northern branches of the Presbyterian Church.

What has happened to make me reach this conclusion?   I believe that recent judicial proceedings as well as an action of the 2012 General Assembly have turned authority in our denomination upside-down.  This is what I mean:  I was taught and still believe that the Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice.  I was taught and still believe that the Book of Confessions is our secondary authority, always subject to correction by Scripture.  It was with that understanding that I helped write the Brief Statement of Faith, the most recent addition to our Book of Confessions.

This means that, as I was taught and still believe, the Book of Order as well as all actions of assemblies and commissions rank third in authority after the Bible and the Book of Confessions. Their actions must conform to these two higher authorities.  However, the 2012 General Assembly received a motion to amend the Book of Order and debated it in spite of a point of order that the motion was clearly in conflict with the Book of Confessions.  The proposed motion was defeated. This does not change the fact that by this action a sitting General Assembly, as James Goodloe notes, “knowingly and willingly rejected the confessions as having any say so about the faith, life or government of the church.” (Paper, “The Church One and Holy”, p. 13)  This is consistent with the decision made by the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission earlier in 2012 in a case originating in San Francisco Presbytery.

This turns authority in the church upside-down!  The order is no longer the Bible, then the Book of Confessions, and only after that the Book of Order and the decisions of commissions and councils.  Now the decisions of the General Assembly and commissions and councils outrank both the Confessions and the Bible. They may not – and I pray they will not—follow the logic of their own decisions.  There is, however, no longer any constitutional barrier to their doing so.

Clearly, these are perilous times for the faith and spiritual life of members and congregations in the PC (USA)!  When I was a Pastor (I am now retired) I did my best to nurture the faith and life of the congregations I served. This meant faithfully following the teachings of Scripture and upholding the Reformed faith in accordance with the confessions of our church.  I do not believe that pastoral faithfulness means allowing the decisions of the most recent General Assembly or the latest decisions of various Permanent Judicial Commissions to  define what we should believe and how we should live.

For that reason, with great sorrow I must conclude that if I were presently the Pastor of a congregation I would seek an orderly way to unite with a Reformed body that still holds to the Bible as its supreme authority for faith and life and the confessions as authoritative insofar as they follow the teachings of Scripture.  

A Response To “Constitutional Musings: Misrepresentations Of The PC(USA)”

In June, the Office Of The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) issued a paper called “Constitutional Musings: Misrepresentations Of The PC(USA).” You can find the article here: http://www.pcusa.org/resource/misrepresentations-pcusa/. I offer here a brief response to the paper. Carmen Fowler Laberge of the Layman has a helpful response that I recommend you also read.

To establish context, the paper was written to refute the complaints and concerns of many non-profits and churches about the departure of the PC(USA) from its historic biblical and theological moorings. The overall message of the paper follows a common pattern when the PC(USA) attempts to defend itself.

It fails to address any validity in the arguments made by those dissatisfied with the denomination, which has been the case for a long time. The defensive strategy is to deny everything. Admission of problems and failures would have gone a long way towards building unity. Instead, we are a deeply divided denomination.

It fails to acknowledge the extent of the division in the PC(USA). Only the most naïve among us won’t admit that. There are large segments of the church that have very different understandings of matters like the Bible, our core beliefs, the Christian life, and the role of a denominational structure. It would help immensely if those in national leadership would recognize it, acknowledge it, and then lead in designing ways to manage our polarity. Despite tensions rising all over the country, the denial strategy seems to be the plan going forward.

The national office condenses the critiques into four categories to which I will briefly respond.  I’ll summarize each of their points, but I suggest your read the document yourself.

The first point is an attempt to refute the charge that the denomination has drifted from its historic identity. The essence of the defense is to point to the content of our ordination vows and other parts of our constitutional documents. While I completely agree that our constitutional documents contain strong, clear statements about the Christian life, they also contain internally conflicting statements. It is also hard to argue that we have good documents, yet have little response for a multitude of cases in which behavior and beliefs are contrary to those documents. They cite in their footnotes only the problem of the Reimagining Conference. What they fail to say is that some of those involved in the conference spun off a group called Voices of Sophia that still exists and meets at every General Assembly.

The second point defends against the accusation that the PC(USA) has adopted a liberal political agenda as a core mission. What is perhaps a more accurate statement of the complaints is that PC(USA) has given inordinate attention to political agendas, and secondly to liberal political agendas. All Presbyterians I know think that we should be “doing good in wanting places”; however, we define “doing good” differently. Our definition would not include alienating large segments of your constituencies with a lopsided political agenda.

The third point addresses the criticism of the denomination’s decline in membership. The first defense essentially points to the fact that other denominations are dying, too. That gives me very little comfort. Our loss is something we should grieve for it means we are in danger of failing the Great Commission. Membership alone is not the only health check for our denomination, but it is too important to be passed over lightly. The document points to two positive efforts to grow. One is our new, more flexible Form of Government. It is indeed new and it is more flexible than before, but it will not change our situation. It also runs the risk of watering down our theological and biblical identity even more. The one bright point of our denominational strategy is the effort to plant 1001 new fellowships. Church plants are by far the best way for us to grow. While there have been some failures, the effort is well worth it despite the risks of mistakes. There have been several failed campaigns in the past to plant churches, but hopefully this will work. ECO shares that vision and already has one church plant and more in the plans.

The last point addresses the consequence of the PC(USA)’s change in ordination standards on global relationships. The PC(USA) is in relationship with a number of Presbyterian denominations in other countries. The change in our ordination standards, which allowed practicing gays and lesbians to be ordained, conflicts with the beliefs and practices of the church beyond the western world. I appreciate their honesty in admitting that at least one has broken relationship, which I believe is the Presbyterian Church of Mexico. A number of churches expressed their discontent, but I don’t know the official status of their relationship with the PC(USA). The response of this paper is essentially: sometimes acting on your convictions has consequences that you must endure. I respect that courage of conviction immensely, even though I disagree with the conviction.

Overall, the document fails to take seriously the claims of churches deeply disappointed in the condition and direction of the denomination. It fails to paint a vision for a way forward that could restore a divided body. It fails to name the problems that exist and to offer solutions. Because of that, the paper has failed to change the opinion and direction of the over 300 churches that have left or are in the process of leaving the PC(USA).

The Institutional Problem With The PC(USA)

Much has been said about FPC’s disagreement with the Presbyterian Church (USA) over matters related to biblical authority/interpretation and theology. The divide created by those issues alone justifies departure from the PC(USA). If that is not enough to make the case for departing to the Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians (ECO), the denomination’s illness as an institution also constitutes a reasonable justification.

The PC(USA) is an institution that is, as some have rightly described, “deathly ill.” In the 1960’s, our predecessor denominations had a combined membership of over 4 million people, but today it is less than 2 million. While the denomination has never, since the 1960’s, had a year of positive growth, the rate of decline reached a new peak last year with a loss of over 100,000 members. There is no substantive solution to change this trajectory. A recent movement to plant 1,001 new churches is admirable, but does not occupy the central focus of the denomination, nor is it the chief recipient of resources, which might be expected if such a movement was considered the hope of our future.

While our destiny is not tied completely to our denomination, we are not unaffected by the decline. As any institution becomes desperate for survival, its constituent members almost always feel the impact. Dying institutions routinely turn to control, power, and scapegoating as weak straws to grasp for survival. We are already seeing such desperation and it will increase in the future.

The central question for us regards the likelihood of the institution to turn around. If we think the institution is just in a slump, we can be patient and assist in its renewal. However, the historical evidence suggests that we are not suffering a temporary setback and transformation is unlikely given the following institutional realities:

We have a leadership problem. The Presbyterian system distributes power among a variety of different people, but not to those who necessarily have gifts for leadership or wisdom about rebuilding the institution. Our system is most concerned with filling positions of power with a balance of teaching and ruling Elders, males and females, different ethnicities, and people from a wide variety of churches. No presbytery nominating committee could credibly disagree with that priority. Do you will notice what is lacking in that list? Leadership skills or experiences in a healthy church are not listed. At best, we stumble upon people who are gifted for leadership and organizational change after we have satisfied the criterion for diversity. What we usually end up with are well-meaning, kind people, from struggling churches filling all the committees of power in our system, but not people who know the first thing about repairing a sinking ship. Almost no one talks about this problem and there is no stomach among these leaders to change the system and “fire themselves”.

Our institution is more mono-cultural than most expect. Presbyterians are known for being a mostly white denomination despite many well-intended efforts to become a multi-cultural church. It is ironic that while we bemoan our lack of diversity, we are obstinately mono-cultural when it comes to our governance. Our polity and institutional structure is set up to allow for only one position on the most controversial matters. The system is designed to force compromise rather than manage polarity. The results are long, protracted battles over matters like human sexuality positions, ordination standards, or abortion stances. This approach has consigned us to repeated close votes that rob the peace of the denomination and force more battles at subsequent meetings. In the military metaphor, we spend a lot of time and energy fighting to occupy a single, strategic hill. The system won’t allow for a second hill so we are destined to fight over the same patch of ground time and time again.

The last General Assembly had a major plan before it that would have allowed for a second hill. It would have provided structural changes that could give both conservatives and liberals relief of conscious on serious biblical and theological issues that divide us today. The General Assembly’s strong rejection of that proposal demonstrated a conviction to keep the system just as it is. It is increasingly clear that the great divide occurring in our denomination over what it means to follow Jesus Christ in the 21^st Century will only grow. The current mono-cultural system will not allow for churches on very different paths to exist together in one institution. We have some choices. We can continue to expend energy and resources on denominational battles to occupy one hill. We can concede defeat and ignore the big issues completely. Or, we can leave together like many churches are doing in order to join a system far more flat in its structure that shares our biblical and theological convictions. In doing so we align ourselves with churches that will encourage and challenge each other to do better at what matters the most: fulfilling the Great Commission.

The Theological Disconnect With The PC(USA)

A theological disconnect is one of the reasons FPC is seeking dismissal from the Presbyterian Church (USA). One particular theological issue is the lack of clarity regarding the saving work of Jesus Christ. Is Christ alone the only means by which we are saved? Is faith in the work of the Cross necessary for salvation? Gaining clarity about where the PC(USA) stands on this essential belief or any other is difficult.

The Presbyterian Church has a rich theological heritage. The essence of that heritage is captured in the Book of Confessions (BOC), a collection of theological statements. The BOC is the first part of our Constitution. The Book of Order (BOO) is the second part of the Constitution. The BOC contains beautiful statements affirming our most essential theological beliefs, like the necessity of Jesus Christ’s atoning death to ransom us from our sin and resolve our guilt before God.

There are times and places that the PC(USA) has rightly expressed our historic faith in the Cross. The 214th General Assembly (2002) of the Presbyterian Church (USA) voted (497-11) to affirm a document called "Hope in the Lord Jesus Christ.” Within that document, you find strong statements like “Jesus Christ is the only Savior and Lord, and all people everywhere are called to place their faith, hope, and love in him.” You can go to the PC(USA) website today and find a moving statement about the saving grace of Jesus Christ. If these statements defined the reality of life within the denomination, we would not be having this discussion and the health of the denomination would be much stronger than it is currently. To the contrary, they don’t comprise a clear picture of the theological identity of the PC(USA). There are two important reasons for this disconnect.

The first reason is our inability to define nationally our essential beliefs. Every minister and Elder are asked in their ordination if they

Sincerely receive and adopt the essential tenets of the Reformed faith as expressed in the confessions of our church as authentic and reliable expositions of what Scripture leads us to believe and do…?

Every time I teach an Elder training class, I am asked to explain the essential tenets (or beliefs) so that they can honestly answer the question. Unfortunately, I cannot answer the question. The PC(USA) will not define those tenets nationally. Instead every ordaining body, like a presbytery or a Session, is to decide for themselves what is essential. You can see why we are confused! Also, it is against our “laws” for a congregation to define those essentials and to require new Elders to “receive and adopt” them. Are you confused yet? If you are then, you are in good company.

The other reason surfaced at the last General Assembly meeting. A motion was made to change the definition of marriage in the BOO from “one man and one woman” to “two people.” A commissioner challenged the legality of that change because our BOC, the theological part of our Constitution, defines it traditionally. The Stated Clerk ruled against the commissioner on the advice of GA’s constitutional specialist, who said that the BOC should not be treated as a “rule book.” The BOO, on the other hand, “does contain the standards by which we operate.” Therein lies the problem. Our historic beliefs are disconnected from our behavior. It has been that way for a long time. The clerk’s ruling was the first public articulation of the truth at a national level. If our theology does not shape and define “how we operate”, it is no surprise that we are one confused denomination.

The examples of theological confusion abound. If you attend many presbytery meetings, you know how maddening it is to see pastors approved despite how their theological views depart widely from the Reformed/Presbyterian heritage. Several pastors take great delight in rejecting key tenets of the Christian faith like the virgin birth, miracles and the bodily resurrection of Jesus. What is more telling, however, is the lack of disciplinary action from their presbyteries. Our committee to produce a new hymnbook rejected the very popular hymn, “In Christ Alone”, because of its wording: “Till on that cross as Jesus died
The wrath of God was satisfied.” In her explanation, the committee chair stated:

People making a case to retain the text with the authors’ original lines spoke of the fact that the words expressed one view of God’s saving work in Christ that has been prevalent in Christian history: the view of Anselm and Calvin, among others, that God’s honor was violated by human sin and that God’s justice could only be satisfied by the atoning death of a sinless victim. While this might not be our personal view, it was argued, it is nonetheless a view held by some members of our family of faith; the hymnal is not a vehicle for one group’s perspective but rather a collection for use by a diverse body. (Mary Louise Bringle, “Debating Hymns”, christiancentury.org, May 01, 2013)

What was once the primary view of the Reformed tradition is now one view held by “some among us.” Lastly, our theological confusion is highlighted by the 2011 survey of PC(USA) pastors in which it is reported that almost half of our pastors strongly disagree or disagree (45%) with the statement, “Only followers of Jesus Christ can be saved.”

In light of our theological disconnect, the content and the clarity of the theological beliefs of the ECO, Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians, is most welcomed. We resonate with their understanding of the historic truths of the Reformed/Presbyterian tradition. Their willingness to define the essential tenets is refreshing. Their expectation that beliefs shape practices offers great hope for the quality of their future leaders. All of which make the ECO a good fit for us theologically.

Biblical Authority and Dismissal From The PC(USA)

One of the chief concerns with Presbyterian Church (USA) is the growing disregard for biblical authority. You may recall that the first tenet of FPC's list of essential tenets, “The Bible is the infallible and authoritative self-revelation of God.” To call the Bible authoritative does not simply mean it is a very important and valuable book and should be an important consideration in our Christian life, as some understand that statement. While the Bible is very important and valuable, the issue of biblical authority is more specific than that.

When we say the Bible is authoritative, we mean that Bible, as the infallible Word of God, stands above all other authorities. There is no authority for faith and life that is above it and there are no competitors to it. All other authorities are subordinate. Reason, science, personal experience, and various philosophies have some authority in their spheres of influence. If there is a conflict between Scripture and these subordinate authorities, the matter must be reconciled in such a way that the central truths of Scripture are still upheld.

In contrast, there is a burgeoning movement to view the Bible as one authority among many equal peers. This means that when a matter of faith and life is under discussion the Bible is considered, but so are personal experience, science, sociology and other “authorities”. The “truth” is determined by which sources agree with a person’s view of life. I’ve heard this view expressed by one Presbyterian pastor who said that the Bible is important, but it is only a beginning point for discussion about the big issues of life. Another pastor expressed a similar perspective saying that the Bible is a collection of documents from an ancient culture that no longer exists, and therefore should not be relied upon as a rulebook for modern ethics. While I would agree that the Bible is not just a rulebook, you cannot help but sense the diminished position the Bible holds in that pastor’s understanding of biblical authority. Then, of course, it is hard to ignore the language change for church officers in our new Book of Order. Whereas the standard for church officers previously required that we live in “obedience to Scripture”, the new version removes such a requirement and only asks the ordaining body to be “guided by Scripture” in evaluating a candidate. An effort was made at the last General Assembly to change “guided by Scripture” to “under the authority of Scripture”. Indicative of the changing culture, the effort was handedly defeated.

A common response from the denominational leadership is to assert that all Presbyterians uphold biblical authority; we simply have different interpretations of Scripture regarding ethical issues. The problem from their perspective is different interpretations, not biblical authority. I would disagree with that notion. The two cannot be separated. Here is the strategy of those who want to diminish the Bible’s authority on topics such as the definition of marriage: Interpret the Bible in such a way that you deconstruct its contents in order to render Scripture meaningless. They conclude, for example, that the Bible really says nothing definitive about God’s design of marriage. They say the Bible is “poly-vocal” on the topic. This is nothing but sophistry, intending to obstruct the clear message of the Bible.

It is difficult to assert that such interpretive tactics reflective a high view of the Bible’s authority. Such tactics do not uphold a respect for the historic affirmation of the Reformation, “Sola Scriptura”, or Scripture alone. In contrast, our confessions clearly uphold the authority of Scripture. It grieves me that the denomination has moved in practice far from our official confessional documents.