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 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.
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).
James, I concur with your assessment. The Stated Clerk's response is not a real response, but only "sound and fury, signifying nothing." You can have wonderfully crafted vows, but if no one is held accountable to them, then it's hard to call them vows in any meaningful sense. "Doing good" is not the problem; it's the methodology and philosophy behind it that's problematic. I too take little comfort in knowing other denominations are going down the toilet with us regarding membership statistics. The last response is a collective raspberry in the face of the worldwide church; you may not like what we've done, but too bad. These four categories are instructive in one way, though. They are the talking points used by the powers that be whenever congregations begin to consider dismissal to another Reformed body to attempt to convince these congregations that such a decision is hasty at best and ill informed at worst. Thanks for your thoughts here.
ReplyDelete