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).