| Eight church elders urge congregations to rethink plans to leave the PC(USA) |
| Written by The Presbyterian Outlook | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Wednesday, 11 January 2012 23:50 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Eight Presbyterians, including Cynthia Bolbach and Landon Whitsitt, the moderator and vice-moderator of the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), have issued a letter and video expressing their hope in the future of the denomination. The release comes just a week before the Fellowship of Presbyterians is to convene a Covenanting Conference in Orlando, where that group intends to create a new Reformed body – essentially, a new denomination – to which some congregations currently in the PC(USA) plan to move. The writers – five teaching elders and three ruling elders, including Jack Haberer, the Outlook’s editor – met in Chicago Jan. 2 and 3. In the letter posted on a new blog, these Presbyterians acknowledge that the PC(USA) is “feeling the birthpangs of a new church as it is being reformed by the Holy Spirit.” But they contend that the PC(USA) “has not turned its back on proclaiming Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior." They also encourage those whose congregations are considering pulling back from the PC(USA) to “insist that your leaders re-expose you to the voices of fellow Presbyterians who are resolute in their intentions to stay.”
Here is the full text of the letter and a link to the video.
Sisters and Brothers in Christ,
We all know that our denomination, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), is undergoing complex changes as countless people are seeking to follow God’s will as they understand it. Recent votes on ordination standards and the revision of the Form of Government have brought a welcome change to some Presbyterians, but to others these changes have felt like a betrayal. We eight elders – whose theological and missional commitments reflect a wide range of the denomination – are writing to those struggling with the recent votes. Our message to you, simply, is to tell you that we love you and want to continue to serve Christ together with you in this part of the body of Christ.
On January 2-3, we gathered together to reflect on these times. The lectionary passage for that day was Eph. 4:1-16, the first part of which calls us to “make an effort to preserve the unity of the Spirit within the bond of peace…” That unity and that peace are suffering strain.
In a few days some 1,700 Presbyterians will be gathering in Orlando, Florida, for the purpose of exploring their denominational future. Some will be representing churches planning to pull out of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to form the nucleus of a new denominational expression, provisionally called the “New Reformed Body.” Most have not formed their future plans but are contemplating some change, either to follow the path into the NRB, or to try to co-affiliate with the NRB and PC(USA), or to explore alternative arrangements within the PC(USA), such as becoming an affinity network under the banner, “Fellowship of Presbyterians.” We also know of several dozen other churches that have initiated steps to transfer from the PC(USA) to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church or another denomination.
We know that those contemplating the possibility of leaving are bathing the decision in prayer, and are genuinely seeking to discern God’s will in this.
However, we believe with all our hearts that perception is not reality, that the PC(USA) has not left its moorings, its commitment to proclaim the living Word of God – Jesus Christ – as revealed in the written word of God, holy Scripture. We do believe that the varying parties differ not over their belief in the Gospel but over how to apply its words of grace in particular ways.
Ephesians also reminds us that God’s work is, in part, to continue to equip the church to build itself up into maturity. We see God doing that work in specific ways through this denomination. The PC(USA) is deeply missional. And it is elevating and equipping the calling to evangelize the world. The past General Assembly reaffirmed the commitment to “Grow Christ’s Church Deep and Wide,” and the upcoming GA will take up the vision to plant 1,001 new worshiping communities in the next 10 years. The General Assembly Mission Council staff, such as those in the Church Growth and Transformation department, are equipping Presbyterians to give witness to the Gospel, to turn around churches and to turn shrinking churches into growing ones. As Tom Taylor, the California pastor from evangelical circles who now serves as President of the Presbyterian Foundation often affirms, "Planting and growing congregations, proclaiming the gospel effectively, building up the church - these are at the core of who we are as Presbyterians.
In the past five years, our denominational offices have recruited the experience, wisdom and witness of Presbyterians who support these values in unprecedented ways."
The PC(USA) simply has not turned its back on proclaiming Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.
If you are a part of a congregation that is contemplating a move away from regular participation in the PC(USA), please insist that your leaders re-expose you to the voices of fellow Presbyterians who are resolute in their intentions to stay. Do not allow one-sided presentations to be all you consider as you seek to discern God’s call to you and your congregation. At times like this, the grass surely can look greener beyond the fence and the desire to jump to that side may feel compelling, but to extend the overused cliché, the grass over there has its own problems, and the grass over here may be regenerating in ways you haven’t noticed, and the process of jumping the fence brings some perils not obvious before taking the leap. The law of unintended consequences inevitably brings problems – many of which could have been foreseen by learning from the history we ignore at our peril. Jesus did tell us, after all, to count the cost before taking action.
Is the PC(USA) undergoing a season of change? For certain. We are feeling the birthpangs of a new church as it is being reformed by the Holy Spirit. But those changes are much broader than the divisive debates of recent years. The desire to discern what missional actually means “on the ground,” to re-invigorate congregations losing momentum and to make a real life-giving difference in our communities is happening across the whole denomination. We are convinced that that reformation is strengthened by reinvesting ourselves and all of our congregations – and weakened by the departure of any.
We understand that it’s difficult not knowing exactly where we’re going to end up. But the road we are on, in seeking to proclaim God’s Word to a 21st century culture, is not only exciting but transformative.
Yes, the Church of Jesus Christ is facing a complex, turbulent time. Yes, some of us are applauding the changes while others are grieving them. But the eight of us together share a genuine hope for the future of the PC(USA). In fact, we also have prepared a video in which we offer a personal witnesses to that hope. You can view it at HopeForThePCUSA.blogspot.com. We would love to hear from you the signs of hope you are seeing in the church, too; we invite you to share those hopes on that website.
We are confident that these hopes are sure – and will not disappoint – because they are based on the resurrection of Christ who has called us into this “one hope,” even to be “one body and of one spirit.”
Faithfully in Christ,
Cynthia Bolbach, First Presbyterian Church, Arlington, Va., Moderator of 219th General Assembly, ruling elder Theresa Cho, St. John’s Presbyterian Church, SF, teaching elder Vilmarie Cintrón-Olivieri, First Spanish Presbyterian Church, Miami, Fla., ruling elder Jack Haberer, Presbyterian Outlook, Richmond, Va., teaching elder Julie Henderson, First Presbyterian Church, Brighton, Colo., ruling elder Stan Ott, Vital Churches Institute, Oak Hill, Va., teaching elder Byron Wade, Davie Street Presbyterian Church, Raleigh, N.C., Vice-Moderator of 218th General Assembly, teaching elder Landon Whitsitt, Synod of Mid-America, Liberty, Mo., Vice-Moderator of 219th General Assembly, teaching elder
Organizations listed for identification purposes only. Your Responses (22)
p.w. gregory
said:
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed|
lambertville, nj But why are they so angry? Liberal/progressives, be they of the political or theological perspective I think like to think of themselves as being kind, generious, open-minded, compassonate, empathetic, and generally a friend to the less fortunate, and quite sensitive to matters of justice and over-all human suffering and need. One aspect of the current impass in the denomination is that progressives by and large fail to either process or acknowledge the level and amount of anger in the church at large, from conservatives/traditionalists, or from those just sick and tired of the whole mess. So many times they ask themselves, "why are they so angry"?. This is also fueled by a tendency which you see in all communications from denominational leaders that frankly come of as condesending, insulting, and a tendecy to see themselves as eiher smarter or more informed than their readers. All this adds fuel to the fire, as we read in the responses to date. For the PCUSA and its leaders, anger exists in what Carl Jung would call their "shadows", and many times they are unable to deal with or process. Anger is a base emotion. In that it tends to fuel other behavors, thoughts and actions when left unaddressed or stuffed away. As I told my CPE students years ago, anger is a very poor and very toxic source of energy for ministry and professional work. If not worked on or addressed it tends to lead on to some very pathological behaviors, that is true for complex organizations, religious denominations, as it is for people. The PCUSA treats and tends to look at the anger of others who happen to disagree with the party-line as either being a denial of the "new" work of the Holy Spirit, or simply a matter of lack of education and information about all the great and new things about the denomination. As if those on the other side of the table are either less holy or spiritual as they, or just plain intellectual dullards. The folks at the Orlando gathering about to happen may indeed be some angry folks, and just want a vehicle to express or process their feelings, some many be very sad and heart-broken over the situation that got them there. Others just the courious and checking the place and movement out. Spiritual or intellectual dullars they are not, nor are they throw-backs to the reconstruction south with all its racial/social baggage, as I have heard from my learned Princeton buddies. But the good thing many times about anger is that it can become energy and a catylist for change, to smash the old and bring in something new. Like the old phone commercial, "can you hear me now"? |
John Gilman
said:
|
Corvallis, OR8 PCUSA decided to become a politically correct social club. The clear language of NFOG and 10a repudiates obedience to Scripture and denies the nature of important sin. Where is the impassioned letter to greater PCUSA, urging a reconsideration of this disastrously bad decision by the denomination? Where is even a mention that NFOG and 10A might weaken God's Kingdom? Cue crickets. This letter reminds me of the scene in the movie, Tangled, in which the evil stepmother complains, "Oh, now I'M the bad guy!" |
Chris Enoch
said:
|
Uniontown, Pennsylvania At our last session meting, we read yet another letter from (now) formers elders and strategic leaders in the church I pastor. In their letter, they talked of their regret over the non-biblical decisions that the PCUSA has engaged in; and while Third Presbyterian Church may be remaining, with God's help, faithful to Christ, they wrote that the association with the denomination is now a deal breaker. In my now 12 years as a pastor, I have had to read several such letters. Most, however, don't bother to write. It is a heartbreaking scene that has been repeated ad infinitum across the denomination. You are worried about all the churches that are considering trying to leave the PCUSA; and right you should be - for there are probably too many to count now; but what disturbs me more is that literally church after church full of people have been walking away from the denomination for years and the drain is now just exasperated. Please don't say, "We are feeling the birthpangs of a new church as it is being reformed by the Holy Spirit." It seems just as likely we are being chastised and perhaps even punished by Holy Spirit. Please don't say "The PC(USA) simply has not turned its back on proclaiming Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord." We cannot even agree on who Jesus is and what Savior and Lord implies. As an evangelical, I need to know that the PCUSA can still be a safe place for me to do the Lord's ministry; the witness on a number of our Presbyteries (not all, for sure) has been devastating for those who hold orthodox Christian views. So, for now, I shall sit back and wait on the Lord and see what He is doing with the PCUSA. And pray.... |
Mark R. Patterson, PhD
said:
|
Ventura, CA Thanks for responding on Facebook O esteemed editor Jack. As I have oft said, you are friend and brother and I respect you tremendously. I have carefully read your points and want to briefly (sort of) respond to them here. First, thanks for publishing all responses received by the Outlook (save the faux Rolex ads!). This is good, right, and valued by us all. I wish the larger church was as amenable to open discussion. Second, while I have no doubt that some congregations are not receiving the “whole” picture and even agree with the letter in its call to be “re-exposed” to the voices of other Presbyterians I think you missed my point. The letter from the eight is clearly addressing the evangelical wing in general and specifically those attending the Orlando Fellowship Gathering and/or considering leaving the PCUSA. Thus these words of advice are not addressed to the whole church or even both sides of the debate but only one part. This public letter is not a call for all to study, wrestle, and discuss the issues. Rather it singles out one part of the body, clearly suggests they are ill-informed and misguided, and urges they do better. I personally find this very troubling and hurtful. I believer others feel the same way. And it is confusing. I wonder why the leaders of the church continually see the need to correct, guide, and cajole the evangelicals while no such letters or statements go forth to the progressives. The letter from the eight is an excellent example. Another is the public letter sent out following the passing of 10a signed by every former moderator but one. I ask the eight, do you believe that only one side of the church needs to be “re-exposed to the voices of fellow Presbyterians”? If not, why did you only address one side in this letter? Even more, why is this the normative approach in the PCUSA? Third, I understand that the substantive issues would have required “pages and pages.” But again, I think you misunderstand my critique. The letter from the eight leaders, like all other letters from our denominational leaders follows a certain form that has become standard— 1) Declaration of awareness: “We know the church is going through difficulties…”; 2) Expression of care: “We know many are troubled hurt, confused, etc., etc.”; 3) Correction/Rebuke: “But you need to be aware, understand, practice, etc. etc. 4) Change of Subject “God is doing great things in, though, among us proving we are healthy and pleasing to God”; 5) Holy Spirit Declaration. “This is the work of the Holy Spirit” “these are birth pangs of the Spirit creating a new church” etc., etc. This pattern has become not only normative and oft seen it is also one-sided, directed always toward the evangelical side of the church. In the end and especially after so many such statements from church leaders you must see how such letters come across. They are demeaning, condescending, and insulting. Reading the responses to the letter posted on the Outlook web page and Facebook affirms my assessment. Good people who have long served the church with energy, imagination, and love are deeply troubled by this letter (and the many others like it all taking the same form and bearing a similar message). Fourth, I agree with and appreciate your reminder that our church has always affirmed the good principle that councils error and not every decision, change, or act may be seen as the work and sign of the Holy Spirit. But while we affirm this principle, it means little in practice. Our leaders are quick to claim the presence and leading of the Holy Spirit in every decision and change that takes place. And I challenge this. The passing of PUP, NFOG, 10a, last summer’s PJC decisions, the ordination of Scot Anderson, and numerous other acts and changes have all been declared to be acts of the Holy Spirit by leaders in the church. Again, I challenge this and believe it untrue. But my main point is simply this: the way this principle works in practice is profoundly one sided. Our leaders declare the Spirit’s presence and leading behind every progressive victory and perspective while suggesting the perspectives and desires of evangelicals is contrary to the will and work of the Spirit. This has been done in the past. It was done again in the letter from eight leaders. Those presenting such statements must understand that repeated affirmation of the Holy Spirit’s work and will in such events as those listed above, while suggesting the opposite is true of the Orlando Fellowship is deeply problematic and divisive. The letter from the eight, far from bridging the gap and bringing the church together has only served to reveal the depth of its divide. And deepen it. Finally, I disagree with your perspective that our division is more the result of misperceptions than real or significant differences. The passing of 10a requires me to affirm and participate in (if only tacitly at this point) acts and perspectives that I believe defy and reject Scripture. The Covenant Network’s recent guidelines on examination not only show such concerns are justified they also reveal clearly where the church is heading. We are not talking about raising our hands in worship or choosing to kneel in reverence. We are not talking about organ verses guitars or sprinkling verses immersion. We are talking about the authority of Scripture and how these words are to be understood and rightly applied in the reality of our faith and life. And our church is deeply divided over this issue. We are talking about the singularity of Jesus as the only Word of God and Saviour. And our church is deeply divided over this issue. We are talking about theological truths long held and now abandoned, of ethical perspectives long extolled now rejected. We are talking about the beliefs, values, and practices at the heart of our church. And we are not remotely agreed on what they are, what they mean, how they are to be expressed and lived and ultimately, whether they even exist. These (and others that might be listed) are not misperceptions but real and arguably irreconcilable differences. After 33 years of ministry (25 years of it ordained) and 53 years in the Presbyterian Church, I find that its decades long course combine with recent decisions, acts, and statements to render it impossible I continue in a body that acts, lives, and believes as it now does. Sadly the letter from the eight only served to re-affirm this. Our moderator’s declaring the Orlando gathering as “schismatic” (and thus not a work of the Holy Spirit!), the vice-moderator’s censorship of a denominational webpage/blog, and countless other events make it clear to me that the best and most faithful thing I can do is to be a part of building something new and different. This decision is neither easily nor quickly made. Nevertheless I am compelled to take this step as the PCUSA relentlessly strives to take up a faith and practice very different than the one I vowed to uphold and serve and worse, as it demands my affirmation and participation. All this makes it profoundly clear to me that it is time to create something new. I sense the Holy Spirit leading me to Orlando and the work of God that will occur there. |
p.w. gregory
said:
|
lambertville, nj What is it that they want? I have thought about this as I have read the various responses to the PCUSA letter. The responses fall into three general categories or matters of concern. -The issue of even-handedness. Why single out the Fellowship folks and not direct the same comments to the various "Free-Love" special interest groups on the other side who have been pushing their brand of social-engeneering PCUSA style for decades. -Fear of the "Kenyonization" of the church, a new progrom to wead out/purge all who oppose gay ordination. And from my experience from my times in Boston, Baltimore, Washington DC, and now the Princeton NJ area, there is some smoke to that fire. -A general perception of imperialism or elitism from the authors, "we know better than you" or are smarter, so just get back in line. But when you think about it, the whole evangelical/conservative/Fellowship movement really has a glass-cealing in the PCUSA of about 15% of the current church. Meaning that at most, and this is being very generious, no more than 10/15% of all PCUSA churches will leave at the end of the day. Meaning that for about 85% or so of the curernt church, all seem fine and happy and content with the general drift and change in the denomination. So what do they, the progressive/liberal governing majority want? Why not just let this 10-15%, or so, dissaffected folks just go, no harm, no foul. Much like old Moses, "Let my people go". Why make such a fuss? I think if you pin them down yes, they want peace and unity, who would not want that as opposed to endless bickering and bile. Yes they want denominational stability as well and some plan on the future, again who wouldn't want that. But in my gut what they really want at the end of thy day, and sorry to be so crass or blunt, is money. I think that if the Orlando gathering in some class-action event told Louisville. "here we will give you XXXXXXXXX dollars to settle all affairs and allow churches free and clear the ability to move affiliation as desired", I think there would be a five-minute meeting in Louisville, they would take the money, and we all join hands and sing. When you peal away all pious rhetoric and god-talk, that is what is at the core of the current troubles. For the institutional PCUSA time is not their friend, demographic, cultural, populaiton changes will conspire to close 1/3rd to 1/4th of all their churches in 5-7 years. Fellowship or no Fellowship. The Pension plan will be close to insolvent when the tidal-wave of boomers hit the plan starting in 2015-2020, and there are far far less churches to pay the piper. Fellowship or no Fellowship. By 2020 the church will be serious talks to have organic union with the UCC, whom they share much in common. Some PCUSA churches will go Unitarian. Fellowship, or no Fellowship the church will much, much smaller, much much poorer in relative terms than now. And all their ambitious programs, concepts, commitments to NCC, WCC all cost money. Their bloated governing stucture, GA/Synods, on down the line, costs money. And they are buring through cash to keep all balls in the air. A church, an organization, a denomination in general decline hits a wall when either one of three things happen, you run out of people, you run out of money, you run out of mission. Fellowship or no Fellowship movement, 15% retained or not, the PCUSA will be finding out about reality sooner or later. The more they are able to kick that can down the road, so much the better. But again, that can costs money. Again folks on both sides I feel are good, honest Christains who seek the best, but we are still real people in the real world, and it costs to live in such. |
Rev. Ellen Steele
said:
|
Campbell, CA Dear Cynthia, et al - I've read your letter and I've watched your video. Through them I hear a deep belief that the PCUSA will be better off if the whole family continues to live under the same roof, and a conviction that being bound together in one denomination is better - more aligned with the Holy Spirit and the words of Scripture - than living out our ministries in separate bodies. In many ways your words sound so good to me. They truly do. But here's the thing: we have been a broken, hurting family for longer than I've been a follwer of Jesus Christ. To be sure, we are a family that has shared some beautiful moments together. But we are also a family that has been wounded by decades of posturing, politicking, judgmentalism, fear, and power maneuvering. This wounding has come from ALL corners of our family - no one is exempt. And even by writing this I realize that I may be engaging in some of those very things, and that doesn’t make me feel good at all. As humans have been discovering since biblical times, families can be wonderful sources of encouragement, blessing and grounding. And they can also be sources of damage, discord and deep pain. Every family lives with a mixutre of the beautiful and the unattractive. But sometimes the relationships in a family become so continuously abrasive - the damage and the hurt become so deep and so severe - that it becomes apparent that the best way for family members to get along well is to put some space between them. This is the point we have reached in our PCUSA family. And it grieves me more than you know. When a family reaches the place of having to split apart, it is rarely the result of a one-time event or a hasty impulse - it is more often the result of a long history of unrepented and unreconciled sin and an evolving realization that the ones you have given your heart and life and trust to are now at enmity with you. And it sucks. As some of you may know, the only thing that makes the pain of a divorce worse than it already is, is when a custody battle emerges. When parties feel that the only way to deal with their anger is to take it out on each other - through words, through actions and through the legal system. To make the separation as brutal as possible for the other side. Unfortunately, we are seeing this happen in parts of our PCUSA family right now, and we should be embarrassed by it. You have written a letter of plea and admonition to one of the parties involved in this painful season of separation. But I’m curious...do you also plan to address those who are attempting to create messy, awful custody battles with admonition as well? Because - though you probably don’t intend this - the fact that you have chosen to single out only those who feel the time has come to put space between themselves and the rest of their PCUSA family as requiring a letter of this sort indicates to me that you are not able to recognize that in any conflict, blame and responsibility are shared. Your letter is earnest. But I’m afraid it’s not nearly enough for me to change my belief that the time for a separation in our family has come. I grieve this, believe me - my grief has been growing for years. And I say this as someone who has many good friends and colleagues who don’t see the issues that have driven a wedge into our family from the same perspective that I do. My plea to you all is that as this separation continues to move forward you will lead and serve in a way that seeks to be as healing, loving and even-handed as possible - even in the midst of your own significant emotions about it. Thank you for listening, Ellen Steele |
David Lenz
said:
|
... I respectfully request the eight signatories to specify which "one-sided presentations" they have in mind. You paint with a very broad brush. Further, you seem to have a low opinion of congregational members, as if in this era of the internet and social media they are unable to gather information for themselves. |
Charles Jeffery
said:
|
Burbank, CA I recently left the church where I have had my membership due to them still remaining a part of the PCUSA. I cannot, in good conscience, remain a part of a denomination that "votes" sins out of the Scripture. I also wonder why no such letters were ever written to the groups that actually divided the denomination - arrogantly named More Light Presbyterians, That All May Freely Serve, Covenant Network and other groups. Why is it that the "Fellowship" group is called out and those other groups were never called out for all these years for their divisiveness? Those leaving and have left the denomination are showing a lot more respect than those groups that called for continual voting until they got their way and worked to get enough of their representatives in various churches to be a part of their voting process. |
Walter L. Taylor
said:
|
Oak Island, North Carolina It is sad that the elders who gathered reflected on Ephesians 4 and stopped short of reflecting on Ephesians 5:1-14: Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. "But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not become partners with them; for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord. Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret. But when anything is exposed by the light, it becomes visible, for anything that becomes visible is light. Therefore it says, “Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you.” (Ephesians 5:1-14 ESV) What is lost on the "Progressives" and many "moderates" is the fact that we are dealing with matters that are "Essentials of the Reformed faith." If Moderator Bolbach, et. al., are so concerned, now, about the unity of the PC(USA), then they should not have sown the seeds of division and unfaithfulness for so many years. |
Viola Larson
said:
|
Sacramento California Until Progressive leaders are welling to refute and admonish the Covenant Network for their new guidelines which state that those candidates who cannot for conscious sake ordain unrepentent LGBT persons cannot be ordained there is no future hope for Evangelicals or/and the orthodox in the PCUSA. (And I write this as an Elder who intends to stay in obedience to what God has asked of me.) This-below was written in the Guidelines in the context of ordaining LGBT persons. "General Assembly has affirmed that an examining body cannot excuse a candidate’s inability to perform the constitutional functions unique to his or her office (such as administration of the sacraments).”Consistent with this, a series of judicial cases has made clear that a presbytery may not ordain or install someone who declares that he will not participate in the ordination of women. Indeed, it is fundamental to our polity that the responsibility for assessing the fitness of officers-elect is vested in councils (sessions and presbyteries), not in individuals. Accordingly, the pastor who officiates at an ordination thereby performs a ministerial act that is required by the Constitution (not a discretionary one), and the act of officiating indicates neither approval nor disapproval of the congregation’s choice of leaders and council’s approval of them. This point pertains primarily to pastors, who must officiate at child baptisms, ordination and installation of church leaders, and the like. While candidates who cannot agree to perform such functions in conformity with Presbyterian polity may be fine Christians, they may not be ordained or installed in the PC(USA)." This really needs to be addressed before I could possibly write about hope for the orthodox in the PCUSA. |
p.w. gregory
said:
|
lambertville, nj I find it most ironic that as we celebrate the life and work of Martin Luther, I wonder just how the good doctor would respond to this letter,(WWLD?). There are many good and valid reasons to remain in the PCUSA, inspite of its self-inflicted wounds. And the letter indeed makes many valid points, worthy of thought and reflection. And a few good and valid ones to leave, if one is so inclined. But for the authors to go down the path of using fear as a weapon, or fear of change, "grass is greener----", "laws of unintended consequences" and alike strikes me as intellectually bankrupt, morally flawed, and frankly silly. It is as if one makes a point by saying "the devil you do know is better than the devil you do not", or "please stay for the sake of the getting along and keepng the status quo, for that sake alone". Or "yes, we embrace change, but only the change we like, and only the change we control". Did not work for Herod the Great in 4BC, or Rome in 1560, doubt it will work now. WWLD? Luther would have responded to such a line of logic from Rome with the same references to Romans 8 as he did in response the Holy Roman Emperor at the time, as to why he could just not shut-up, play nice, and keep peace and unity, for the sake of peace and unity alone. The authors of the letter are good, honest, Christian people who love and serve the Lord as best they can with all their hearts. And love their church, that I will never doubt or question. But that is not the issue. What the institutional, organizational, management of church need hear is the reason why such a gathering in Orlando is about to happen is because the old "well stay, pay your per capita and please give us the keys to the doors as you leave, because we know better", does not cut it anymore. The river has been crossed, be it gay ordination in 2010, same sex marriage rites and the redefining of marriage in 2012, 2014. The PCUSA knew very well what it was doing in 2006 with PUP and the actions 2010, 2011. The authors of such work can claim many things, stupidity is not one of them. |
Roland Day
said:
|
Baton Rouge, Louisiana The Angels told Lot, "Up! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, lest you be swept away in the punishment of the city." I think they hear the Angel's voice and most are going to leave the PCUSA just as surely as Lot left Sodom. |
Carmen Fowler LaBerge
said:
|
Lenoir, NC John Erthein believed in good faith that the Moderator would not be attending the Fellowship meeting because he read it in The Outlook's Jan 3 article which says, "Bolbach will not attend the Fellowship of Presbyterians meeting in Orlando Jan. 18-20, where the plan is to create a new Reformed body with which PC(USA) congregations could affiliate — or to which they could be dismissed. “I will not be at a place where they are talking about schism,” Bolbach said. She also said: “I don’t want to be part of a denomination of like-minded people … of people who think like me and look like me.” http://www.pres-outlook.com/news-and-analysis/1/12113.html "Editor's comment: Carmen is correct. The Moderator did make those comments just as quoted in the Outlook, so John Erthein wrote his response in good faith. The Moderator has since changed her mind and does plan to attend the Orlando conference after all. --JHH" |
Rev. Robert McClelland
said:
|
Arlington, Texas I am confused by this letter signed by these elders in leadership within the PC(USA). Have they not looked at the denomination website and seen the most recent panel statistics that show 60% of specialized pastors within the PC(USA) do not believe that Jesus is the only way to salvation? Maybe it is the fact that more elders (only 45%) said that Jesus was the only way, than did pastors (35%). Either way, how can they argue that we have not left our moorings and that we are still proclaiming Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior when the studies show that we might proclaim Jesus Lord, but not Savior? Maybe it is that we proclaim him our savior and allow others to find their own savior (though that is not historically Presbyterian). Historical Presbyterianism would tell each of those who do not believe Jesus to be necessary for salvation that they we not actually part of the true church and would separate from fellowship with them. But then again, we have changed the Marks of the Church from the historic marks to some expanded from a line in the Nicene Creed. Just check F-1.0302 and then look at the "Notes" of the Church which used to be the Marks. |
Rev. Daniel Vraa
said:
|
Dixon, California Perhaps I am wrong, but I am wondering if you just don't care, or if you are unable to hear. We evangelicals have serious concerns which you (plural) continue to refuse to address. You change the subject, petty-fog, call names, invoke special Spirit-revelations (which are contrary to the Spirit-revealed Scriptures), quote sob stories, blame and shame, and discount the motives of those with whom you disagree. The sad thing is I doubt any of you can understand anything I am saying in this response. For over 30 years, you have yet to listen to us or address our concerns, yet you claim to have extra sensitivity to the Spirit - which, of course, we evangelicals could never possess. ... Sigh ... Rev. Daniel Vraa |
Mark R. Patterson, PhD
said:
|
Ventura, CA While I am appreciate the heart of those writing this letter and their passion to keep the church united, this letter is problematic at several points. First, it holds that those considering "disaffiliating" or leaving have been blinded by "one-sided" arguments while those choosing to stay have the full, clear, and accurate picture. I challenge this as crass reductionism, impossible to prove, and actually false. My congregation has studied these issues for years, reading, listening, wrestling, and praying as we seek to discern what the Lord is doing and how we are to participate. To suggest that those considering leaving need to be "re-exposed" to the breadth of opinion in the PC (USA) lest they fall for utopian visions is presumptuous and insulting. Second, this letter, like countless other expressions from the church, ignores the real issues. Many of us feel that the passing of 10a puts us in a place wherein we are forced to approve and participate in something the Scriptures condemn. To declare the hope to plant a 1001 new churches, that the director of the Foundation came from an Evangelical church, and that good things are indeed occurring is all fine and good. But it does not address the problem that is compelling nearly two thousand people to gather and discuss a new option. All these are fine and good but they do not address or change the problem we are facing. It merely changes the subject. Third, this letter, again like countless other pronouncements from the church's leadership, boldly asserts that all this is the result of the Holy Spirit's presence and leading. But is this true? Some of us can not understand how the Holy Spirit would lead the church into practices that contradict the holy Spirit inspired Scriptures. And surely those writing this letter know from church history, that not all that a church does or believes is truly the work or fruit of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit's leading was claimed for the crusades, the inquisition, indulgences, and the German Christian church under Hitler. I challenge the premise that the passing of 10a is the result of the Holy Spirit bringing us into a better, more godly future. And I am skeptical of our leaders' assertion in and after every event and change that it is the result of the Holy Spirit. And I reject in the strongest terms the antithesis that implies those of us troubled by the passing of 10a are not listening to or discerning the work and presence of the Holy Spirit. I would ask these eight (and other leaders in the church) when they will quit producing "spin" and honestly address the concerns that are being increasingly voiced? When are our leaders going to honestly listen to those who are frustrated to the point of wanting to leave? Our moderator (one of the eight!) has voiced her intention to not attend the Orlando gathering, denouncing it as "schismatic." This is especially troubling when understood with the letter above. I would suggest that she and other leaders in the church be "re-exposed" to the to the "voices of fellow presbyterians" and turn from the one-sided arguments that may be leading them to take a course filled with "perils" and "unintended consequences". It remains to be seen whether the leaders of the church will only continue to dismiss and even demean those so troubled by current events they now consider leaving or whether they set aside the spin and denial and actually address the issues tearing us apart. |
John Erthein
said:
|
DeFuniak Springs, FL I need to mention that Rev. Haberer sent a private message to me that corrected my claim that Moderator Bolbach will not attend the Fellowship Convocation. She is in fact planning to attend after all. I apologize to Ms. Bolbach for making an inaccurate claim. I made it in good faith but I was wrong nonetheless. Respectfully, John Erthein DeFuniak Springs, FL |
John Erthein
said:
|
DeFuniak Springs, FL My apologies, I refered to the Fellowship Convocation being in Atlanta, that was a mistake. It is in Orlando. |
John Erthein
said:
|
DeFuniak Springs, FL I do not know if I need to establish my bona fides by stating: first, that I am not attending the Fellowship Convocation in Atlanta; and second, that my congregation has no plans to leave the PC(USA) because we feel called to establish an evangelical witness within our Presbytery. I have my own reservations about what the Fellowship leadership thinks it can accomplish. But since I did share that, I also want to say that I find this letter to be very unfortunate. Moderator Bolbach previously refused to attend the upcoming Fellowship Convocation in Orlando because "schism" would be discussed. On the other hand, she, along with the other signers of this letter, are arguably encouraging dissension and conflict within congregations by encouraging members to "insist" that the congregation leaders expose their congregations "to the voices of Presbyterians who are resolute in their desire to stay." If the goal is to disrupt evangelical congregations considering departure, this letter meets that goal. If the goal is to genuinely increase mutual forebearance within our conflicted fellowship, this letter fails to do so. To me, this is a very disappointing and self-serving letter written by institutional preservationists. Respectfully, John Erthein |
Bob Merrill
said:
|
New London, NH The Letter states: "At times like this, the grass surely can look greener beyond the fence and the desire to jump to that side may feel compelling, but to extend the overused cliché, the grass over there has its own problems, and the grass over here may be regenerating in ways you haven’t noticed, and the process of jumping the fence brings some perils not obvious before taking the leap." For some of us, many of us probably, the grass looks rather scorched underneath us and all around us. Neither going nor staying seem like the best option for many congregations. All of a sudden we have been thrust into decisions we would rather not make. We turn our backs on sisters and brothers in faith when facing in any direction. If we stand against something, we stand against each other (i.e. same gender marriage, the next PC(USA) flashpoint). If we choose to ignore new provisions in the Book of Order, we break our ordination vows. If we carefully follow scripture and the confessions, we break our ordination vows. Many of us feel wedged in and being crushed between a very big rock and an incredibly hard place (to use another overused cliché). I wish the eight elders would address this dilemma that many of us feel mired within! |
Matt Ferguson
said:
|
Hillsboro, IL I would have more confidence that liberals want conservatives to stay in the PCUSA if those liberals listened to the essential need for some differentiation within the PCUSA to be allowed for conservatives and responded to that need. (Ex: Support the idea of non-geographic presbyteries or the tier two or three options being discussed within The Fellowship.) I still hope either the middle governing bodies commission, which meets next month to release their recommendations, or the next General Assembly will act to provide some hope for differentiation within, but the hope grows dimmer because no liberals in leadership positions either in the denomination or in one of the liberal advocacy groups are voicing their support for such ideas. Liberals are saying one thing (we want to you to stay) but are doing another (not helping promote a faithful way within for conservatives). As on old saying states, "Actions speak louder than words." Or as I have heard it stated elsewhere, "I can't hear what you are saying because your actions are shouting too loud." P.S. If liberals respond they do not understand why conservatives need differentiation in order to remain part of the PCUSA it only proves they have not been listening. |
Write a Response
