Trying to Hold It All Together

“We do not want to lose relationships that are precious to us.” That sentiment, expressed by the Rev. John Crosby of Christ Presbyterian Church of Edina, MN, ran through the sessions of the August 25-26 Fellowship of Presbyterians gathering. Crosby and the six other Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) “tall steeple” pastors who had formed the Fellowship wanted to hold together their own congregations, roiled by the denomination’s recent decision to drop its requirement that ordained officers practice “fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness.” The Fellowship leaders wanted to maintain unity among the mostly conservative PCUSA congregations represented among the 1,950 persons who had flocked to Minneapolis for the gathering. And they wanted to keep a connection to the denomination, if possible.

The desire to stay in relationships—even difficult relationships during times of stress—is an understandable and worthy motive in a Christian pastor. “If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all,” the apostle Paul advised (Romans 12:18). But will it be possible to keep the bond among all those who gathered under the Fellowship banner? Will it be possible for them all to find a place for themselves within a denomination that no longer so clearly affirms the teachings on sexuality (and much else) to which they still hold?

These were the questions that hovered over the Fellowship gathering. The answers were not clear to anyone. The pastors who convened the meeting presented proposals for four (or five) “tiers” of future relationships that might enable them to go forward together. But the success of any of those tiers depends upon difficult decisions that will have to be made by others. Those in attendance in Minneapolis, with colleagues in their home churches and thousands of other PCUSA churches, will have to decide which tier suits each congregation. And every tier beyond standing pat with the status quo would require permission from PCUSA structures that have many reasons to deny permission.

In tension with the commitment to unity was the wish by Fellowship leaders to take actions that would demonstrate their firm theological and ethical commitments amidst the confusion of the PCUSA. “We need relief of conscience—those of us who feel called to differentiate,” declared the Rev. Peter Barnes of Austin, TX. Several spoke of aspiring to a kind of “dual citizenship” in the PCUSA and some other association or body that would maintain the standards the denomination was dropping. Barnes expressed the need for “a firewall of orthodoxy that keeps you in a safe place.”

All Kinds of Ideas
But how could such a firewall be built while remaining in the doctrinally flexible PCUSA? “We’ve got all kinds of ideas” for “differentiated subsets” of “like-minded” evangelical churches within the denomination, according to Crosby. The ideas were grouped into the four “tiers”:

• A local church could remain in the same location within a PCUSA presbytery while also participating in Fellowship events.
• A PCUSA presbytery could set up dual Committees on Ministry and on Preparation for Ministry—one for those who upheld and one for those who opposed the “fidelity and chastity” standard. Evangelical churches could choose to be under the former.
• Local churches could seek to affiliate with a presbytery that shared their theological and ethical convictions. These could be existing conservative presbyteries that would welcome congregations from beyond their geographical bounds. Or they could be new “overlay” presbyteries created within the bounds of a current presbytery.
• A “new Reformed body” could be established nationally. This body would have the power to ordain officers and to receive and dismiss member churches. Those churches could be ones that also belonged to the PCUSA, as well as churches that had left the PCUSA. The new body might or might not be recognized by the PCUSA, and it might or might not turn into another denomination.

(A fifth “tier” was for a congregation to join the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. But none of the Fellowship leaders appeared to favor that option. Unlike the other four, it would involve a definitive break with the PCUSA. Crosby opined that he was more “excited about doing something different with like-minded” people in the denomination, “rather than going someplace else and inheriting somebody else’s history, somebody else’s problems.”)

Many attendees at the Minneapolis gathering found the multiplicity of tiers to be somewhat disorienting. It would strain the capacity of most organizations or groups of people to pursue four separate options simultaneously and with equal vigor. But Fellowship leaders argued that a “one size fits all” approach would not work.

Congregations’ experience of the PCUSA is mediated mostly through the presbyteries, which vary tremendously. Some churches are in a supportive presbytery where “no one now is preventing us from doing what we feel called to do” (the Rev. Mike McClenahan of Solana Beach Presbyterian Church in the San Diego area). Others are in “hostile” presbyteries from which they need protection. These differently situated congregations will need to pursue different solutions, according to the Fellowship leaders. “That’s the only way to keep evangelicals together,” contended the Rev. Jim Singleton of First Presbyterian of Colorado Springs, “to shepherd all four” tiers. He envisioned the Fellowship as the wide umbrella under which churches following these different courses could come together.

Common Values
Singleton sketched a series of common values that might hold these churches together. Relationships between them should be “covenantal” rather than “regulatory,” he said. At the center of the covenant would be a strong statement of theological “essentials” that the Fellowship was drafting. Unlike the PCUSA, Singleton declared, “We’re not going to be afraid to say what they [essential tenets of the faith] are.”

The Colorado Springs pastor asserted, “Our highest value is on the congregation.” The Fellowship wanted to encourage congregations to be “missional,” imagining new ways to reach out to neighbors. It aimed for “250 new communities of worship in the next five years.” It aspired to train a “new generation” of “young, entrepreneurial leaders … that will be capable of planting and growing churches,” according to Crosby. Presbyteries should be small rather than large, so as to facilitate the personal support necessary for this new “missional” focus. At the same time, Singleton promised that the Fellowship would “connect globally” to growing Christian churches in the Two-Thirds World.

These Fellowship values and aspirations sounded appealing to attendees at the Minneapolis gathering. But many of them might also be attractive to moderates and liberals who will remain “undifferentiated” inside the PCUSA. Stated Clerk Gradye Parsons and Moderator Cindy Bohlbach, who attended the gathering and gave greetings to it, made that very point. Both officials emphasized that PCUSA leaders understood that the denomination as a whole needed to change its ways and become a “new Reformed body.” The sticking point that went unmentioned is that the PCUSA has not been willing to specify the “essential tenets” to which its officers pledge themselves.

Singleton said the Fellowship’s watchword would be to “connect to the PCUSA wherever possible and differentiate wherever necessary.” Asked why it was necessary to retain a connection to the denomination, he replied, “There are so many valuable people, so many valuable programs that you don’t want to have to rebuild if you don’t have to.”

Another Denomination?
“The world does not need another denomination,” Crosby stated. The Minnesota pastor commended the Fellowship’s proposed “new Reformed body” as “something new that allows for dual citizenship [in the PCUSA and elsewhere], at least in the near term.” He described it as “more an association than a denomination.”

Speaking to his own situation, Crosby said he did not wish to lead his Edina congregation out of the PCUSA. “I think I could do it,” he confided, “but it would be bloody” and distract the church from its mission. “Our firm hope [in the Fellowship] is to maintain a mutually beneficial relationship with the PCUSA.”

Just as the Fellowship leaders were committed to keeping a connection to the PCUSA if possible, they also prioritized unity within local congregations. “We don’t want to introduce anything that will fracture a congregation,” Singleton said. Asked what to do if a congregation were not of one mind about which “tier” to pursue, Crosby counseled: “You do not have to make a decision if the temperature is not high. Do not precipitate a crisis if you do not have to.”

The Fellowship leaders, however, seemed to have made some decisions. Among the tiers, the one toward which they were directing the most energy was the new Reformed body. Tier 1 (remaining in place), which would require no action, did not appear acceptable to most. Tier 2 (dual presbytery Committees on Ministry and on Preparation for Ministry) was raised as a theoretical possibility; however, nobody reported having actually pursued that possibility. Conversations were reported regarding Tier 3 “overlay presbyteries” in Greater Atlanta and Mission (Central Texas) Presbyteries. But the fate of those conversations was uncertain, and in any case the results would not necessarily benefit churches in other presbyteries. Nobody talked about going to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (Tier 5).

By contrast, Fellowship leaders had specific plans with a timeline for the new Reformed body. They had already achieved legal incorporation. “This new body does exist,” Crosby announced, “but it’s an empty warehouse” that needs to be filled. Through this fall, the Fellowship will work on a statement of theological essentials, soliciting input from interested Presbyterians. Then it will hold a “constitutional convention” next January 12-14 in Orlando.

Who’s on Board?
In short, the new Reformed body looks like a train that is already rolling down the tracks. But who will hop on board that train? “We fully expect that many churches will sit on the sidelines,” Singleton acknowledged. “We realize that [the new Reformed body proposal] is going to scare some of you off,” Crosby admitted. But he vowed, “We’re not going to let the disapproval of others hold us back.”

So, by their own account, Fellowship leaders do not expect to have all—or even necessarily most—evangelical PCUSA congregations walking the same path with them. They are encountering a conflict between their goal of congregational unity and their goal of unity among all PCUSA evangelicals. Ostensibly “evangelical” congregations, like ostensibly “progressives” ones, are rarely as monolithic as commonly supposed. They, too, have a range of theological views and a range of attitudes toward the denomination.

It will be hard for many congregations to make a decision to “differentiate” from the PCUSA—or to decide which form of differentiation they might prefer. Most attendees with whom this observer talked at the Minneapolis gathering did not seem sure which tier they wanted to pursue. They were even less sure how their church back home would respond. And many were uncertain whether any of the options would help their congregation.

This kind of paralysis will likely leave the largest number of churches in Tier 1—stuck in the same place, although perhaps not happy about it. This has been the outcome so far in other denominations—the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America—that have recently experienced similar conflict over loosened ordination standards. Most traditionalist congregations have remained in place, even as some prominent ones have departed. Those former colleagues in ministry no longer see one another at the same church meetings.

There is a further obstacle to the Fellowship’s plans for evangelical unity. Every tier except the first depends upon the permission of PCUSA structures to be realized as the Fellowship envisions it. A presbytery would have to vote to set up dual Committees on Ministry and on Preparation for Ministry. Overlay presbyteries might require a constitutional change, with votes by the General Assembly and all the presbyteries. A new Reformed body would have to be recognized by the General Assembly, and then local presbyteries would need to allow churches to be co-affiliated with or dismissed to the new body.

Choices Narrowed
A major point of contention would be the Fellowship’s request that the new Reformed body (or the overlay presbytery or duplicate presbytery committees) be granted two ecclesiastical powers hitherto reserved to the presbyteries: the power to ordain and install ministers of Word and Sacrament, and the power to receive and dismiss churches. Perhaps a few gracious presbyteries might be willing to share these powers with new Fellowship-related bodies. It seems improbable, however, that the majority would ever consent to such a dilution of their power. Crosby reported that while some denominational and presbytery officials had been open to talking about tiers 2 and 3, they had been “less cooperative” regarding the possibility of a new Reformed body. Singleton admitted, “So far we have found no easy solution” for churches to leave the PCUSA and be dismissed to the new body.

The result is this: Even congregations that were ready to go into the new Reformed body would still face a difficult choice. Would they insist that the new body claim the two contested ecclesiastical powers, without PCUSA permission, and thus effectively separate itself from the PCUSA and become a new denomination? Or would they accept PCUSA presbyteries’ continued monopoly of those powers and thus find themselves back in tier 1? Thus the options would be narrowed from four (or five) to just two: Should a church stay in the PCUSA or should it go to another Reformed body? Inevitably, some churches would choose one option and some would choose the other.

The Fellowship leaders, despite their best efforts, may not be able to hold it all together. The tragedy is that, in a fallen world where Christians and their churches often make misguided decisions and go their own ways, precious friendships are sometimes lost. Yet still it is worth every effort to save relationships between professed brothers and sisters in Christ. For Christians do believe that the Father will one day redeem even the lost relationships among his children. Surely he will grant the Son’s prayer that all Christ’s disciples “may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me” (John 17:23). We cannot lose that hope. And in the meantime, we seek the degree of peace, unity, and purity that is possible, insofar as it depends upon us.