| United by dissatisfaction with current PC(USA), evangelicals sketch possible outlines of a new 'Reformed body' |
| Written by Leslie Scanlon, Outlook national reporter | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Thursday, 25 August 2011 23:02 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
MINNEAPOLIS – Leaders of the Fellowship of Presbyterians began to add details to their proposal for creating a new Reformed body – which they describe as more a movement than a denomination, saying it would be built around a common theological core. The Fellowship plans to hold a “constitutional convention” in Orlando, Fla., Jan. 12-14 to make more formal decisions on structuring such an entity proposing overtures to the 2012 General Assembly. What comes from that January meeting could be key for Presbyterian congregations, pastors and individual worshippers who are trying to decide whether, as a matter of theological conviction, the time has come to leave the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A). This week, 1,900 Presbyterians have jammed into hotel meeting rooms in suburban Minneapolis for the Fellowship’s Aug. 25-26 meeting. Many of them are profoundly troubled by the PC(USA)’s decision earlier this year to change its ordination standards and remove a requirement from the denomination’s Book of Order that those being ordained practice fidelity if they are married or chastity if they are single. The idea of creating a new Reformed body is one of several possibilities that Fellowship organizers are presenting this week. Other possibilities include creating non-geographic presbyteries or fellowships of like-minded Presbyterians within the PC(USA). “We believe the purpose of this meeting is to begin to discern the mind of God,” said Jim Singleton, pastor of First Presbyterian church in Colorado Springs  At the same time, the Fellowship is moving forward. John Crosby, pastor of Christ Presbyterian church in Edina, Minn., told the Minneapolis meeting that the Fellowship already has created a legal structure for a new entity and will make additional decisions in at the January meeting. “This new body does exist,” Crosby said, “but it’s an empty warehouse right now.” FILLING THE WAREHOUSE Lots of ground is being covered at the Minneapolis meeting – and this first gathering is more an opportunity to talk about ideas than to make decisions. But from the presentations some details of how things might shape up are beginning to emerge. Here are some of them. Essential tenets. Any new entity would include a theological statement of essential tenets that would be evangelical, orthodox and morally sound. “By golly, we’re going to stand on Scripture and its authority,” and not be embarrassed to describe essential truths, Singleton said. Dual citizenship. A new Reformed body would allow “dual citizenship, at least in the near term,” Crosby said. In other words, people involved in it would both be in the new body and would retain some degree of affiliation with the PC(USA). Less structure. The new body would be more like an association and less like a denomination – meaning “less control and command, more vision and mutual support,” Crosby said. But it would have enough structure so the PC(USA) could dismiss congregations to it. And it would have the ability to ordain ministers. WHY DO IT? Why do folks want another Reformed entity in a post-denominational age, in a world that already has 35,000 denominations worldwide and about two dozen Reformed denominations in the U.S.? Because, according to the Fellowship's leaders, what’s happening now isn’t working – the PC(USA) has not grown for 40 years, and back-and-forth voting by the General Assembly on controversial issues isn’t working. “Continuing on the current path is futile,” Crosby said. “It’s a dead end. We’re not going to play that game anymore.” He also said that “mainline Christianity is dying” and “denominationalism in America is not being sustained.” Singleton spoke of adaptive change (asking whether this is the right house or town to live in) rather than tactical change (should we remodel or add on a room?). The kind of change needed won’t be accomplished by another General Assembly vote on ordination standards, Singleton said. Some other themes: Graciousness. “We’re not mad,” Singleton said. “Our best solutions, we are convinced, will not be made in anger.” Repeatedly, he commended the PC(USA) leadership in Louisville for becoming involved in the conversation. Crosby said: “We are not calling anyone apostate.” High walls. The ideas the Fellowship is advancing won’t be for everyone. Some evangelicals will want to stay in the PC(USA), some will leave. “We are not interested in kicking anybody out,” Crosby said. “We want to be clear what’s at the center rather than police the boundaries.”  Excitement. Several spoke of their desire to create something new – something better. “I ache for a better future,” Crosby said. “I want you to believe that the best days are ahead.” From the start of opening worship, there was acknowledgement that this is a diverse group – that folks may want different things. The 1,900 registrants come from 49 states and three countries beyond the U.S., drawn from 830 congregations. Some are drawing connections with broader trends in the Christian conversation – about the idea, for example, that young adults particularly resonate with a commitment to mission; a less regulatory structure; the excitement of taking risks and doing ministry with others in authentic, faithful, creative ways. Many of these evangelicals want a place where they can stand true to their convictions and also to stay connected. “We need clarity and we need options,” said Duncan MacLeod at the start of opening worship. “We need a way forward.” Your Responses (19)
Carroll Hoke
said:
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed|
Wichita, Kansas If you read the history of the Presbyterian Church in America, it makes you very proud of the church and the history of its having come through some terrible and divisive periods. I think at least some of the people, maybe most of the people on both sides of the issues talked about here have reasonable positions that could be addressed in a way that would keep the church united. One doesn't have to be bigoted to believe that tradition in some areas is important, nor radical to believe that society should be more accepting. Couldn't both side be right and both be wrong? We need our church and it needs us more than ever, and I think it should stay united. |
p.w. gregory
said:
|
lambertville, nj This is the real elephant in the room. Not the back and forth of the latest theological dust-up, but the fact of demographics, economics, and cultural shifts that are taking the PCUSA down the path of what is called in the financial and economic world de-leveraging. While I do not hold the extreme positions that the church is dying or vanishing into nothing in the next 20 years, there is the ongoing process, painful to all, of the re-balancing of the church. If you hold to the position as I, that the official membership reports from the church understate the real active, living people in the pews, numbers by 25-30%, then the official membership count of the church should be around 1.7-1.3 million now, not the reported 2 million or some. In essence the church national is 60% smaller than 1970 numbers, and about 40% smaller than 1983 reunion numbers. And we still have the same number of churches still open, give or take since 1970, and more and more seminary graduates being dumped into the labor force as in the 1970s. In essence the PCUSA is over-supplied in labor, over franchised in real estate per person, and over served by all levels of the organization. Sooner or later the numbers do not work or add up. The market will correct itself, with or without consent. In the next 3-5 years, 1/4th to 1/3rd of all active churches today will cease to exist, close, merge, or union themseleves in a new format. 3-4 theological seminaries need to close. Presbyteries need to either merge or achieve greater economies of scale, or they will die. That is statement of fact, not theology or spin. And yes good, award winning Seminary grads will never be able to support themselves in local church work alone. Church based ministries for the vast majority will become an advocation, not a primary one. Many clergy serving today will know what life is like on food stamps and other public assistance as the clergy-glut, married to the reduction of employing churches depress and drive down real wages over time. Until the system clears we will get our fare share of both gender and class warfare talk on who is hired, fired and who gets the "good jobs" or not. Who thinks they are owed something by the church and who is not. Where does it all end? When the great rebalance of the church ends around 2020 I expect in real numbers the PCUSA, if still here will be between UCC numbers are and what the CC(DC)numbers are today 1.2 million to 700,000. And we will go from about 11,000 houses of worship now to about 4-6K, but we will be in a much more healthy and better balanced for ministry postion as we are now. But get there we will. |
Joyce Smothers
said:
|
Allentown, PA @Barbara Kenley--The same problem struck me! There are no females shown in photos from this conference. I don't see people of color, either. Local option is a reality in the PCUSA, too, and I wish it weren't. PNC's, in healthy churches that can afford to send a senior pastor to a big conference in Minneapolis, are calling young white men. Guys are not necessarily the best-qualified candidates. Associate pastor positions, which have been the traditional first calls for women in the PC (USA), are being phased out in the Northeast. "Big church" wouldn't be dying, if recent female seminary graduates--who are forced to wait tables, work in stockrooms of box stores, and clean motel rooms---could be given equivalent opportunities to those of male colleagues. These guys at Minneapolis are the "haves," but the "have nots" are invisible-- women haven't been ordained yet, are not voting in presbyteries,and still paying off seminary debt after five or six years. I'm talking about award-winning Princeton Seminary grads. |
Barb Kenley
said:
|
Brookline, MA I see only men's names and photos in the article, and only men discussing same. What's the FOP's stand on ordination of women? "Local option", like in the EPC? |
Tom Eggebeen
said:
|
Los Angeles, CA David, I quite agree - this has been a tempest in a teapot, and the world, increasingly, could hardly care. As much I wish the church could get on with the the greater mission, as long as reactionary forces opt for exclusion, voices need to be raised for inclusion. And in my view of things, our witness to the world remains compromised until we discover and embrace the fullness of love for LGBTQ persons, marriage equality and family life. If we can't move beyond this in our own house, if reactionary theologies continue to hurt and abuse, then what is it that we have for the world? As for "holy passion and joyful boldness," there's plenty of that in these responses and throughout the effort to rid the church of anti-gay sentiments and legislation. And I must grant, there's been plenty of such passion among my conservative friends as well. Sooner or later, as with slavery, abolition, civil rights, women's rights and ordination, we have to decide, one way or the other - because a house divided on such profound questions about humanness cannot stand. And if there's a rightness anywhere in the mix of things, it has to flow from the Beatitudes - from the wellsprings of welcome and kindness, enlarging the household of God, pushing back the boundaries, as Jesus did with so many women and with Zacchaeus up the tree. To declare Zacchaeus a member of God's household was offensive to his audience and a glaring breach of social and religious norms. For Jesus, love always trumps the day. |
Dave Lee
said:
|
... Reading through the responses, I hear no holy passion, no joyful boldness. I hear only strident, fearful, shrill accusations from all sides. Ken Bailey's wise parable of the mouse and the elephants comes to mind. Both "sides" of this divide are statistically insignificant. Virtually no one outside of our bounds could care less what we decide. And the longer we spend with this as what matters, the less we will matter to the world or the Kingdom. But oh, what we might have been... |
Tom Eggebeen
said:
|
Los Angeles, CA "The Bible, the Bible, the Bible" - I'm so tired of "conservatives" throwing this tagline around. It's NOT about the Bible, but about Jesus, and millions of LGBTQ persons who been told by "Bible-believing Christians" they're going to hell and have suffered untold hardship in PCUSA. Yes, we can now ordain LGBTQ persons, but that's the bare minimum - the next challenge for us: marriage equality and affirmation of family-life for LGBTQ couples and their children. We have a long, long, way to go, and if it is the Bible, and if it is Jesus, then we can do no less than become a welcoming and affirming denomination and be done with the nonsense and pain of discrimination, exclusion, judgment, and all the orthodox pride that sacrifices people on the alter of tradition. As Presbyterians, our history is not pleasant on so many issues of equality - why did it take us so long to deal with slavery and race? Why so long on women? Oh, that's right. It's the Bible, isn't it? Well, I love the Bible, too, and I read it all the time; and I love Jesus, and worship him with joy. And for me and my house, that's means welcome and affirmation on all counts. And to God be the glory. |
Richard Hong
said:
|
Englewood, NJ To David Grachek et.al.: I'll believe that it's about the "authority of the Bible" and not about sex when I see conservatives put forth an overture requiring tithing or any other specific practice mandated in the Bible but not required in the Book of Order. |
p.w. gregory
said:
|
lambertville, nj One can go back 15-20 years and read the documents from the Confessing church movement, and 5-7 years ago to the New Wineskins movement, to some of the other stuff produced by the late "Missional" church concept and they all pretty much read at times, word for word what came out of other big tent event in Minn. this week. Common themes; Big church is dead or dying, all racing off a cliff, big church has lost its way, theological drift, confusion, need for new associations and ways of being. All true to lesser and greater degrees. Yes the mainline church across the protestant space is dying, yes there is far less agreement on matters of sex, theology, confession, the nature of God, than times past. So where was the great moment where all stood up, resigned from the PCUSA, made some statement to the Press, and marched out the hall into a new association? The reason it did not happen was the same reason nothing happened in 1995 with the Confessing church folks, 2005 with the New Wineskins or 2007 with the Missional church folks. At the core where most folks live and how most folks tend to relate, they see no need to march off into the brave new world of another new religious "denomination". As if the world is not enough with the PCUSA, EPC, ARPC, RPCA, PCA, OPC, BPC, AARP, and YMCA. Did I miss anybody? At the core folks are congregationalists rather than collectivists. As long as you do not mess with their percieved freedom of association, mission giving, or their Sunday school stuff, most really not care what Louisville is doing or who is getting arrested for civil disobedience, or whether the new pastor X at the that other church is living with a Steve or Sophie. Now all could change of course. But outside of something radical being done, mass resignations from the right, or some new "progrom" against evagalicals from the left, nothing will really change. In essence the PCUSA across the board seems old, tired, played-out to some extent, and does not have the will or energy to fight and argue as times past. Like my great aunt in the spectrum care center, she enjoys her days, but knows the sun is setting, and this is the last chapter of her life. |
Robert Lowry
said:
|
Batesville, AR Leaving aside the accusations and counter-accusations about whether or not this is all about sex, I would appreciate someone offering a concise answer to a few questions about this group and its goals. 1) If the PC(USA) is so theologically distant from these individuals and congregations, why stay? 2) It has been said many times that we would be united with this new "Reformed body" through shared mission. How can you honestly and openly do mission with someone whose theology you feel is apostate? (I recognize that this term was rejected at the meeting, but it has been used many many times before.) 3) Why was the voice of the General Assembly and the presbyteries genuinely the voice of God's will for the church when the conservatives got their way while now it is merely manipulation by the left? How is this not a matter of hubris? 4) If this is really just about theology and principle, would these pastors and congregations be willing to walk away from their pensions and property? If not, how can that be seen as anything but a willingness to put a price tag on principle? These are questions I have yet to have answered with any measure of clarity. I would value thoughtful and honest response from the Fellowship or its supporters. |
Carl Wilton
said:
|
Point Pleasant Beach, NJ So, what "legal structure" is needed for this "new entity" at this point in time? If the Fellowship is truly "commending the PC(USA) leadership in Louisville for becoming involved in the conversation," and is so committed to maintaining relationships and dialogue, then why rush to create their own extra-denominational legal structure, rather than trying to work something out with the assistance of the Office of Constitutional Services in Louisville? The answer to this question, I expect, says everything about what the real motives and goals of the Fellowship's leadership are. Only they can answer it - although I'd be surprised if they would, publicly. |
Jeff Straka
said:
|
... Jim, the only "sexual confusion" on the part of LGBTQ is when they struggle with message conservative/fundamentalist churches tell them - that they are "defects" and unless they suppress or "fix" who they were created to be and somehow become heterosexual, God hates them. That "confusion" has caused many to take their life, many after trying the so-called "gay reparative therapy". If they are fortunate enough to survive this "church terrorism" and come to grips with who God TRULY created them to be, there IS no more "confusion". Thank GOD there ARE churches that fully embrace and affirm the REAL Child of God the queer person already is, and it's sad to see that one faction of the PCUSA (the Fellowship) refusing to accept and embrace this civil/human rights issue. Some Presbyterian churches used "biblical authority" to hang on to slavery and there was a split at that time. Funny how no one sees the irony here. http://www.americanpresbyteria...f_1861.htm Nothing new under the sun... |
Jim Conner
said:
|
Arcadia, Ca Jeff, please note I use the term 'sexual confusion' and how that is used by the devil for everybody who has experienced sexual brokenness exhibited in our society which is brought about by sin, no matter what the sexual attraction. I note your enthusiasm for making accusations but I cannot read where I wrote anything about whether they were followers of Jesus or not. I have and continue to know and befriend both. |
Tom Eggebeen
said:
|
Los Angeles, CA In California some years ago, growers were challenged with providing long-handled hoes to farm workers, to replace the short hoes that required workers to spend the entire day bent over. At the time, growers complained that such a move would add to costs, put farmers out of business, and throw the entire CA food industry into disarray - none of which happened, of course. At the heart of a conservative point of view is a fearfulness about change; part of the tactic of fear is dire warnings. The conservatives, right now, are in a bind - they're not sure what to do or where to go. Basically, they've held the church hostage for 35 years, threatening the church with their departure and painting lurid images of a "deathly ill" church. What with the distress I've felt for all these years, and the hurt we caused for thousands of folks, and their friends and families, I know something of what the conservative is feeling right now. I hope they can get things worked out. Leaving rarely works; I guess we all know that. But where and how to live together - well, that's another question. I appreciate the plenary speakers in Minneapolis - good words of guidance. Time will tell. As we all know, "dire predictions" rarely materialize, and in a world changing as dramatically as is ours right now, brutal in-fighting is precisely the seeds of hell. |
Jeff Straka
said:
|
... Jim - your description of your "relationships" with LGBTQ tells me you only viewed them as "lost" and "prospects for saving". There is no way you had any authentic friendships with them or you would NOT be using terms such as "sexual confusion...used by the devil". So maybe you aren't "afraid" of those with different gender identity and attractions than you, but you certainly proved my point on de-humanizing them! |
Rev Dan Clark
said:
|
Warminster, PA All of this talk about the "essentials" as the reason for leaving and not "sex" is like the person who says: It's not about the money,it's the principle of the thing. Beleive me, its the money! |
Jim Conner
said:
|
Arcadia, Ca @Jeff Straka, I have known, worked with, shared meals and friendship with people living homosexual and bisexual lifestyles for over 30 years. I am not afraid, and I quite understand how sexual confusion is used by the devil to afflict people with desires that break relationships and imprison people, this happens both to those who are attracted to same sex and opposite sex. I encourage you Jeff to move away from the false belief that those who support Biblical sexual standards as observed by the Church for 2000 years are either unaware or unacquainted with persons with same sex and other attractions as that is largely false. |
Jeff Straka
said:
|
Marietta, GA David, it IS about genitalia and one's "employment" of it, and the continued MISREADING of those "clobber verses" so that it de-humanizes people you don't understand and fear. |
David Grachek
said:
|
Sylva, NC This isn't an issue about sex. As an Evangelical I and many others are concerned about the PCUSA's disregard for the Authority of the Bible. To claim that it is merely about sex is inaccurate reporting. |
Write a Response
