I have three counter-points to your article:
First, is it the New Wineskins Movement or larger denominational decisions that have "provoked" the exodus of churches from the PC(USA)? Did the NWAC appear in a vacuum?
Second, how many congregations would have left or would leave the PC(USA) if they held their own property, as is the practice in at least two other Presbyterian denominations (I am thinking of the PCA and EPC specifically)? In our current system, some congregations may not leave because it is too much of a hassle, or they don't want to risk losing everything they have built up over the years. In a related point, majorities of some congregations have left, but because the building stays within the PC(USA), the "congregation" is not recorded as leaving, even though most of the members have indeed left. First Church of Paola comes to mind.
Third, while I recognize that members leave or drop out for a variety of reasons (not all of them theological), it is very difficult to understand how the PC(USA) can be "proceeding in the right direction" after huge membership losses in this decade ... nearly 70,000 in 2008 alone. One would think that if we were proceeding in the right direction, membership losses might decrease, if not stop entirely. Instead, they are accelerating.
Overall, Jack, I think you are painting way too rosy a portrait of the current state of the PC(USA).
John Erthein
Erie, Pa.
The editor responds:
John, you’re a good friend. I respect you and appreciate how your frequent letters graciously affirm points of agreement and boldly challenge points of disagreement. You add a lot to the ongoing conversations the Outlook is trying to foster in the church. Regarding the issues raised in this letter…
1. I attended the New Wineskins convocation in February 2007, where
· their chosen keynote speaker, Parker Williamson, declared of the PC(USA), “This dysfunctional ecclesiastical organization is not a church, for the marks of the church are gone,”
· almost every workshop was led by lawyers teaching participants how to plan ahead their fight for church property as they secede from the denomination,
· most of the national staff of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church mixed with the crowd and invited the attendees to come to their hospitality room to talk about life in that denomination, and
· the NWAC member congregations’ delegates voted to encourage their likeminded colleagues to leave the PC(USA) together to form a transitional presbytery of the EPC.
Yes, they also affirmed that staying in the PC(USA), “If God calls you to do that,” can be a responsible alternative, but the clear emphasis pointed toward a pull out (some of those not intending to secede complained openly that they were being treated as second class New Wineskins).
You may well declare that the PC(USA) decisions and actions have provoked churches to leave, but then again, you also could claim that the Securities and Exchange Commission created the Madoff investments fraud. The PC(USA) is not innocent any more than the SEC, but like Madoff, the NWAC conceived and formulated a detailed strategy to encourage and facilitate a mass movement of secession from the denomination. To pass the buck to Louisville and, thereby, feign innocence in provoking schism is laughable.
2. Regarding congregations that might leave if they controlled their property, no doubt more would have left. Our secular, godless culture is individualistic, localist, disconnectional; it glorifies autonomy, it prefers pure democracy to representative democracy (per Alvin Toffler), and wants nobody to “tread on me.” Hence, for local congregations to seek the freedom to “do their own thing,” disregarding the covenantal, Presbyterian structure, simply reflects the times in which we live. Indeed, some former PC(USA) churches that joined the EPC and/or the NWAC have already taken the further step of going totally independent. No doubt, the PC(USA) has capitulated to many secular cultural influences — to its shame. Should we capitulate to this other cultural influence just because two schismatic denominations have done so?
3. Is the editorial’s assessment of PC(USA) too rosy? The editorial at hand asks if we have reached a turning point. Asking such a question implies that a turning point is needed. In fact, this and many other preceding editorials have declared that we need to change many things we are doing in pursuit of a major turnaround, to be faithful to the Gospel. The editorial expressed hope that some recent actions appear to be heading in the right direction (we do believe in the resurrection, after all), but it hardly qualifies as being rosy.
Jack Haberer
Trackback(0)
 |
|
|
| Join Our News Alerts Mailing List |
|
|
|
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed