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.

What Dismissal Is Not About

The reality of life within the denomination is that for the last two or three decades a vast divide has developed that is unlikely to be resolved any time soon. The divide formed from very different understandings of important matters in the Christian life: the nature of God, the person and work of Jesus, the nature and function of the Bible, the expectation of the Christian life in response to the nature and work of God, and the function of the denominational structure. The chasm is so deep that it is not inaccurate to speak of each side as representing two different cultures or religions.

Few in the denominational hierarchy or its loyalists will admit that the divide exists or that reasons for our dissatisfaction are legitimate. I expect that when the presbytery addresses the congregation they will follow suit. I expect them to say that FPC’s reasons for discontent are really not accurate. I expect to them to assert that they too consider the Bible authoritative and that our differences are really just a matter of holding different interpretations. I expect them to cite official statements to show that the PC(USA) is clear in its belief that Jesus is the exclusive Lord and Savior, but offer no explanation why there is such a difference between stated beliefs and practices.

Occasionally, you will hear from the “insiders” that a long, deep divide does exist in the PC(USA). One example is in a report from a national commission to the General Assembly in 2012 that was elected to propose a restructuring of the PC(USA). An excerpt from the report reads:

“Two realities of this 20-year period of conflict and constitutional maneuvering need to be reckoned with. First, while faithful Presbyterians were engaged in meaningful mission and ministry to a broken and hurting world, the success of these endeavors was often overshadowed by persistent denominational controversies. Second, as our denomination experienced significant declines in membership, it has been difficult to address new ways of approaching ministry in a rapidly changing world while being continually engaged in internal theological conflict. As a result, polarized factions within the church are now ill-equipped to work together as an effective church for the 21st century.” (“A Report to the 220th General Assembly from the General Assembly Commission on Mid Councils”, p. 22.)

The divide is real. The concerns are legitimate. The reasons are numerous. I provide an overview in an earlier post. To say otherwise is dismissive and generally unhelpful in seeking meaningful resolution.

It surprises me, then, when I occasionally hear someone allege that the reason we are seeking dismissal is because of the “gay issue”. I think that charge can be an attempt to shut down discussion rather than address the merits of our decision. I think others say that innocently. Our society is consumed, as usual, with sex and particularly the “gay issue”. I can see how someone who does not know our denominational history would evaluate our decision using what he or she does know, which is the secular battle over gay rights. Either way, to make such a rebuttal reflects an inability to hear what we are saying.

To be frank, we are not unclear on what we understand to be the biblical boundaries for sexual practice. We have made that plain over the last two decades. Even then, our focus is sexual purity without prejudice towards any particular type of sexual expression that crosses those boundaries. We are also clear that overstepping the boundary of biblically defined sexual practice is treated no differently than any other transgression, which the Bible calls sin. Sin does not keep people from membership in the church and enjoying all its privileges. Our church would lack members and pastors if that were the case. However, a willful intent to continue to practice sin of any type can bar someone from ordination.

Do we err in this concern for sexual purity? I don’t think so. I bristle when I hear the charge from non-Christian and Christian writers that the church is “too preoccupied with sex.” Ironically, it is not the church that is preoccupied. It is our society. Sexual messages saturate our lives through commercials, movies, TV shows, books, music and magazines. The collective message of society on sex degrades and objectifies human beings and makes false claims about how unbounded sexual practice can lead to happiness.

If the church shuts up about sex, then society has won and people will suffer. If the choice is between shutting up and abandoning boys and girls, men and women, to the siren song of our world’s lies about sex or bearing the brunt of ridicule and rejection from our friends and neighbors because we teach the Bible’s truth on sexuality, I’ll take rejection any day. I care too much about people to abandon them to the dangerous message of secular philosophy on sex or any other topic.

With that said, does this mean that the decision to seek dismissal is really just about the “gay issue”? Of course not.

The “Why” Behind Seeking Dismissal

Why should we seek dismissal from the Presbyterian Church (USA) so that we can join a new Presbyterian denomination, Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians (ECO)? FPC’s unhappiness with the PC(USA) is not new. It began long ago. For example, it was in the 1990’s that FPC quit giving undesignated funds to denominational entities as one of the few ways available to register discontent. What’s new is the recent action of the presbytery to allow churches to file for dismissal. Over the years, several reasons have led us to conclude that ECO is a better fit. I will expand on these reasons over the next few weeks.

We have a different understanding of the Bible and its role in the Christian life. We consider the Bible to be the infallible and inspired Word of God that is authoritative for all matters of faith and life. It has no peers or equals. Too many times we have seen decisions and actions in the denomination that run contrary to our understanding of Scripture and reveal a very different view of its authority.

We struggle with the theological fuzziness of the PC(USA). In their ordination vows, all officers commit to “receive and adopt the essential tenets of the Reformed faith.” Nice idea, but to this day no one can state what are the essential tenets. If you ask a denominational representative for the list, he or she will tell you that ordaining bodies, like a congregation or a presbytery, can define for themselves the essential tenets. It does not make any sense! As a result, the breadth of theological views of pastors and Elders is staggering. Often those views are in conflict with the PC(USA)’s official positions. Unfortunately, loss of accountability accompanies fuzzy theological identity. One great concern is the lack of clarity and conviction regarding the saving work of Jesus Christ.

We think that congregations should retain control and ownership of property. FPC has for over 50 years carefully managed the gifts of our congregants to build and maintain the church campus we enjoy today. There is no financial investment of presbytery that needs repayment. Sadly, the Georgia courts recently ruled that the denomination through its presbyteries “owns” the property. If FPC wants to ensure control of the church property for the next generation of members and freedom from any future attempts of the denomination to use land and buildings as leverage against them, then it is prudent to take advantage of this window of opportunity created by our presbytery for us to leave the PC(USA) with the property.

We have a different understanding of what comprises the moral and ethical mandates for the Christian life. It is not surprising that along with a different commitment regarding the place of the Bible in the Christian life and a different classification of theological orthodoxy we also have a definition of the moral and ethical code of the Christian life that is in conflict with the PC(USA) and our presbytery. We understand differently the significance of human life’s sacredness at any age or stage. We view differently the boundaries that describe sexual purity. We think differently about the biblical definition of marriage.

The “institution” is broken and there is little reason to think it can be fixed. Remove the theological, biblical and ethical issues and we are still left with a very unhealthy institution. The denomination is half what it was in the 1960’s and is declining at increasing rates. Presbyteries, synods and the national office are starving for resources. All the while denominational entities have busied themselves with the wrong priorities. What’s worse is that there is little possibility of self-correction. We need a way to organize and ECO meets that need.