| Pastors call for denomination to be “radically transformed” |
| Written by Jack Haberer, Outlook editor | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Wednesday, 02 February 2011 22:12 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A group of 45 mostly large church pastors have published a letter to the whole Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) declaring the denomination to be “deathly ill” and declaring that the church needs to be “radically transformed.” At an early January gathering in Scottsdale, Ariz., the leaders articulated issues that they had been discussing informally over the past year. They spelled out their assessments in a white paper titled, “Time for Something New,” which was published on Feb. 2 along with the letter to the denomination.
The letter states, “We hate the appearance of schism – but the PC(USA) is divided already.” It mentions homosexual ordination as the “flashpoint of controversy” in recent decades but insists that that issue masks larger and deeper points of contention. The paper just “acknowledges the fractured denomination that we have become.” The letter is signed by a steering committee of seven pastors, most of whom are founding leaders of the Presbyterian Global Fellowship, and 38 concurring pastors. They have invited likeminded ministers and elders to gather together on August 25-27 in Minneapolis to consider next steps of action. The complete text of the letter follows and the white paper follows thereafter.
February 2, 2011 Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
To say the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is deathly ill is not editorializing but acknowledging reality. Over the past year, a group of PC(USA) pastors has become convinced that to remain locked in unending controversy will only continue a slow demise, dishonor our calling, and offer a poor legacy to those we hope will follow us. We recently met in Phoenix, and have grown in number and commitment. We humbly share responsibility for the failure of our common life, and are no better as pastors nor more righteous than anyone on other sides of tough issues.
Our denomination has been in steady decline for 45 years, now literally half the size of a generation ago. Most congregations see far more funerals than infant baptisms because we are an aging denomination. Only 1,500 of our 5,439 smallest churches have an installed pastor, putting their future viability as congregations in doubt. Even many larger congregations, which grew well for decades, have hit a season of plateau or decline. Our governing bodies reflect these trends, losing financial strength, staffing, and viability as presbyteries, synods, and national offices.
How we got to this place is less important than how to move forward. We are determined to get past rancorous, draining internal disputes that paralyze our common life and ministry. We believe the PC(USA) will not survive without drastic intervention, and stand ready to DO something different, to thrive as the Body of Christ. We call others of like mind to envision a new future for congregations that share our Presbyterian, Reformed, Evangelical heritage. If the denomination has the ability and will to move in this new direction, we will rejoice. Regardless, a group of us will change course, forming a new way for our congregations to relate. We hate the appearance of schism – but the PC(USA) is divided already. Our proposal only acknowledges the fractured denomination we have become.
Homosexual ordination has been the flashpoint of controversy for the last 35 years. Yet, that issue — with endless, contentious “yes” and “no” votes — masks deeper, more important divisions within the PC(USA). Our divisions revolve around differing understandings of Scripture, authority, Christology, the extent of salvation amidst creeping universalism, and a broader set of moral issues. Outside of presbytery meetings, we mostly exist in separate worlds, with opposing sides reading different books and journals, attending different conferences, and supporting different causes. There is no longer common understanding of what is meant by being “Reformed.” Indeed, many sense that the only unity we have left is contained in the property clause and the pension plan; some feel like withholding per capita is a club used against them, while others feel locked into institutional captivity by property. While everyone wearies of battles over ordination, these battles divert us from a host of issues that affect the way our congregations fail to attract either young believers or those outside the faith. Thus, we age, shrink, and become increasingly irrelevant. Is it time to acknowledge that traditional denominations like the PC(USA) have served in their day but now must be radically transformed? We need something new, characterized by:
Our values include:
We invite like-minded pastors and elders to a gathering on August 25-27 in Minneapolis to explore joining this movement and help shape its character. Our purpose is to LIVE INTO new patterns as they are created, modeling a way of faith: the worship, supportive fellowship, sharing of best practices, and accessible theology that brings unity and the Spirit's vitality.
OUR PROPOSAL: 1) A Fellowship: The most immediate change we intend is creating a new way of relating in common faith, a Fellowship (name to be determined). The primary purpose of this Fellowship will be the encouragement of local congregations to live out the Good News proclaimed by our Savior, increasing the impact of the Kingdom of Heaven. This Fellowship will exist within current presbyteries for the time being, but energies and resources will flow in new directions. It is an intermediate tool to bring together like-minded congregations and pastors, to enable us to build a future different than our fractured present.
2) New Synod/Presbyteries: In the near future we will need “middle bodies” that offer freedom to express historical, biblical values amid ordination changes in the PC(USA). More importantly, we long for presbytery-like bodies with theological and missional consensus rather than fundamental disagreement over so many core issues. We need new processes that identify and support the next generation of leadership differently than the current model, which unintentionally weeds out the entrepreneurial persons we so desperately need in our congregations. Many current functions should be removed; some, like curriculum and mission relationships, have become less centralized already. We will work with the Middle Governing Bodies Commission since changes to The Book of Order will be needed to step fully into this reality.
3) Possible New Reformed Body: Congregations and presbyteries that remain in a denomination that fundamentally changes will become an insurmountable problem for many. Some members of the Fellowship will need an entity apart from the current PC(USA). It is likely that a new body will need to be created, beyond the boundary of the current PC(USA), while remaining in correspondence with its congregations. The wall between these partner Reformed bodies will be permeable, allowing congregations and pastors to be members in the Fellowship regardless of denominational affiliation. All kinds of possibilities exist, and much will depend on how supportive the PC(USA) can be in allowing something new to flourish.
4) Possible Reconfiguration of the PC(USA): We intend to continue conversations within the PC(USA), and have met with both Louisville’s leadership and that of the Covenant Network in the past few months. We believe the denomination no longer provides a viable future and perceive that the Covenant Network also sees a broken system. We hope to work together to see if some new alignment might serve the whole Church. Any model that includes an entity outside the PC(USA) does mean fewer remaining congregations, pastors, and elders to fight the challenges of the current PC(USA). Votes will swing in directions that had not been desirable before. For many this outcome simply acknowledges that fighting is not the way we choose to proceed; our goal is not institutional survival but effective faithfulness as full participants in the worldwide Church. We hope to discover and model what a new “Reformed body” looks like in the coming years, and we invite you to join us, stepping faithfully, boldly, and joyfully into the work for which God has called us.
For more information, visit our temporary webpage at www.cpconline.org/fellowship_pcusa or contact us at fellowshippcusa@gmail.com.
Steering Committee:* Vic Pentz, Peachtree Presbyterian, Atlanta, GA John Crosby, Christ Presbyterian, Edina, MN David Peterson, Memorial Drive Presbyterian, Houston, TX Jim Singleton, First Presbyterian, Colorado Springs, CO David Swanson, First Presbyterian, Orlando, FL Rich Kannwischer, St. Andrews, Newport Beach, CA Mark Toone, Chapel Hill Presbyterian, Gig Harbor, WA
Concurring Pastors:* G. Christopher Scruggs, Advent Presbyterian, Cordova, TN Mark Brewer, Bel Air Presbyterian, Los Angeles, CA Allan Poole, Blacknall Memorial Presbyterian, Durham, NC Rick Murray, Covenant Presbyterian, Austin, TX Tim Harrison, Crossroads Presbyterian, Mequon, WI Bob Burkins, Elmwood United Presbyterian, East Orange, NJ Doug Pratt, First Presbyterian, Bonita Springs, FL Mateen Elass, First Presbyterian, Edmond, OK Rich McDermott, First Presbyterian, Fort Collins, CO Richard Gibbons, First Presbyterian, Greenville, SC Dan Baumgartner, First Presbyterian, Hollywood, CA Jim Birchfield, First Presbyterian, Houston, TX Jim Davis, First Presbyterian, Kingwood, TX Jerry Andrews, First Presbyterian, San Diego, CA John Sowers, First Presbyterian, Spokane, WA Jim Miller, First Presbyterian, Tulsa, OK Jack Peebles, First Presbyterian, Yakima, WA Doug Ferguson, Grace Presbyterian, Houston, TX Ronald W. Scates, Highland Park Presbyterian, Dallas, TX David Lenz, Hope Presbyterian, Richfield, MN Paul A. Cunningham, La Jolla Presbyterian, La Jolla, CA Bob Sanders, Lake Grove Presbyterian, Lake Oswego, OR Kevin Pound, Mandarin Presbyterian, Jacksonville, FL John Ortberg, Menlo Park Presbyterian, Menlo Park, CA Jeff Ebert, Presbyterian Church at New Providence, New Providence, NJ Paul Detterman, Presbyterians for Renewal, Louisville, KY Mike McClenahan, Solana Beach Presbyterian, Solana Beach, CA Steve Hartman, Third Presbyterian, Richmond, VA David Joynt, Presbyterian Church of Toms River, Toms River, NJ Douglas J. Rumford, Trinity United Presbyterian, Santa Ana, CA Patrick H. Wrisley, University Place Presbyterian, University Place, WA George Hinman (Senior Pastor) and Tim Snow (Executive Pastor), University Presbyterian, Seattle, WA Peter Barnes, Westlake Hills Presbyterian, Austin, TX Baron Eliason, Westminster Presbyterian, Lubbock, TX
*Signatories represent themselves, not necessarily the Session or congregation of their respective churches.
The White Paper:
Time for Something New White Paper January 7, 2011
Conflict has debilitated the PCUSA. A group of pastors has become convinced that remaining locked in unending controversy will continue a slow demise, dishonoring our calling, offering a poor legacy to those we hope will follow us. We humbly share responsibility for the failure of our storied denomination. We are no better as pastors ands no more righteous than anyone on the other side of issues. We have tolerated what we regard as theological error and biblical drift far too long, hoping something would change for the better. How we got to this sad place becomes less important than how to move forward. We are determined to get past rancorous, draining internal disputes that paralyze a common life. We believe we will not survive without drastic intervention. We are ready to do something different, TO THRIVE as the Body of Christ. We call others of like mind to envision a new future for congregations who share our Presbyterian, Reformed, Evangelical heritage. If the denomination has the ability and will to move in this new direction, we will rejoice. Regardless, a group of us will change course, forming a new way for our congregations to relate. We are excited about how God wants us to engage in ministry to the world. We hate the thought of being schismatic – but the PCUSA is in a state of division already. This proposal only acknowledges the sadly divided denomination we have become.
THE SITUATION: The PCUSA is in trouble on many fronts. The denomination has been in steady decline for 45 years, and virtually every meaningful statistical category is down. When the numbers are in for 2010, we will certainly have less than 2 million members (2009 – 2,077,138 members). Baptisms of infants are less than half of what they were at reunion – reflecting a dramatic loss of young adults. Most congregations see far more funerals than infant baptisms because we are an aging denomination. Most PCUSA congregations are gradually growing smaller and smaller. Our “Wee Kirks” (less than 100 members) now account for 51% of our congregation. Only 1,500 of those 5,439 small congregations have an installed pastor, and their future viability as congregations is in doubt. We start precious few new congregations, averaging only 20 new congregations over the past 5 years. Even many larger congregations, which grew well for decades, have hit a season of plateau or decline. Presbyterians did well in attracting the “Builder” generation (born prior to 1946), but with each succeeding generation we have struggled to draw them into our congregations. People still join our congregations, but they then disappear. Since reunion we have moved over 2.5 million members to our inactive rolls.
Many Presbyteries and Synods are in financial difficulties. Aid-receiving Presbyteries are soon to lose that aid and likely lose significant staff. The way those courts of the church have functioned is soon to change. The GA has reduced staff steadily for the past 10 years. These reductions seem to signal a loss of trust within most of the PCUSA. It is very hard to measure the future effectiveness of the emerging leadership in the PCUSA, given how few are under 40 years of age, it seems likely that it will be smaller than the generation now retiring. The issue of homosexual ordination has been the flashpoint of controversy for the last 35 years. Yet, that issue – with its contentious “yes” and “no” votes - masks the more important issues that the PCUSA faces. Those larger, more nuanced issues revolve around differing understanding of scripture, authority, Christology (both the person and the work of Christ), the extent of salvation (creeping universalism), and a broader set of moral issues around which fracture lines appear. There are deep divisions within the PCUSA; opposing sides read different books and journals, attend different conferences, and support different causes. There is no longer a common understanding of what is meant by being “Reformed.” There is a growing sense that the only unity we have left is contained in the property clause and the pension plan. Some feel like per capita is a club used against them, while others feel locked into institutional captivity by the property clause. Outside of Presbytery meetings, we mostly exist in separate worlds. While everyone wearies of the battles over ordination, these battles divert us from a host of issues that affect the way our denomination fails to attract either young believers or those outside the faith. Thus, we age and shrink and become increasingly irrelevant. Certainly none of these issues are unique to the PCUSA, but are all part of larger cultural forces. But what is the way forward? Is there a future beyond the decline as yet unseen? Is there a way to avoid endless fights, to regain consensus on the essence of the Christian faith? We see no plan coming from any quarter, leaving a continued drift into obsolescence. We recognize that there are still islands of hope across the church, but they do not seem to represent a movement. Many faithful groups and organizations have been devoted to the renewal of the PCUSA, and they have offered valuable ministry for many years. Yet it appears they have simply helped slow down a larger story of decline. Is it time to acknowledge that something in the PCUSA system is dying? We need something new, characterized by Passions and Values:
Values:
PROPOSAL: We offer three options to consider, and suggest we pursue each concurrently.
1) An Association of Congregations The most immediate thing we can do is to form an Association of Presbyterian Churches to join together pastors, elders, congregations, and believers, who affirm our historic confessions with integrity. The primary purpose of this association will be the encouragement of local churches to live out the good news proclaimed by our Savior, increasing the impact of the Kingdom of Heaven. We long for a church where the Bible is seen through a common lens. We yearn for gatherings of Spirit-inspired congregations in common Mission. We must re-engage the culture with the life-giving good news of the Gospel, and long for a church willing to stand for truth despite the cries of the culture to accommodate. We long for a church that is alive to the winds of the Holy Spirit in our midst. We long for relationships with colleagues built upon trust and common vision. We long to support churches of all sizes and focus on leadership development at all levels of the church. We expect to see a denomination that encourages racial-ethnic congregations to express their faith in creative ways within their cultural contexts. We anticipate great connection to our Global Mission partners who have been bewildered at the drift in our current expressions.
An Association will still exist within our current Presbyteries for the time being, but energies and resources will begin to flow in new directions. In many ways this association may resemble some of the voluntary organizations of the past (PGF, PFR, etc.) but it is only a way station to something else. It is an intermediate tool to begin to bring together like minded congregations and pastors to begin the work of another future, different than the current PCUSA.
2) New Synod/Presbyteries In the near future we will need a place within the PCUSA to exist with freedom to express our values with a freedom from the expected ordination changes that will exist in the PCUSA. More importantly, we long for Presbyteries where we have theological and missional consensus rather than fundamental disagreement over so many core issues of theology. We need COM and CPM functions that express who we are. We recognize that invitation to the next generation of leadership must be structured differently than the current model, which unintentionally weeds out entrepreneurial persons desperately needed for tomorrow’s church. Beyond those functions, much of the planning of how the Synod/Presbyteries will depend upon how many congregations join together. Many functions, like curriculum and mission relationships, have become less centralized already. We will begin work with the Middle Governing Bodies Commission, searching for ways to be this new entity within the PCUSA. Likely several changes to The Book of Order will be needed to step fully into this reality.
3) Possible New Reformed Body New Presbyteries that still remain in a denomination which enacts change we strongly oppose may be an insurmountable problem for many. Some members of our Association will feel the need for an entity apart from the current PCUSA. Hence, it is likely that a new body will need to be created which can exist beyond the boundary of the PCUSA, but which could remain in correspondence with the PCUSA.
We believe it may be possible for a New Body outside the bounds of the PCUSA to relate to a new Synod. We want to have strong and historic linkages with any departing congregations. Whatever structure emerges, we will strive to serve congregations which today are in the PCUSA. While a strong confessional stance will connect these “in” and “out” congregations, the wall between will be permeable and allow congregations to be participants in the association and supportive of it even if not a full member. All kinds of possibilities exist, and much will depend on how supportive the PCUSA can be in allowing something new to exist without punitive action.
4) Re-Creation of the PCUSA While each of the 3 proposals above may prove to be our next steps, we intend to continue conversations with other groups within the PCUSA to consider re-making the whole thing. We think the denomination no longer provides a viable future. We know that the Covenant Network also sees a broken system for different reasons. We will work together on the longer and more difficult project of seeing how something new might serve the whole church. Short Term Goals:
Conclusion: Any model that includes an entity outside the PCUSA does mean fewer remaining congregations, pastors and elders to fight the challenges of the PCUSA. Votes will swing in directions which had not been desirable before. For many this is a simple acknowledgement that fighting is not the way we choose to proceed. We hope to discover and model what a new “Reformed body” might look like in the coming years. Our goal is not institutional survival but effective faithfulness, fully participating in the world-wide church. We invite you to consider joining us, stepping faithfully, boldly and joyfully into the work for which God has called us. We propose this change with regret, despising division and all it entails in witness to the world, but with excitement at what may emerge. We are not angry, and share responsibility for the rupture of fellowship. We have allowed a “broadening” church for so long that health has left us, and together we must re-discover our calling and identity in Christ. We firmly believe the best days of Christ’s church are ahead. We believe that attaining a degree of separation may allow growth to begin again. Each side of the church is hurt by the fighting. In our role as God’s ambassadors of reconciliation, may the world see the love of God! May God be glorified, and bless this Church.
Your Responses (107)
Ken Currier
said:
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed|
Janesville, WI Bring on the schism. I am ready for a split and have the conservatives go their way and the liberals their's. I no longer feel welcome or comfortable in the intransigent conservative congregations or even among those that refuse to actively advocate for GLB social justice. The idea of social justice being at the core of Presbyterian values is not universaly shared. Let the the liberal wing separate and join like minded persons in the United Church of Christ. This is the civil war schism all over again only wearing different clothes. Good by and good riddance to the fundamentalist faction as represented by the 'deatly ill' group. It is no wonder, as they contend, that young persons shun the Presbyterian church with so many small minded and hateful persons in its midst. |
Tom Eggebeen
said:
|
Los Angeles, CA Contrary to the latest post, the 45 signers of "the deathly ill" letter are anything but brave; they're only playing to their traditional audience, and playing a tune that has been endlessly played by conservatives over the centuries: they claim the church to be "deathly ill," propose "their" solution as the cure, and then threaten to leave if the cure is refused. There is nothing new here in this strategy, and it's certainly not brave. Courage, bravery, whatever, is hardly a definitive virtue. Judas was brave when he left the fellowship and signed on with the power-brokers of Jerusalem. Custer was brave, too, when he led his soldiers into the Little Big Horn. "The sky is falling" is a tired old song, and the assertion that the church of Jesus Christ is "deathly ill" is theologically flawed, and simply inaccurate. The joyful reality I know: thousands of congregations carrying out their tasks with faith, love and hope; thousands of pastors making hospital calls and preaching the gospel; thousands of churches letting their light shine. The Church of Jesus Christ is never deathly ill - because Jesus Christ is faithful and true to God's purpose and to the Church, the Body of Christ. And to God be the glory! |
Elizabeth Vanderwerf Jurenovich
said:
|
San Antonio, TX I wholeheartedly applaud and appreciate the courage of these 45 signers of the White Paper! They have taken such a brave stand for our Church, and for the thousands of disenfranchised Presbyterians (such as myself) who still dare to hope that there is a future for our denomination-- and a place for us within it. In a day and age in which it seems that Gospel teachings and Reformed theology are being all-too-easily overruled by popular culture and "anything goes exegesis", the Presbyterian Global Fellowship's call for renewal and a return to Biblical truth serves as a much-needed beacon, a lighthouse leading those of us who are tempted to leave the denomination to venture back, safely away from those rocky shores. Godspeed to this new movement and to those who stand behind it. |
Oren Foust
said:
|
Glendale, Arizona I believe that congregationalism is a poor solution to the problem of Presbyterianism, and that a "like minded" "fellowship" is an inferior concept of Church. |
Tom Eggebeeen
said:
|
Los Angeles CA Mr. Proctor's comments reflect a generous and kindly heart, and I appreciate his sensibilities on representation and his effort to put a good face on the "under-representation" of the larger congregation. Representation of the larger congregations, however, is very much a factor of the congregation itself, its attitudes toward the denomination and its willingness to engage in a broadly diverse fellowship, even as it is for the smaller congregation. Pastors and sessions make a series of decisions that lead toward or away from fellowship. If our history reveals anything, congregations which are sympathetic with the Presbyterian Layman, the Confessing Church and New Wineskins are likely to seek out fellowship with like-minded congregations and eschew fellowship through the GA and the Presbyteries. In my 41 years of ministry, those larger churches engaged in the life of the whole church are regularly making decisions consistent with that engagement. If a congregation is under-represented, I suspect it's the result of essentials decisions made by pastors, staff and session. |
William P. Proctor
said:
|
San Angelo, Texas I have just read the opening lines of the recent Outlook report on “The White Paper” and my initial reaction is this – how is it possible for a pastor who has served the same congregation of 5,200 members for some 20 years to have attended his first meeting of General Assembly only this past summer? The article does not make it clear if he was an observer or an elected commissioner, but a part of our challenge as a denomination seems rather evident – at least to me. In some fashion, real or otherwise, those 5,200 people have been underrepresented. Yes, I know commissioners are not “representatives,” but many, if not the majority, of our larger congregations are underrepresented – or at least under-“commissionered” at every level of the church, from Presbytery, to Synod, to General Assembly. In fact, there would appear to be a bias against our larger congregations at every level of the PCUSA. Smaller congregations actually have far more influence, as do clergy who serve in numerous non-congregational positions. The additional elder or two that a larger congregation sends as commissioners to a Presbytery meeting – for example – hardly makes up for the dozen or more smaller congregations that are permitted to send an elder-commissioner as well as a pastor/interim/CLP/stated temporary supply, etc. While we as a denomination have done a diligent job of seeking to have a much more broadly-based representation across the entire church – evident throughout our Book of Order – our larger congregations have been overlooked in this same process. To me this is not an issue related to size or money, rather it is an issue related to fairness – and, on the fairness level – I think we still have much work to do as a denomination. Is it possible that the pastors of some of our larger congregations would never have written a “White Paper” if the congregations they serve were more equitably represented at every level of the church? This, I believe, is an important question to consider before criticism is directed at the so-called “tall steeple” pastors who drafted this document. William P. Proctor San Angelo, Texas |
Daniel Bonevac
said:
|
Austin, Texas I'm a fourth-generation Presbyterian elder who finds himself thinking he has no place on either side of what seems to be emerging as a significant divide. I believe the words of the Apostles' creed—the virgin birth, the resurrection, everything, and not metaphorically—and deplore the tendency to turn Christianity into an undemanding form of Buddhism or an arm of the Democratic Party. But I have no problem with LGBT ordination or the role of women in the church. I'm socially liberal but economically and theologically conservative, as a lot of people are. I teach the History of Christian Philosophy at the University of Texas, but no longer feel welcome to teach it in the church. Is there really no place for me in this church? And if that's right, what does that say about us? |
Kyle Walker
said:
|
Bryan, TX Echoing Charles...working with young adults who are NOT yet in our churches, the number one thing I hear is that they do not feel listened to and many have been deeply wounded by our corporate ignoring of the real pain out there for the sake of our comfort and political power as Presbyterians. Charles, these are prophetic words you have written. The good and the bad news is that they are certain to be treated as prophetic words always are in the time they are spoken. |
The Reverend Charles D. Robison
said:
|
Cedar Park, Texas What, actually, would make the Presbyterian Church relevant in today's situation? The Pew Report gave us a clue this week: The Social Networks are providing a much greater sense of community than the churches do. Our church is focused on exclusivity and who gets in and who gets left out. Interesting discussions.....just like the men's clubs and the country clubs. However, on Facebook, all are included. Our church is focused on doctrine and dogma and ritual. Maybe that is fine, but dogma and doctrine and ritual will not feed anyone, educate anyone, get anyone unjustly imprisoned out of jail, police the food supply and fight for healthy food, get people involved in getting chemical trails out of the sky, keep political prisoners from being redacted to other countries for torture......fight for good public education, move the country away from spending 700 billion a year on defense, when we are less secure every day as a result of global corporate actions against our people. The Purity of the Church and "creeping universalism"! Ha! Nothing creeping about it.....it's a part of all of our lives! Our little church cannot turn back the clock and reside peacefully in Switzerland with John Calvin. We are now playing on a globalized stage, like it or not....and we are rubbing shoulders with 7 billion other "Gods" (Psalm 82:6) and we are being forced to confront our universal relationship with......well, the entire universe. This is a huge change for the world and for the church and the false concept of purity. These "wars" are really exactly what they appear to be. In this case, the Gang of 45, states they want purity....but, in fact, what they want is control. Control over their individual churches and control over the Presbyterian Church. No better proof of that than their demand to take their property and their pensions and leave......Things they promised, when ordained, they would not do. But at the very core of every argument, conflict and disparity in the church and in the world is the issue of CONTROL. The Presbyterian Church, as we have known it, is clearly on the verge of dissolution.....and perhaps that is the best thing. We have lived this church for 500 years, which is the lifetime of the Phoenix, and out of the ashes of this sad time will arise a new expression of our relationship to each other and with God. The Gang of 45, signing letters in secrecy, not calling congregational meetings to tell their parishioners what is happening and planning on taking their membership with them may be in for a huge surprise. (The two Austin signers of the Gang of 45 have not called congregational meetings to discuss the ramifications of their revolt with their members.) Drive around your town....any town in AMERICA....this morning and look at all the empty shopping centers and office buildings and notice, too, the vacant churches. The Gang of 45 may discover that all the people, money and buildings they think they control may turn, over night, into parking lots. And they will still feel righteous.....just further left out of the real human struggle that does not know differences but unity. We are all ONE, all 7 billion of us.....and we are all brother's and sisters.....and none of us has been called here to control anything but our own relationships with ourselves and with our God, who is planted, bidden or not bidden, quite firmly, in each of our hearts. So BE IT. |
Denise Kendall
said:
|
Pacifica, CA "We long for Presbyteries where we have theological and missional consensus rather than fundamental disagreement over so many core issues of theology". "While everyone wearies of the battles over ordination, these battles divert us from a host of issues that affect the way our denomination fails to attract either young believers or those outside the faith. Thus, we age and shrink and become increasingly irrelevant." "Each side of the church is hurt by the fighting." I agree that the Y/Millennial generations and those outside the church are generally turned off by "battles". The pastors who wrote this letter are obviously aware of this. By identifying mean-spirited disagreements they may truly restore church attractiveness. That's good. But what about the proposal to create more homogeneous synods (that are "battle" free)? Is the idea to free up leaders to do other things that are deemed relevant and attractive to younger people? Sounds good but I'm not sure the proposal is really necessary or sustainable in terms of attracting young people. I attend a PCUSA church of 20 & 30-somethings. The church is attracting young people. It's attracting them without proposals of the kind in this white paper/letter. It's attracting them without tall-steeple support. The presbytery it belongs to is full of debate and not one is turned off to the point of leaving. Go figure. Well, at this church, 20 & 30-somethings are establishing and leading every aspect of the church (contemporary worship, fun social events, a food pantry, peace and justice center, etc). And they are, by orthodox and ordered confession, becoming members and serving on the church's session. Could it be that if we want the church to be relevant to young people, we only have to invite them to be relevant to the church? |
Kyle Walker
said:
|
Bryan, TX To divorce and live in the same house doesn't make fidelity to our covenant community any more real or divorce any less a sin. |
Marcia Lewis
said:
|
Moberly, MO Sadly, this is a "Thomas More moment" when neither side can back down because both sides base their arguments upon their understanding of what God wills and both sides would literally give up their lives for the sake of the truth they understand. The time for dialogue is long since past and has not been helpful except to explore the depths of our separation. What is needed now are demarcation lines, not necessarily a total separation, if possible, so that each side can go about the work the Lord calls them to do without the endless exhausting, draining struggle which results when both sides try to explain their understanding of God's will on ears that cannot hear. |
The Reverend Charles D. Robison
said:
|
Cedar Park, Texas The church has ALWAYS ordained homosexual and lesbian ministers and officers, and always will. Period. The issue, from the start, has been: are we willing to claim to tell the truth while prohibiting others of our brothers and sisters from telling the central truth about themselves? Until this historic church is willing to see all of us as one, it deserves to fall apart, to fail and to be seen for the liars that these men are. The 45 white male protesters are kidding themselves if they think we do not know that they, too, have gay members in their midst. On this day when the entire complexion of the Holy Land and the Middle East are in the middle of an historic revolution, these brothers are fighting a battle that has already been won. Their efforts are squandering of our resources, our heritage and our claim to represent the Christ. In as much as we do this to anyone, we do it to Christ. Imagine the Christ holding up his hand and saying: "No gays allowed". Let these great leaders of the church, the Gang of 45 and their sheep, seek greener pastures.....we do not need them and they do not need us. God bless the Presbyterian Church and what is left of it. And if they want to stay and run the ranch, then lets start at the front door......no more gays will be allowed membership in this wonderful church and all who are gays will be rejected and thrown out. Please, this is littleness at its' smallest and worst. The battle is over, the fight is won.....as they say....the queers are here and they are here to stay. Now lets see a show of hands of everyone who does not know or have a gay friend, family member a church leader. |
Kyle Walker
said:
|
Bryan, TX John, it isn't that they are important from the "wrong" side at all. These pastors are important and are successful or they wouldn't be in that position. However, what you are saying just isn't fair concerning our national leaders. Every group you mention with the exception of seminary faculty, are approved by our democratically elected leaders at General Assembly. So, in a sense, they have been affirmed by the whole church to speak in their particular role (only) for the whole church. These pastors, again while successful, have only been so empowered by their presbytery and congregation. This does not make them "lesser" or "wrong" but only representing a specific community in our denomination. Just as the mayor of Houston hasn't been elected President of the United States and a move by her to convene a new Congress may seem odd, so too this strikes me as odd and a bit of an undemocratic end run on the grassroots of our denomination. |
Al; DaValle
said:
|
St Charles, IL Oh my! Why do we spend such energy, concern and emotion on ourselves....looking internally? This whole discussion strikes me as narcissism in its highest form. The form/structure/organization of our Church, or any church, doesn't matter. In fact, in the end, it is irrelevant. What matters is what the Church actually does out in the real world....where people are in pain, hungry, sick and alone. Why spend so much time and energy discussing “joint ventures, property/assets, middle bodies and reconfiguration.” If we put 99% of our energy solving the real issues of hunger, disease, loneliness, war and greed, most of our internal differences will fall to the wayside. Trying to solve these problems or disagreements we have amongst ourselves by speaking in generalities or by proposing some incoherent reorganization (as in this “Letter”) strikes me as a complete waste of valuable time at best or, at worst, a blatant power grab. It reminds me of rearranging the deck chairs on the sinking Titanic. Having said that, I realize we have issues to debate and resolve. Let’s debate the issues up front in a real and open way. But let’s debate the issues themselves. And let’s remember that there is always more than one way to interpret and solves problems. The World’s issues are extraordinarily complex and difficult. It is not always clear what approach is best. Our focus should be to enable those with unique ideas and loads of passion. I propose that the Church’s job is to enable action and leave the judging to our higher authority. I am just a common Presbyterian who is doing his best to live a Christian life. I have been an Elder at our church and have worked with the children and youth ministry for many years. I am NOT in any way an expert in the Church's governance, administration or bureaucracy. So I may be missing the whole point here. But I love this Church. It is incredibly important to me and my family. And I don’t like it when people sdeem willing to sacrifice the good by obscuring the issues and promoting their own, self serving agenda. Al DaValle |
Neal Lloyd
said:
|
Cambria, Wisconsin As a member of the Form of Government Revision Task Force the proposals set forward are interesting. Approval of nFOG will open the door to presbyteries and synods considering any number of ways in which form and structure may be shaped to fulfill mission. Whether those "solutions" would hold up to administrative or judicial review is, of course, another question but nothing will impede creative wrestling. But, are the signatories to the letter working actively in their presbyteries to engender support for nFOG? Many of them are clearly allied with those who are arguing in opposition. Too bad. |
John Erthein
said:
|
Erie, PA There have been so many responses to this White Paper and so many accusations flung at the signatories it is impossible to address all of them in this format. However, I am struck by one thing in particular: some respondents are disturbed by the fact that these are primarily large church pastors. The concern is that there is an implied elitism in the group, as if we should pay special heed to these pastors because they are large church pastors. I am not a large church pastor and will likely never be one, so I do not naturally identify myself with large church pastors. I will say, however, that over the years I have seen many statements and declarations in favor of causes such as approving PUP Report, re-electing Clifton Kirpatrick, and changing our ordination standards, in which an implied authority is given to former General Assembly Moderators as well as Seminary Presidents and faculty. To me, those declarations said "Look at all of these important people who support this!" It does make me wonder how many of the negative reactions are against elitism per se, or simply against elitism coming from the "wrong" side. |
Judy Maghakian
said:
|
Minneapolis, Minnesota To Whom It May Concern: To use the phrase "deathly ill" is a blatant refusal to respect the reality of the Presbyterian Church USA. There are some who are groaning in a death bed. But there are many, many more who are thriving in spirit, mind and hope to honestly address the hurts and needs of the communities and world around them. Who are you to use such an arrogant term "deathly ill?" You further state you do so humbly. Yet, it is extremely judgmental. Judgmental of the hundreds of lay people, churches and pastors who faithfully stand and live out their lives in the service of Jesus Christ in confusing, demanding and conflicting days. Love and trust in God is the foundation, not our own judgement. I wonder what Jesus would say to you? Have you struggled with this? One of the churches on your list: Christ Presbyterian, I am aware of. I have been a cheer leader for their innovative and growing ministry. They are blessed with location, location, location which was supported by the Presbytery at their birth. But they are not blessed to condemn and make such serious pronouncements. They have not been a supporting force to many mission projects that the Presbterian communities in the Twin Cities struggle faithfully to sustain. That is sad becaseu the Presbyerian way is one of interdependence not independence. God knows and is the ultimate judge of all that we say and do. Of me, of you, of all our words and actions. This is the "reality" not your pronouncements. Respectfully submitted, Judy Maghakian Associate in Nurture Andrew Riverside Presbyterian USA Minneapolis, Minnesota |
Brad Munroe
said:
|
Pueblo, Colorado I have read with saddened heart the vitriol spewed at the framers of this letter, with accusations against their character, judgment, current ministry context and gender. How dare they have a y-chromosone! The fact that large church pastors happen to be male is a failing of the entire church and its latent sexism, not the direct fault of these men. The fact that large church pastors happen to know each other well and often run in similar circles is a function of their unique, yet shared, challenges in ministry. The fact that it is a group of large church pastors who are the ones to speak the truth that the emperor has no clothes (i.e. we are a fractured denomination)should not be surprising as leaders of large churches tend to be decisive, action-takers who weather storms of controversy after every General Assembly unimaginable by pastors such as myself who serve smaller churches. Moreover, what, really, is the truth these men spoke? We are fractured? Well, we all know that. We have been discussing and diminishing and discussing and dividing and discussing for decades and getting nowhere nearer a shared vision for ministry under the Lordship of Jesus? Well, we all know that, too. Then, these men have the temerity to say, "we're tired of bickering and we're not going to bicker anymore." How dare they! Don't they know that it is their job to endure the bickering until Jesus comes? Evidently, these misguided men think it is their calling to lead people toward faithfulness to Jesus Christ. How dare they! In the interest of full disclosure, I was led into the Presbyterian Church by one of the signatories, have shared bereavement ministry with another of the signatories and am in a covenant group with two other signatories. I am not a large church pastor, but I believe I know enough about these four men to know they love the church and want the Body of Christ to be as healthy and whole as divinely possible; they were raised in - and have served - small and mid-sized churches. The issues before them are not merely ordination and property, power and money. To accuse their character with such a caricature in a blog, without any real knowledge of their hearts, may be easy and convenient but demeans our ordination vows more grievously than anything they wrote. How dare you. |
Eric Henderson
said:
|
Atlanta, GA Kyle- I apologize - at 85 comments, I didn't link up that your later comment was from the same person and in reference to your former one. As far as portrayal vs. reality - I definitely don't have the long history of being a part of 100's of Session meetings, the General Assembly, and oodles of other meetings, so obviously I don't fully know the exact history and the exact level of unity or division. I, like anyone else, can only speak from my perspective as I see it on the topic. My goal was to describe how it appears from an outside observer, and to offer support in prayer that the Lord's will would be done in this process. In prayer thus far, the Lord has shown me his heart for this conversation, and I pray that those he's calling would step up and do what he's asking. If you'd care to discuss this further, I can be reached via email at erichenderson@gmail.com . Thanks! |
Kyle Walker
said:
|
Bryan, TX In response to Eric Henderson's quote of my words: In fairness, I wish it had been noticed that I published a later remark that essentially backed off of the language in the quote from me that he provided. Likemindedness isn't always helpful because we miss things like I missed originally and like the authors of the white paper admitted to missing when they wrote their original letter. This has all proven that it is the dialogue, not the singlemindedness, that benefits us. In a diverse denomination you have those opportunities to learn from each other and grow in understanding. In his quote, Mr. Henderson ignored the progression of the conversation and instead highlighted only the contentious aspects. This just proves to me that the problem often times is not the one faction or the other in our denomination but the portrayal of it. And as we see, that portrayal too often comes from outside our covenant community. |
Eric Henderson
said:
|
Atlanta, GA As someone outside the PC(USA) framework for going-on 10-ish years but still watching from afar, this is fascinating to watch play out. I don't pretend to be able to discern the core problem or issue at stake, but do think that some form of action is required (who knows what that is!). Having read through the comments here- wow, such poisonous words spewed on the comments on the letter. as an example, "I've got to say, it's one of the most dramatically desperate, self-indulgent, self-centered, self-reliant, self-justifying and communally destructive statements I've ever encountered." and "This is a Bibically and spiritually impoverished statement of an individualistic culture clamoring narcissistically under the guise of the buzz word "transformation." To say this is somehow faithful to the peace and unity of the church yet only appears to be schismatic is the worst kind of self-deception, IMHO" Whoa. Something's gotta give - what's the point of having a denomination if it's not even in unity with itself, and is even more divided internally than it is divided with people from other backgrounds? I think I would be in closer fellowship with people on either side of the fence on this, and I believe in a wildly different form of church structure, view of the Spirit, and method of Biblical interpretation than anyone involved! I'm not trying to attack - but from the outside looking in, something's broken. I pray that all of you do find the Lord's will for this time, even if that means radical changes different than either "side" perceives will play out. |
Kyle Walker
said:
|
Bryan, TX We are getting off topic but I'd just like to interject that it is true that "essential tenets of the Reformed Faith" is a subtext to all of this. Every issue we debate, election for moderator or stated clerk we have, or conference we hold will somewhere be having this conversation on "essential tenets" even if it isn't called such. On the one side are the subscriptionist reformers and the other are what I call the open source reformers. While I agree we have to be honest that we do in fact teach something of particular content in our churches, we cannot call ourselves Reformed and not be open to new understandings that scripture might bring to us. Our Confessions are clear that I'm right on this point. With the advent of the Emergent Church and its open source approach to theology, this is likely the elephant in the room even now. As it regards our structures and homosexual ordination...those things are window dressing to our inadequacies about how we approach scripture and doctrine and it is a shame that hurting LGBT families and our governing bodies are the innocent victims of this latest fight in the fundamentalist-modernist controversy. When people are left without even our most basic pastoral care because of our theological fights, the church is prioritizing upside down. |
Robert McClelland
said:
|
Arlington Texas I can honestly say that I am not surprised at the responses here and how critical they are of those pastors who have signed this letter. What does surprise me is the fact that Dick Davis from Montana can openly say that "limited atonement and universal salvation should be openly honored and respected in the PC(USA)" and not one person comments about that. Mr. Davis' statement totally disregards both Scripture and the reformed tradition. Last I checked, Presbyterianism was rooted in scripture and founded on the shoulders of great reformers like Calvin and Knox. And maybe my education in such a conservative hub as Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary (note the sarcasm) made me aware of the fact that contrary to popular universalistic beliefs, unconditional election and limited atonement are part of what make us Presbyterian from the beginning. Universal salvation is NOT a reformed Presbyterian belief, and would thus make the point the authors of the white paper are trying to make - that creeping universalism has invaded the church and seeks to change who we are historically and biblically as Presbyterians. If you study church history at all, you will find that Mr. Davis' perspective is one that has come about in the last 40 years and is not a reformed doctrine, but a perspective which more liberal Christians have sought to input to allow for their rationale of a loving God who would not allow for the existence of hell. Whether you believe that or not is up to you, but please stop labeling your beliefs as Presbyterian or reformed. In no way is this perspective biblical or historically Presbyterian. |
Betty Berghaus
said:
|
Durham NC I am glad that the "two sides" of THE issue are now at least dialoguing honestly and openly. That is one benefit of this letter from the big steeple male pastors! But the (original) letter does not appear to me to call for a movement within the PC(USA) as much as it calls for a new "fellowship" or denomination. I cannot help but think that this action goes against the vows we all took when we were ordained, to uphold the purity of the denomination and to support one another in our calling and common mission. I keep hoping and praying that schism is not the answer, for God calls us (not just Presbyterians!) to be one Body. Maybe we should concentrate on our oneness instead of our differences. How can we do that? It means we have to communicate, with one another, and with God. And we need to listen, really listen. Grab hands. Let's pray! |
Tom Eggebeen
said:
|
Los Angeles, CA Tom, always glad to be remembered ... but on a more serious note, those who leave, whether it be a marriage, a job, or a fellowship, always have a thousand reasons for doing so, but it all boils down to a quest for the better world. Yet, I cannot abide by the desire to find the better world; it doesn't exist. We Presbyterians, because of our peculiar madness, have a fractured and fractious history, and we gladly and easily sacrifice the unity of the church for our own versions of its purity. In the long run, separation unto our own room, while comfortable at the time, leads only to stultification of thought and behavior, if not smugness and self-satisfaction. I choose to remain faithful to the church of my ordination - that others should choose to separate is their privilege and their right, but I seriously question if it's consistent with the vows of our ordination. Yes, I know, these are tough words, but so it goes in this land of cabbages and kings. The stakes are high, and so are the egos, and it's likely that we all have plenty of that - hubris, I fear, is the human condition, not simply the burden of a few. Tom, I wish you well; we had some interesting and positive conversation after you came to Eastern OK Presbytery. Now, on different sides of the divide, we seek the truth of Christ. May it be granted to us, in some form or fashion, for the sake of the world. |
Tom Gray
said:
|
Tulsa, Oklahoma In response to Tom Eggebeen's letter of February 8. In it, he says, "I fear that the signatories of “the letter” will walk into a dark corner, shared by the likes of Orthodox Presbyterians, Bible Presbyterians, Presbyterian Church in America and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church – fractured and fractious bodies, driven by a certain “Presbyterian madness” – the so-called “purity” of the church, with all love being truly lost." As one who has recently moved from the PCUSA to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, I have to say that it is anything but fractured and fractious. There is no noticeable "madness" nor is there a loss of love. In fact, whenever controversy arises it is always treated in an atmosphere of listening and love. They take seriously their criteria for tolerance in non-essentials. This doesn't mean, though, that tolerance is lost when essentials are challenged. They simply and graciously hold to their essentials; if a congregation wishes to leave, rather than compromise, they can do so with grace AND their property. I neither see eye-rolling when certain commissioners rose to speak in PCUSA judicatories, nor the nasty name-calling that was common on the floor, if not in the back rooms. I distinctly remember a time, Tom, when you rose at an Eastern Oklahoma presbytery meeting when the subject of PCUS congregations excercizing their constitutional right to separate from the PCUSA, following the reunion of northern and southern presbyterians. I rose with a concern for the way in which those churches were being treated and talked about. I remember your response verbatim: "I don't give a damn about those churches." For PCUSA churches who feel they must leave on principal I would say, "Expect to pay the presbytery for your property and its contents. And don't be afraid to join the EPC. It's a breath of fresh air and peace." I cannot speak for the other reformed denominations, and I know that no church or denomination is perfect, but the difference between 27 years in the PCUSA and just three in the EPC affirm the night and day contrast. If any denomination is fractured, it demonstrably is the PCUSA. |
Dan Clark
said:
|
Warminster, PA I am amazed at those who are "shocked" by the negative response to the orignal paper and the so called "apology". The signatores on the letter knew exactly what they were doing. Does anyone really think they had "no idea" there would be this kind of response to their "funeral dirge" of the Presbyterian Church. Personally, they a need visit from their individual presbyteries' COM for counsel on agreeing to be "a colleague" in ministry. What happened to that part of their vows at their ordination? Colleagues don't use scare tactics or blind side attacks to initiate change or start a "conversation". Their tactics make one wonder how they operate in their own churches. |
SaraJean Jackson
said:
|
Houston, TX A question I have for the Fellowship of PC(USA) Pastors concerns one of the characteristics, as I understand it, of the "missional" philosophy, or at least of the "missional church" philosophy. The Letter states the dream of "multiplying healthy, missional congregations throughout North America." A group in my church studied the missional church concept for at least a year about 10 years ago. Meeting with us for a study weekend was Darrell Guder, author of the seminal treatise on this subject. An appeal for me of the missional concept was the emphasis on consensus decision-making in community (!). The length of time to reach a decision was not necessarily a priority. Discerning God's will in community was the principle we were led to admire and to attempt to emulate. The idea was that all aspects of an issue would be considered thoughtfully and prayerfully (and, it would be hoped, not interminably) but in an atmosphere afforded by a trusting community. "Up" and "down" votes were to be avoided. In fact, in a "Presbyterian Outlook" editorial (5/1/2002) on the missional concept we were encouraged to adopt the concept of Christian discernment as it "will enable the people of God to distinguish between those voices and movements that are of God, and those that are not." I admit to never having seen this concept demonstrated successfully on an issue of such magnitude as that facing our denomination today, but I remain hopeful. |
Tom Eggebeen
said:
|
Los Angeles, CA Dale, thanks for your note ... you're quite right! It's always amazing to me how folks will use stats to claim privilege, as if might makes right. Well, I guess it does, in the minds of those who possess worldly might. |
