| On the gathering of the Fellowship of Presbyterians: a brief summary |
| Written by Leslie Scanlon, Outlook national reporter | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Monday, 29 August 2011 16:46 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On Aug. 25-26, about 1,900 people came to Minneapolis to learn more about what the Fellowship of Presbyterians is proposing, and to help sort through their own decisions about whether to stay in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) or to leave.
Your Responses (26)
Robert McClelland
said:
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed|
Arlington, Texas @Dan Clark, Sept. 6 posting... Dear Mr. Clark, please let me help you with your vision. The fourth pastor from the left in the picture is Korean. The sixth pastor from the left is under 40. To minorities within the PC(USA) in the same picture that you looked at for days. Just trying to help. |
Stuart Gordon
said:
|
Nashville, TN In response to my fellow Union grad Sam Alexander, I'll say why I sympathize with the FOP. No one really believes that the P.C. (U.S.A.) is going to reverse the decision on 10-A. We've watched the vote eroded over the years; whether the reason is that opposition was driven away, or that younger presbyters are coming into presbyteries in support of 10-A, or that older presbyters are changing their minds, the fact is that no one expects this vote to be reversed again. The debate is over. To speak of "staying and making our case" is an invitation to be simply a pain in everyone's rear end. That gets to the salient point: anyone who, in good conscience, cannot support 10-A will soon enough be an outcast among colleagues. We've heard the argument made for years, which now has won the day: blacks were excluded, women were excluded, gays were excluded. Anyone who, in good conscience, does not accept that analogy and cannot endorse sexual activity by LGBT folks, will be marginalized. CPM's and COM's will treat them with the greatest suspicion. Opportunities will be limited, severely limited in some presbyteries. Please acknowledge, Sam, that "abiding by our polity" is something that many people refused to do in the years of Fidelity-Chastity, for reasons of conscience. The sad reality is that we are severely divided, according to conscience, on this issue, and the larger issue of how we understand scripture. Using Calvin's words (IV.ii.5), our communion is not held together by agreement in sound doctrine and brotherly love. No Calvinist wants to be schismatic; but as Professor Leith wrote, "It is also certain that for Calvin faithlessness is a greater sin than disunity" (Intro to the Ref. Trad., 54). |
Wylie Merrill
said:
|
Tucson, AZ As a layman I could not agree more with P. W. Gregory. The die is cast. In reading the history of the Presbyterian body it seems to have a schism roughly every forty years. Each shredding is argued with heat, passion, and persuasive arguments and of course the consequences partially thought through. And then the litmus testing begins. When it comes to property, real assets, grants, bequeaths, pensions, partially executed contracts entered into by church bodies - things can get pretty parochial quickly with those lovely lawsuits guaranteed. I say talk on. |
Rev. Samuel G. Alexander
said:
|
San Rafael, Calif. 'Quasi-split' idea is 'un-Presbyterian' 'Quasi-split' idea is 'un-Presbyterian' Dear Editor, Let me see if I’ve got this right. It was OK for “conservatives” to stay in the denomination when the PC(USA) did not allow for homosexual ordination. We “liberal” types stuck around and made our case over time - even though we believed what was happening was very, very wrong. Now that our point of view is the majority and the conservatives think what is going on is very, very wrong, many want to form non-geographical presbyteries as a way to distance themselves from the rest of us. That is instead of staying and making their case. I have some sympathy for their point of view. It comes down to this: they are certain they are right and feel honor bound to abide by their convictions. But when in our ordination vows we agree to abide by the church’s polity, we are agreeing to be part of a group that says what is “right” or what is “wrong” theologically is ultimately decided by majority vote. This quasi-split idea is downright un-Presbyterian. Grace and peace, Rev. Samuel G. Alexander First Presbyterian Church of San Rafael San Rafael, Calif. |
Daniel Morrison
said:
|
Huntingdon Valley, PA I had a terrific time at the Gathering. It was fun to be with old classmates from seminary, former pastors who mentored me, and colleagues from my home presbytery. It was also a delight to be among so many Presbyterians and not feel obliged to defend the tenets of the apostolic faith. What resonated most with me was Jim Singleton's observation that the two wings of the PC(USA) use the same words to mean different things. Too much of life within the PC(USA) has become an exercise in inter-faith dialogue -- awkward attempts at conversation between people who, in fact, are followers of different religions. |
Bill Oei
said:
|
Costa Mesa, CA "Create a presbytery within a presbytery" should be the title for what is described in Tier Two (entitled "Presbyteries Within Presbyteries" at The Gathering). Tier Three was entitled "Affiliations and Councils" at The Gathering but it might be more clearly titled "Parallel Committees" or something along those lines. What is described in Tier Three in this article does not describe creating a presbytery within a presbytery. |
Tom Scruggs
said:
|
Dallas, Texas 75230 Having been in a Church torn apart by a cause unlated to this issue, but deeply divided nevertheless, once splintering happens within a Church or a Denomination, a disservice is done to the Body of Christ and time does not always heal the division. So in my humble opinion, when we start actions leading to separating any official body within the PCUSA or even the PCUSA itself, we are doomed to even a greater minority role with less influence in the Religious community at large. |
Michael Bush
said:
|
Due West, sC This comment thread is remarkable. Rabbi Friedman would have known exactly what to make of it. A few members of the family back away from the dysfunction, calmly define what they're going to be and do next, and the rest of the family starts yelling their heads off at them, trying to restore the old order. |
Tom Hobson
said:
|
Belleville IL It is painfully obvious that Dan Clark was not at the Minneapolis gathering, or he would have seen that women were (by my estimate) 35% of those in attendance, which compares favorably with the percentage of women clergy in our church. Women clergy actually exceeded what one would have expected for this gathering, since evangelical women are a definite minority of all women clergy, and a high proportion of those who do exist showed up for this gathering. Dan Clark may not realize that our lead conservative spokesperson in the latest PJC cases on ordination was a woman, Rev Dr Mary Naegeli, a woman who speaks more sense than most men or women do on the issue of Scripture, sexuality, and ordination. Dan is just one of a huge crowd in our church who wish to judge a whole movement not on its theological merits, but by checking the face of those involved. The Bible clearly condemns the "lifting of faces", yet those who wish to rightly advocate for justice for women and for all races often end up doing the very thing they condemn: checking everyone's face. And I would argue that all of this checking of faces is just a prop for left-wing theological favoritism, which has produced the grassroots revolt that we saw in Minneapolis. |
Rev Dan Clark
said:
|
Warminster, PA I have looked at this picture in your article for several days now and have concluded it demonstrates all that is wrong with this "mvoement": there are no women or minorities. Can anyone meaningfully conclude this represents any signficant voice in the church without women and minorities in this picture? Does anyone believe there is any attempt to include women and minorities in this gathering? I find it unnerving and disturbing and wonder if many are not attempting to roll back the clock to 1953. |
p.w. gregory
said:
|
lambertville nj On previous posting I have stated that this gathering and their tiers will have the same traction at the end of the day as New Wineskins and Confessing church. Much talk and heat, but very little of real substance over time. That could change though, and here is how. The only real functional glue that holds the church in some federation across the spectrum is not anything out of Louisville, but located on Walnut St in Philadelphia, Board of Pensions. And there is a perfect storm about to hit the ship, inspite of the happy-talk coming out of the home office. By 2014, if Obamacare survives the court challenges, Health care exchanges will come on line. Meaning that the vast majority of serving PCUSA clergy given their relative income to federal trigger levels, will be moving to the open market for healthcare. One. Two, given the huge numbers of underemployed and non-employed clergy about the system the BOP is either irrelevant or a very high cost option for care. Three, given the number of churches either closing, merging or going off the grid in terms of paying dues, the system will be stressed as the cadre of baby-boomers hit the system big time in the next 5 years. Four, the church has yet to digest, nor has the BOP been forthcoming on the matter of same-sex partner benefits and the politiclaization and ideologicalization of the process. No one wants to speak about this for all know the effects once implimented. All of these factors hit the fan sooner or later. The tipping point will be when a number of churches and clergy simply drop-out, exit, or leave the system. Churches need not leave with their property, clergy need not remit their ordination, if a critical mass simply drop of the BOP plans, game over, the church fractures, not so much in a formal way, but for all pratical purposes no longer exists. The Presbyteries will react of course by their usual threats, but lacking any teeth once national orination standards when out the door, and come 21014 clergy will options in the the open market, and IRAs, 401K, not related to the BOP, the dye is cast as they say. |
Chuck Jeffries
said:
|
Concord, California I attended the Fellowship "Gathering", unlike many people posting comments here. I really don't get the tone here. It was perfectly fine to have "More Light" meetings but wrong for Evangelicals to have their meeting? Or was it wrong because we had nearly 2,000 people attend (and had to cut off registrations due to space considerations). I find it strange that people who failed to keep the peace, purity, and unity of the Church prior to the passage of 10-a are now such ardent proponents of those standards now. Evangelicals, or at least some of us, need a new reality. Many of us are located in Presbyteries that are openly hostile toward us. Evangelicals and Progressives (for lack of a better term) have attempted dialogue as a means through our divisions. Let's face the facts with honesty-that approach hasn't worked. And a more important reality is that the PCUSA is dying-the numbers tell the reality of that assessment. The FOP folks made it very clear that they are through with the name-calling and floor fights at GA. Overturning 10-a isn't going to happen. Neither 'side' has completely clean hands in this matter. And so we need to try something else. From my perspective, the conference was worshipful, upbeat, and solution oriented. And speakers made it very clear that merely changing denominational affiliation is not going to solve all of the challenges at hand. Each congregation will need to decide how they will respond to the present state of the PCUSA. My personal opinion is that the denomination is drifting toward Unitarianism, however, I don't intend to "charge" anyone with that offense. That's just my perspective. And I don't think there will be a way to prevent a split of the PCUSA. It already happened. We just need to find a way to disengage from each other with the least possible damage to the Mission of Jesus Christ. There is some rather frank and honest dialogue taking place in our ranks about how much cooperation and communion we can have with people who view and read Scripture in completely different ways from us. We have a moral/ethical dilemma that we need to wrestle with and work through. I can't help it if that bothers some of you. |
p.w. gregory
said:
|
lambertville nj In the area of mental health the old saying is that the best indication of future behaviors is past and present behaviors. The M.O. of Presbyterians of all spectrums is that we like to meet, talk,talk some more, drink coffee, talk, write policy, study papers, promise to meet again at some time, and then go home and get back to life in the real world. Much like the Confessing church folks and New Wineskins, and the Missional church folks prior, some dust will be raised, people on both sides will vent their spleen, and we await the next big blow-up issue to dominate the conversation. The real issue before the church national is not so much the 10-A fall-out but how to manage the sea-change the culture is imposing upon the church. Going forward the PCUSA, much like its older mainline progressive sisters in the Protestant space will be going though a very painful period of re-balance, re-set, right-sizing, de-leverage, call it what you will to where to are now to a 700K to 1 million member denomination in 5-7 years and 60% less houses of worship as today. And as in any church fight, especially one in the context of general decline, stuff like money, standards, ordination, property become a proxy for the real stress point--Power---who has it, who wants and who gets to define the "future". It is not those terms the battles are made now and tomorrow. |
David McCann
said:
|
Ada, Oklahoma I have read the various articles on the Fellowship gathering, and the comments to the different articles. I have debated and prayed about responding, and finally decided to do so. What bothers me in the comments is the hatred, the prejudice, the intolerance of differing viewpoints, the assumption that commentators know what's in the minds and hearts of those who differ from them. If these comments are representative of the whole church, then the PCUSA is past being deathly ill - it is no longer a part of the true church. The apostle Paul described the three things that are necessary for a church to be ture and to be united: 1) have the same mind, which is the mind of Jesus Christ, 2) have the same love for each other, 3) be in full accord, or one in the Spirit. (Phil. 2:2) In Phil. 2:5-11, Paul explains what it means to have the same mind of Christ - accepting Jesus as human and God; accepting his sacrifice on the cross for our sins; exalting him Lord over all; all of which means we are to empty ourselves, be humble, and serve each other. The comments here do not demonstrate that humility and willingness to empty ourselves. Thoughout this letter, Paul talks about the need to love one another, sharing this same love in service to all. The comments here do not demonstrate love, but rather much hatred. When Paul tells us to be of one accord, be one in the Spirit, he means for us to share the same convictions of faith that lead us to be united in mission. The comments here do not demonstrate any unity in convictions or mission. It is my prayer that folks on both sides, and I have dear friends on both sides, would submit to a time of prayerful repentance, forgiveness, and seek to be of the same mind of Christ, having the same love for each other, and being in full accord in the Spirit. |
Mark Hill
said:
|
Los Angeles, CA By some of the more angrier comments here, it seems many of you are still clueless about why the evangelicals are so dissatisfied. They believe homosexual activity is sinful, so yeah, they're going to have issues with 10-A. How can they, in good conscience, say it's okay for ANY self-avowed, practicing, "unrepentant sinner" to become ordained? It's not that hard to understand their dilemma -- at least not for logical, sensible folks. What if some of you more liberal/progressive people were faced with the decision on whether or not to ordain someone who was practicing, unrepentantly, something you considered a sinful behavior, a behavior that someone refused to recognize as sin -- what would you do, then? Oh, wait... I forgot... There is no personal sin. Never mind. I think I just answered my own question. Sure, let's just ordain anyone!! |
Stephen Kolderup, Interim Pastor,
said:
|
Le Roy, Illinois Building Walls instead of Bridges I’m happy for the Fellowship of Presbyterians that they had a stimulating meeting. Some of my colleagues were there to explore options in the midst of what they feel has become a bad time for them in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Other colleagues were there to listen and learn more about the concerns and the proposed solutions since we will all have to deal with this in the established councils of the church. I pray for any gathering of church folk as they worship and pray and study together. But now it’s time to comment on the options that are being considered. Others will weigh in on the specifics and why they will work or won’t work. I simply want to observe that after years of speaking out against the layers of church polity that were allegedly hampering mission, some of my brothers and sisters now want to add duplicate layers of committees to a structure that recently got freed up to do mission. We now have an opportunity to work things out at a Presbytery level and some want to end the conversation before it begins by creating ministry groups that don’t have to talk with one another. The church of Jesus Christ does not need to protect itself from itself. The Bible does not need a subscription pledge to continue to change people’s lives. The Peace, Unity and Purity Task Force invited us to start reading the Bible together and praying together. Now we are invited to opt out of that and build walls instead of bridges. |
Jim Babcock, Elder
said:
|
Bozeman, Montana After reading Leslie Scanlons recap of the Minneapolis meeting and other commentsin this issue I find the proposed intent and follow up suggestions deplorable. Instead of objectively and realistically attempting to make the recently approved ordination standards work as intended and putting the entire question of homosexual ordination behind us these purported leaders want to " take their dolls and go home." Do they ever contemplate that escaping from reality and the twenty-first century is ludicrous and that the problem they are endeavoring to escape from momentarily will in reality follow them ? You can't run and hide from reality. it's here to stay. As an avowed heterosexual, somewhat " macho" individual, I have witnessed this problem festering for some time yet I am confident that the ordination standards as now approved can work if in fact, we are willing to give them a try, but trying to bail and escape from reality and presumably thus avoiding the ordination question is as biblically incorrect as the proponents intent. We are far better off facing this matter together than we are scattering to the four winds, give it a break and try to make the standards as approved work for our respective congregations. Jim Babcock, Elder, Bozeman, Montana |
Janice Irvine
said:
|
Danville, CA I congratulate Mr. Alcorn and Ms. Acton for taking a stand to stay with the denomination despite disagreement with the current decision of the GA. What you demonstrate is something that is missing from some members of the Fellowship; faithfulness. Faith is expressed in the certainty that what you believe to be true can resist any threat. A faithful person remains engaged in order to persuade and convince others of that Truth. To disengage and leave is a mere expression of our lack of confidence in our capacity to persuade and assist the church in its transformation. Simply put, we do not trust our own truth and that is lack of faith. Faithful were those women who remained steadfast in their work of ministry even when they were excluded from ordained ministry. Faithful were those leaders of color whose voice was not considered significant in the church's decision making for decades and remained in the church to convince us otherwise. Faithful were those who waited patiently to be recognized as children of God and who proudly wore their identity as Presbyterians even in the midst of rejection. Honestly, this movement to create a schism within the PCUSA says more about the faith of those who are seeking desperately a way out, than the faith of those who recognize that God's revelation does not always go our way, they seem to be less "Evangelical." |
Ellen Acton
said:
|
Southfield, MI I appreciate Mr. Alcorn's response. It reflects my views over the past 15 years. I was also at the Albuquerque General Assembly meeting when G 6.0601b was first approved, and have continued to serve faithfully in the PC(USA) in spite of my disagreement with it. Where is our love for one another by which the world knows who we follow? One of the things that I love about the PC(USA) is our ability to disagree agreeably. We've done it for a long time. Can't we continue together? |
W. D. O’Neal, H.R.
said:
|
Longview, Texas I have some question for the White Paper Gang. Had they been plotting all along to take over the PC(USA)? If not, why were they so prepared to strike so soon after the passage of 10-A? Had they finally found a wedge issue with some legs? Why could they not have been more pastoral and less provocative in helping churches deal with the problems that might arise? Was the Rube Goldberg option their best suggestion for restructuring the denomination? Also, to the Outlook, why haven’t you called out these folks and made them come clean about their motives in promoting schism and discord in an already struggling church? |
Paul Alcorn
said:
|
Bedford, NY To be honest, I have done my best not to respond. I deleted the first email that came a couple of weeks ago because I didn't want to get into the middle of what felt to me was a lose/lose discussion. But the article about the gathering in Minneapolis appeared in my inbox this morning and I found myself right back to where I was a week or so ago. To tell you the truth, I don't get it. I was at the General Assembly which voted to add G.6 to the Book of Order. That decision/debate/vote had all of the politics and all of the prayer of any major GA decision. All week at that GA there were rumors swirling around about congregations who already had letters printed and in envelopes ready to be mailed recommending leaving the denomination if the vote did not go their way. And, just before the vote a long time friend came up to me with tears of anger in his eyes to tell me that his congregation would leave the denomination if the vote to include G.6 failed, and that my vote was forcing them into that situation. But not once at that GA or at any time since has anyone from the "other side" ever asked me or expressed any concern to me about our congregation and how we were doing and what we were going to do because the vote did not go "our way." It was, as if, "to the victors go the spoils." Now the landscape has shifted. It is not the cataclysmic shift that some have portrayed it as. The original vote to include G.6 was (if I remember correctly) 52% to 48%, and in the years since the denomination has continued to be split down the middle on this issue. Now the center has shifted in a different direction. Maybe the middle has grown weary as the Outlook suggested. Maybe they have studied the Bible and changed their minds. Maybe they have decided that all of the money and all of the energy of a denomination which they care about should be focused in a different direction. phe reality is Probably some combination of all three. But here we are again, right where we were before. Only this time the vote didn't go the way some would have liked and the discussion is, once again, back to "how do we leave." It feels a bit insulting to me to say this is about the Bible. Does that mean that those who disagree with me think that I do not read the Bible or study the Bible or take the Bible seriously? Do they think I have not grappled with texts? Do they think that because I, and others who are far more scholarly than I am, arrive at a different understanding that we do not take our faith seriously? That we do not do our best to keep our eyes on Jesus? That is the part I don't get. Do I have to think like you (or you think like me) to carry out mission and ministry of the Church today? I have to admit I feel a bit like did when I was 10 years old and we were at the baseball field in the small town in which I grew up with only one bat and one ball between us, and when the call did not go the way that the owner of the bat and ball wanted he took his bat and ball and went home and nobody got the chance to enjoy an afternoon of baseball. |
PD Johnston
said:
|
... Chaplain Berbiglia expresses a worthy sentiment: "cannot we find a way to express the Unity of the Body of Christ." Would that it were possible. In the fundamentalist/modernist controversy a century ago, the various sides could find common ground. Whether one believed Christ died to satisfy divine justice, to pay a ransom to free captives, or to be an example of the depth of divine love, one could still affirm "Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures," which is what really mattered. But the divide is much bigger now. With church leaders declaring the idea that God sent his son to die for us is divine child abuse, what meaningful statement about Jesus Christ can unite people? Did Christ die to free us from our sins to live a new way of life? Or is his message that we're all just fine just the way we are? Does Christ free us from the burden of our sinful way of life or the burden of the pressure to change to some new set of values? It is easy to say "can't we be united in Christ?" But in what Christ can a church find unity? |
CHAPLAIN [LTC] JAMES C. BERBIGLIA
said:
|
HELOTES, TEXAS 78023 When I was ordained in the PCUS in 1958, I was already in a group that had left the national Church. Then a group left the Church over women's ordination, another split over a thinly-veiled racial issue and orthodoxy, now the evangelicals want to split again...but this time taking their property with them [expressly forbidden by our constitution. Shall we endorse yet another splinter group when it is problematic whether the entire Church can service the declining membership and declining finances? More importantly, cannot we find a way to express the Unity of the Body of Christ...or will we copy our national political fiasco where the refusal to compromise is threatening our very democracy! Dare we reduce Christ to "liberals vs Tea Party"? I am so ashamed of what is happening! How can earnest prayer result in tearing the Body apart again? How can earnest prayer result in throwing up our hands as though God cannot solve this one? What a shameful witness to the world community of Christians. The current position does not force any Church to do or believe anything contrary to what the did and believed last year. Are your brothers and sisters who believe differently so vile that you have to take "your property" and leave? If not these extremes, then why would you rip the fabric of the Church in such a public manner? For God's sake and the sake of the Body of Christ, let's remain united and prayerfully discern God's will for a way to live together. We are confusing and alienating our people! |
Tom Hobson
said:
|
Belleville IL The UCC has been undermining fidelity and chastity for decades. Now all of a sudden, we hear objections to union relationships with a body in direct conflict with us? It's about time we had a relationship with a church body that would influence us back in the direction of orthodoxy and orthopraxy. I was at the Fellowship Gathering. I was converted to the idea that dual membership with this New Reformed Body would be the best way to maintain ties with the PC(USA), while taking a clear stand on essentials that the PC(USA) refuses to spell out in writing. |
Jan Armstrong
said:
|
Santa Barbara, CA We do federated churches in our Presbytery all the time. We federate with Methodists, where the church has a methodist FOG and a PCUSA pastor. No problem. Other congregations in Presbyteries do federated congregations with UCC, Baptists and even Mennonites. Of course our constitutions don't agree, but ecumenism with those not like us, such as these, should make ecumenism with any reformed or Presbyterian flavor of church seem easier. The south had union presbyteries for years, running up to re-union. The challenge is to be willing to build bridges and create unions, with divergent groups. There are answers, but their outcomes have yet to be determined. |
Rob Lowry
said:
|
Batesville, AR I was unable to be in Minneapolis for the meeting. I regret that because I do want to understand more fully the ideas coming out of the Fellowship group. Having read news reports, spoken to friends who did attend and looking at the Fellowship website, I have a pretty good idea of what is being suggested. It sounds as though there may be some good solutions coming to the surface. In the end, however I do see potential problems. One issue stands out above the others. And to be up front, it is one that if not solved would press me to vote against any overture concerning union or communion with this NRB. The problem I see is with congregations that choose to be union churches with both the PCUSA and the NRB and he PCUSA pastors who choose to serve NRB congregations. To be a part of the NRB, it is apparent that congregations and individuals will have to commit themselves to principles that may be in direct conflict with the PCUSA constitution. I am fine with there being dissent and disagreement. I believe that the freedom of conscience is a theological gift in our tradition. My concern is that these same people (pastors and elders) who openly reject some provisions of the PCUSA and who have chosen to align themselves with this new body will have the right to vote on the floor of presbytery and potentially GA. Is it reasonable to allow an individual who has aligned against the PCUSA in this way to vote on PCUSA policy and theological matters? This body is formed with the express purpose of separating from the PCUSA over perceived differences. Under the plan presented, some pastors would be received by one COM and others by a different COM into the same presbytery. How does this further the peace or unity of the church? Does this not set up a system where each COM is encouraged to "recruit" as many churches as possible in order to stack the deck in a particular presbytery? Our current system is not perfect, however it does force us to sit together at the table and deal with our theological differences and issues. At present, we do not have union with any churches that stand so directly in opposition to our constitution. The endurance of Cumberland unions will surely come to the test in the wake of the passage of 10A. I do not know that we can say yet what unions will look like going forward. From my position, issues of property should be decided on a case by case basis with consideration given to what portion of a particular church chooses to stay or go. If it is a 60-40 split, the minority surely deserves some rights. If it is 99-1, that is a different story property-wise. I am not at all in favor of continuing to fight over land and buildings. Still, when there is division we do have a responsibility to tend to all concerned and not allow majority rules to replace pastoral care of our churches. To have a "gracious separation" rule nationally runs the risk of what to do when a large minority in a particular church wishes to remain in the PCUSA. In the end, I deeply regret that we cannot seem to find a way to stay together. I do not have the answer. I wish I did. I do not think that the proposal set out as it stands now is workable without some major changes. Unfortunately, the planned launch of the NRB in January seems to indicate that a fracture in the church is a fait accompli. |
Write a Response
