| Fellowship releases 2 guiding documents discussing creation of new Reformed body |
| Written by Leslie Scanlon, National Reporter | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Wednesday, 07 December 2011 04:06 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Fellowship of Presbyterians has released two new draft documents – one on theology including the presentation of proposed essential tenets for a new Reformed body and another on polity.
These documents will likely form the foundation for the discussions that will take place at the Fellowship’s covenanting conference to be held in Orlando Jan. 18-20. Both documents were written by small working groups that have been laboring since the Fellowship’s meeting last August in Minneapolis. The Fellowship is inviting people to submit feedback on the drafts through Jan. 6 and says it will issue revised copies of the documents at the covenanting conference. Theology. This 13-page document was written by a three-person task force consisting of: - Jerry Andrews, pastor of First Presbyterian church in San Diego; - Laura Smit, associate professor of theology at Calvin College in Michigan; and - Joe Small, former director of Theology, Education and Worship for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Here are some key points of the theology draft: - It affirms the Book of Confessions of the PC(USA). “The Book of Confessions itself is not problematic,” the draft states. “The problem with The Book of Confessions is the church’s – the whole church’s – neglect and misuse of its theological treasure.” - It presents a series of proposed essential tenets for Reformed Christians to be adopted by a new Reformed body that would be created. Those tenets include foundational Christian beliefs, including belief in Scripture, in the Trinity, and in the understanding that Jesus was both “truly God and truly human.” - Another proposed essential tenet involves “living in obedience to the Word of God.” That would include, among other measures, a commitment to “maintain chastity in thought and deed, being faithful within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman as established by God at the creation or embracing a celibate life as established by Jesus in the new covenant.” - The document proposes a commitment to “theological friendships in communities” including all teaching and ruling elders. Polity. This 24-page document was written by an 8-member working group who stated that it used the new Form of Government as “a template” for its document. Among the key points in this draft document: - It proposes “a structure and style of relating that is more horizontal than hierarchical.” - It emphasizes “increased flexibility in congregational leadership,” including reinstituting the role of assistant pastor and “a more entrepreneurial approach” to leadership. - Property would stay under the stewardship of the local session. - Synods would not exist in their current form, nor would there apparently be a General Assembly. There would be one national synod, which would be the “widest council” of the new Reformed body. - The draft does not include a section on discipline. “New approaches to the role of the presbytery and the National Synod will need to be spelled out,” the document states. - Members or “covenant partners” of congregations asked to take on significant leadership roles should ordinarily have been members for at least a year, agree with the essential tenets, and be trained and supervised. - Ordaining bodies “must ensure that all officers adhere to the essential tenets” of the new Reformed body. - Pastors serving in validated ministry would have voice (but no vote) in presbytery and would ordinarily be expected to take part in the life and ministry of a congregation in the new Reformed body. - Pastors should participate in peer reviews of their ministry and of their physical, spiritual, relational and emotional health with other pastors at least once a year. - Congregations that want to stay in the PC(USA) could become union congregations with the new Reformed body. Union presbyteries also could be created.
There is no discussion in the polity document of other financial arrangements – for example, whether ministers and staff members of congregations or presbyteries in the new Reformed body would have health insurance and pension benefits provided by the new body or somehow through the PC(USA).
The Outlook invites those wishing to comment on the Fellowship’s draft documents, after reading them, to do so in the online comment section here. Your Responses (21)
Robert McClelland
said:
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed|
Arlington, Texas I am the pastor of a theologically diverse congregation. Many of my conversations with members revolve around the thoughts expressed by the readers of this document who have posted already. For me, the sexuality buzz word and ordination standard are not an issue, though many in the media (as well as in my congregation only focus on this). The issue is the deep theological divide which has grown so that there are no longer any theological grounds for us to begin dialogue. Let me explain. Philippians 2 describes a church that is like-minded in the essentials, humble and gracious in its relationships, and reflects the same attitude as that of Christ Jesus. We, as a denomination, laud expanded diversity and no defined essentials, a lack of grace and humility in relationships with those who think differently, and do not seek to model Christ's attitude to one another, nor the world (thus a declining denom for 50 years). When leaders within the Presbyterian Church can not agree on the person and work of Jesus Christ, there is no ground for further dialogue. That is where we find ourselves today. We have pastors teaching that the Bible is a book like any other and god is a literary character within it. We have pastors who teach that the resurrection is not a historical event, but something we understand in our minds. We have a theology that says we worship Jesus and he is right for us, but the God you worship might be just a valid, therefore you are good to go. We have written off sin as offensive (even though the gospel is offensive if listened to and lived) and have tried to promote a feel-good theology. And all the while, we have abandoned evangelism, because with the "new Presbyterian Theology of universalism" does not give a need for it. Please share with me how I can continue dialogue with those within my church and denomination who can't even agree on the person and work of Jesus. I need your help. |
Tom Eggebeen
said:
|
Los Angeles, CA I, too, am grateful to be a part of a church that has, mostly, over the years, stood on the side of justice and inclusion. I know these are buzz-words, but to me, they are the Gospel of Jesus. I was born and baptized a Presbyterian, raised in the Reformed Church of America and went to Calvin College, a Christian Reformed Church college and Western Seminary, an RCA school. I know theology and love Scripture, and I know the fatal flaw of the Reformed/Presbyterian tradition: we believe that, given time and effort, we can write a perfect theological statement that fully reflects the glory of Christ and the whole counsel of God. We've been working at it since our inception in Geneva, and a lot of blood has been spilled over the centuries. Some would say the spilled blood is worth it. Questionable, I suppose, but it's in our nature (read the end of Genesis 8); we love the smell of blood in the morning, or is that napalm? I'm now honorable retired - please note the adverb "honorably" - and I'm still doing interim work. For me, theology is never an end in itself, as if we could be saved by our ideological systems and our professed allegiance to such. As I've read the Gospels over the years, the power of the Ethics of Jesus has grown on me - here is where our salvation is worked out, with fear and trembling - God loves us, that we might love one another, and that's the rub. We all want to endlessly love God, and deny the commandment of Jesus, to love one another. I have no hope we'll be reconciled; it's not in our spiritual DNA, nor is it in our heritage. While one can always pray for a miracle, even Jesus was unable to do more than just a few because of unbelief, and as much we all pride ourselves on spiritual purity and ethical commitment, we're not real high on the ladder of faith, truth be told. Nonetheless, I'm glad to be in the PCUSA; I have prayed and worked for the new ordination standards, and I will continue to pray and work for marriage equality, family affirmation, and a church that truly seeks the glory of God, and human beings fully alive. |
Ann Gray
said:
|
San Antonio, TX I can only think "what would Jesus do?" Do you really think "he" cares about all this bickering. I don't want any part of a church which rejects same sex marriage (notice how I use the actual words, not the drivel used by these dissenters) or which does not allow gays full participation. I've discovered I don't need to go to church (or give money) at all, but if I do go and contribute it will be to an inclusive church. Thanks for those above who tried to give intelligent answers. Those people aren't interested in that. A Presbyterian for 60 years! |
James_Ayers
said:
|
Eldorado, Kansas I suppose that there are those who think the Presbyterian Church (USA) is exactly correct in its theology, culture, and polity; and others who think that the Evangelical Presbyterian Church is exactly correct in its theology, culture, and polity. These documents by the Fellowship seem to me to be a good first effort toward steering a middle course between those two. |
p.w. gregory
said:
|
lambertville nj Due to a military career I have served in 11 presbyteries over 30 years. Beaver-Butler/Pittsburgh/Coastal Carolina/E.Va./St.Augustine/San Diego/ San Fran./National Cap. DC/ Baltimore/Philly and now New Brurnswick. I will let one draw their own conclusions about the diversity and pluarality of my career, across many different spectrums and dominate regional ideologies. There have been some places where on the floor at examination, or in my confession where I could state I like Jesus, am guided by him, I admire his ethics and philosophy, but not see him as divine or the product of a virgin birth, and yes I would get some blow-back, but I would be fine and accepted into membership. But as soon as I would state or confesss anything other than full inclusion, diversity, radical welcome, pluralism, or use, not use other code words, I would be shown the door and cast in the outer-darkness. Still others where unless I made some statement about fidelity to the Westminster standards, or adopt something else from the Confessions I would be viewed as having three-eyes. And the good folks would pray for my salvation. It is what it is. Sooner or later all will realize that the concept of a national church with some sort of uniformity of confession, faith, standards, practices, whatever went out the door about the time Al Gore invented the Internet. To say otherwise is either utopian or a denial of reality. AI/A-10 is reality and one either accepts or they do not. Look at our history, we Presbyterians like to go to meetings, write big wordy theology papers, fight, call others names, fight some more, make some more statements, and then fracture along the fault lines of the times. We have done it 8 times since 1720. But this time is indeed different. The developed West is evolving into a post-Christian, secular, and outwardly pagan culture that is losing touch with faith and the power of belief. The corporate PCUSA is evolving as well, in some ways to accomodate cultural trends, others to speak to it. One is either one board for that ride or not. For those who are not, again as I have said countless times on this site, you cannot make or force unity based upon the lowest common denominator of property, power (money) or process. Both sides on these cultural, religious, faith divides can choose to fight it out, civil or church, write more policy papers, and have at it tooth and nail. But are not we all a bit tired of the conflict? Time to let it go and allow people, buildings, and yes money, and alike to go where they feel they need too, on both sides. The PCUSA today is like a big dinner party where we all had out fill, and there has been some food thrown, chairs busted in the course of events, and most begin to leave the hall, or seek the exits. Yet there are till others at the tables, for various reasons. It is close to the end of the evening. The owner of the house, Board of Pensions, Foundations, Louisville, take your pick, is looking whom to give the bill too. The real issues going forward for those on both sides will be who gets stuck with the check. I can hear the " not me, give it him or her" already. |
Bruce Becker
said:
|
Bellingham, WA I calmly and sadly agree with my friends Noel Anderson and Mark Patterson. Progressives incessantly urge evangelicals that the solution to our disunity in the PC(USA) is to be found in dialogue. Then, when evangelicals present their concerns, progressives disparage our words, deride our theological values and dread us as cloaked fundamentalists. There is very little dialogue, only the proclamation of the inclusivist gospel and the expectation that we "tamed fundamentalists" find our place under the Big Tent. I have had other good friends, too, progressives like the former moderator of the Covenant Network, Cynthia Jarvis, and the crusty, late George Adams, secretary of the Board of Pensions. Though we did not always agree, we respected and listened to one another. Seven years ago my suggestion of the reality of widespread theological ignorance and syncretism in the PC(USA) at many levels was not received by them as fundamentalist rabble-rousing. They were not agape and agast at my suggestions of a "deathly-ill" church. I have seen 33 years of life in the PC(USA). The faith statement that PC(USA) Presbyterians of every theological conviction adopt unanimously and validate in every presbytery examination is this: "We are not fundamentalists." This might be news to some, but the last fundamentalists died, retired or left the denomination in the 1980's. I was there when it happened. However, the refusal to listen and the mischaracterization and marginalization of opponents is a fundamentalist political tactic that has not left nor died away. When our "enemies" can be branded as uncompassionate phobics who will not listen to our transformative stories, our own dismissiveness and disparagements become easily justifiable. The politics and the thinking of fundamentalism is really quite practical. The more we fear the alleged extreme the more easily we proceed to the opposite extreme. This fundamentalist ecclesiology of anger, epithets and extremism is now practiced by the fundamentalists of inclusivism, the exclusivists of inclusivism. |
Dwyn Mounger
said:
|
... A classic case of trying to "keep ones cake and eat it too!" Or perhaps, "keep ones PCUSA pension plan." A major Freudian slip flashes with blinding neon in the "Polity" draft for this new separate fellowship(?) denomination(?). See "Six Things to Look For," #3: "a more entrepreneurial approach to the leadership of new communities of faith." Entrepreneurial? Does God want any real Church of Jesus Christ, or congregation thereof, ever to be a business? Are most of the flocks represented by this "Task Force," in fact, such? Are bright statistics, satisfied customers/parishioners (old and new), profits (contributions), favorable reports in the public media, so highly valued by the Fellowship, if not worshiped? Whatever happened to the biblical faithful--at times tiny--remnant that has never bowed the knee to society's Baal of ridiculing, brutalizing, anathematizing those who are different from the majority? Yes, of shunning the very same kind of people whom Jesus clearly championed, praised, and sought out for companionship-- much to the horror and disdain of many of the "orthodox" religious leaders of their day? Moreover, wherever the Fellowship may eventually wind up, the very nerve of the Task Force's trying to take with them our present PCUSA Book of Confessions! Why, the "Confession of 1967" alone will make it anathema to their colleague, self-proclaimed true-blue Presbyterians in the PCA, who persist in the old southern/Confederate Presbyterian, ecclesiastical-Docetism of the so-called "spirituality of the Church," that Ernest Trice Thompson and other brave leaders eventually overcame, calling us back to Calvin. And it probably will render them the same with the EPC, that refuge for schismatic, former PCUSA congregations who gladly jettisoned much of the Book of Confessions when they fled us. In the final analysis, the Fellowship refuses even to trust the sincerity of their sisters and brothers in the PCUSA. As ruling and teaching elders and as deacons, we all have taken essentially the same vows of fidelity to the major tenets of the Book of Confessions--including the high Christology of the Nicene Creed and the Bible's commands to faithfulness in sexual relationships. It is only a difference in interpretation of several isolated verses of Scripture that apparently causes the Fellowship to brand the majority as unfaithful in their callings. Thus the sad, almost ubiquitous, 500-year-old, sanctimonious splintering of Presbyterians/Reformed continues, to the distress of the Christ who fervently prayed that we all might be one! |
Kenneth Whitehurst
said:
|
Atlanta, GA It is indeed a sad time for the Presbyterian Church that we continue to "take our marbles and go home" when things don't go as one pleases. It would seem that the PC(USA) made provisions for the minority viewpoint by allowing bodies to make decisions locally regarding 10-A (that's what it is really all about). It is more troubling to me to read elements of the polity for NRB that says the congregation/presbytery can stay in the PC(USA)and have a "union" relationship with NRB. Sounds like an effort to "have your cake and eat it too" in terms of the property/trust requirements of the PCUSA. In the face of declining memberships across denominations, we should be more focused on accepting the discernment of Christ's purpose for us in the world through the work of the Holy Spirit in guiding our Church even in it's votes on changes to the Constitution. Grace, peace and love be with you. |
Rebecca Kiser
said:
|
West Plains, MO Although I’m not among those participating in the Fellowship, I do share a deep love for and call to the church of Jesus Christ and a concern for how our PC(USA) is speaking the Word of God in our time; a sense that all called to Christ are to live faithfully, serve God’s world and respond to the Spirit’s nudges for a closer walk throughout our lives; and I pray for Christ’s church. I resent the characterization of the PC(USA) as taking the confessions in a “casual” way, having “neglected” or “misused’ them. And I do not agree that, “our theological ideas and inclinations as a church are far too diffuse to unite us.” (from the Forward) All of the papers presented shrink the mystery of the triune God into solely masculine terminology, with no effort to explore what is called God’s “authoritative self-revelation” in the creation of both male and female in God’s image, and no effort to engage any other biblical names for God than the Father/Son/Spirit language. The papers do support the ministry of women. The paper, “Essential Tenets,” (ET)is emphasized throughout; covenant partners (members) have to affirm it, pastors have to affirm it, including Affiliate Pastors, Union Churches and, while not expressly stated, even the churches of Affinity Networks. The paper itself seems to be held up as equal to the Book of Confessions, a litmus test of orthodoxy. It is in the ET that the wording of the former G-6.0106b is found intact. The Polity section, while a draft, indicates that if there is a disagreement between the governance of Affiliated or Union churches, they defer to the “less permissive rules.” Not adhering to this ET paper is ground for discipline. I don’t see how this is going to vwork out. “Consensus” and “accountability” are important concepts in the papers. There is a naïve assumption that our former confessional statements indicated a consensus of “all Christians everywhere,” as well as an assumption that doing hard theological work will result in a consensus now; and that this consensus will also somehow include the historic principle that “God alone is Lord of the conscience.”(!) “Accountability” is called for in an annual Peer Review for Pastors, asking pastors to “submit to the spiritual authority of their colleagues.” This language scares me, because I’ve so often seen this used as a control mechanism, for coercion and bullying. Our current PC(USA) councils have “oversight,” which is a less emotionally-laden term for me. There are significant changes from other PC(USA) polity. (1) There is no place for infant baptism, or a roll for baptized children: they accept only what we used to call “believers’ baptism.” (2) Members cannot transfer from other denominations, but must join by baptism or reaffirmation, including an adherence to the ET. (3) Agreement with this ET is also an ordination question for all church officers. (4) Assistant Pastors are again instituted. (5) Elders and deacons trained by their pastors can be commissioned to be lay pastors and/or celebrate communion at small group meetings. (5) People who “consider themselves a part of a congregation” while they “explore spiritual life,” can receive pastoral care, in hopes they will profess saving faith and become covenant partners at some point. (6) I saw no guarantee of representation for minorities in any councils. (7) Synods are the highest council. (8) Congregations own their property. |
Mark Rayburn Patterson, PhD
said:
|
Ventura, CA I find the responses to this article revealing. We are part of a denomination that has for years extolled tolerance as the highest virtue. We have been called and commanded more times than one can count to "celebrate our diversity." We have heard again and again that a broad church is healthiest and most godly. We have heard repeatedly requests that evangelicals not leave as "we are better together." But the responses posted previously reveal the true story. Tolerance means evangelicals must respect and accept progressive doctrine and polity but never the other way around. "Better together" is true only if evangelicals quietly submit to liberal values and refrain of any expression of their own opinions and desires. Every response preceding this one includes derogatory, demeaning, and insulting language. "Sexism", "homophobia", "horizontal", "fundamentalism", "hubris", "exclusive," etc., etc. Not a great deal of tolerance here! All views welcome at the table? Evidently not. Interesting to me how those who so zealously demand tolerance and extoll diversity become so quick to denounce those who hold different perspectives. Maybe this is why so many are thrilled with the Fellowship and prospects of a different kind of church, hopelessly lost to the PC (USA). |
Noel Anderson
said:
|
Upland, CA There is little authentic grief in all the grousing and moaning above. The cheap shots—"fundamentalism," "homophobia," "congregationalism"—are understandable among those who haven't been part of the conversation. The collective effect of all these negative comments is demoralizing. Unfortunately, that those who have created this division (not the FOP) will have to live in their own demoralized aftermath and try to keep even more people from voting with their feet. These documents should not only be read by the entire PCUSA, but adopted for their clarity and direction. |
Penn Hackney
said:
|
Pittsburgh, PA I've read the "Draft of the Theology" and want to say a lot about it's details, but will need more time to review it, consult scripture and the confessions, and otherwise to consider and reflect. Meanwhile, my initial overall impressions are as follows: As for essential tenets, the committee is quite right to note that no one has "defined" these before. Which is for many very good reasons. For example: 1. No human can "identify" essentials once and for all; 2. any attempt to do so is effectually insisting on a new confession / creed; 3. such an effort (in my opnion) denigrates the richness and complexity (and yes, ambiguity and humility) of our confessional history by selecting certain phrases and assumptions for enshrinement, despite disclaimers to to contrary, as a new category called "theology" that has supra-confessional status; 4. such an effort does NOT "help sessions and congregations" to "appreciate [the Confessions'] depth and beauty," but instead rigidly carves certain selected bits (doctrines, notions, and assumptions) into stone, then, again notwithstanding a few statements to the contrary, lifts them up as mandatory for all to worship and adhere to, (which in my mind comes very close to idloatry); and 5. in any event the demarcation is obviously intended to, and does, exclude or at least marginalize those with differing interpretations. As for sola scriptura, I have a related criticism: The document assumes an exclusive and unalterable faith (what I call an assumption) in a literal interptation of Scripture. I adhere enthusiastically and deeply to the five solas of Reformed theology but since neither Jesus, nor Paul, nor indeed John Calvin, were literalists, but instead over and over offered *interpretations* and new contexts for their use and meaning of sacred scripture, the notion that sola scriptura can only include a literal interpretation is historically and theologically WRONG. |
Barbara Schwartz
said:
|
Richford, New York Over several months, since the majority of presbyteries voted to affirm the scripture's claim that what God has made clean, we must not call profane (Acts 10.15), I have read the Outlook's commentary on leaving vs. staying in the PC(USA) with increasing sadness. In the many years that it took to overturn Amendment B, were Outlook writers pleading with those who wanted an inclusive church not to leave? I admit that I wasn't reading the Outlook during that time period. I do recall one General Assembly in which there was a specious and mean-spirited overture suggesting that Presbyterians who couldn't affirm Amendment B should transfer to other denominations. Perhaps the Fellowship group has been planning to secede from the PC(USA) for a long time, in which case it's unlikely that they'll respond to pleas to remain in the denomination. If they are so bound and determined not to be part of a church that has fearfully but finally started to embrace God's inclusivity, then they should leave and take their church property with them, after compensating their PC(USA) presbyteries at fair market value. There must be rich people sympathetic to their views who can help them finance this. Meanwile, I hope the rest of us Presbyterians will get busier with the only essential reason we have for being church-- to worship God, follow Jesus, and serve God and God's world. |
Lucy Fisher
said:
|
Houston, TX Interesting to see how many ruling elders have [not] participated in the preparation of these documents. The concept of the priesthood of all believers is not even mentioned in either document. Only teaching elders in pastoral positions have voice in presbytery; other ministries don't count. Pastoral accountability is restricted to peer review which is defined as review by other pastors - forget input from the people who deal with (and pay) a pastor on a daily basis. Sorry, but I don't plan to put any "financial stewardship" or "participation" into supporting a pastor-centered organization. The polity reveals the true essential tenet, IMO. |
Alden Hickman
said:
|
Topeka, KS I wonder if Grover Norquist has been assisting this group. I imagine this "new" body will try to take the property and of course their pension plans. Perhaps all these "minister leaders" should ask for release from their ordination vows, too. Alden Hickman, H.R. |
Christopher Joiner
said:
|
Franklin, Tennessee Much of this work is really good. But I do not see anything here in terms of real content that is substantially different from the current PCUSA, save the one thing that seems to lie at the root of the effort: the potential ordination of homosexuals. Keeping in mind that no council of the church is required to ordain homosexuals, and it seems pretty flimsy ground for such a large expenditure of energy, money, and time. I guess one should never underestimate the power of homophobia, a lesson learned in the 1970's about sexism in the formation of the PCA. This effort, well-intentioned though it may be, is traveling that rather ignoble, though well-worn, path. |
bruce levine
said:
|
saint louis mo If they would leave maybe we could focus on being church instead. I would help them to leave and go to a place they would be happy. |
Ruben P. Armendariz
said:
|
San Antonio, Texas Talk about horizontal, this is congregationalism neatly disguised. How can I tell? Just by the fact that ministry is now defined as congregational - no one serving validated ministry participates unless they do so in congregation. Ha!! |
Todd Freeman
said:
|
Tulsa, Oklahoma Since when did "reformed and always being reformed" become a sin? Fundamentalism has indeed found a new home within the Reformed Tradition. |
Cheryl biller
said:
|
Fargo, ND Interesting reading. I find myself really liking most of the structural and relational process this group is suggesting. That part of what they are proposing is long needed and overdue in our denomination. I disagree with the fellowship's ideas on the confessions and find them to be exclusive in nature and hubris in practice. And so - I am sad, sitting between 2 groups I can't stomach. The denomiation is so relationally fractured and the fellowship is so theologically exclusive that I don't feel at home in either. I wonder how many are like me, and if this is part of the steep decline in participation and membership? |
Write a Response
