Opening the Fellowship of Presbyterians gathering on August 25 in Minneapolis, the Rev. Dave Peterson of Memorial Drive Church in Houston addressed the feelings of many of the 1,950 attendees in the aftermath of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) decision to drop its “fidelity and chastity” standard for ordained officers. “We grieve our current state,” Peterson said in his sermon. “Some are angry. Some are sad. Some are confused.”
The Houston pastor compared the current PCUSA situation to the scene when Jesus arrived at the tomb of his friend Lazarus (John 11). Bystanders turned away because the tomb was “stinky,” according to Peterson, but “Jesus said, ‘If you look further into that tomb, you’ll see glory.” Likewise, Peterson advised his hearers, “It’s time for us to trust that Jesus already has something prepared for us. It’s time to stop the stinky talk and begin the search for glory.”
This vow to “stop the stinky talk” and move ahead into a new ecclesiastical future was a persistent theme that ran through the Fellowship gathering. It was a positive, graceful note that fell favorably upon the ears of many of the participants. But it was also a vow that may be hard to keep as they take the steps required to move into that future. Whether they decide to uphold the faith inside the PCUSA or to flee the denomination or to enter into some as yet undefined “dual citizenship,” will it be possible for them to do so without some frank conversation—even possibly “stinky talk”—about the dire situation that drives them to take such a stand?
‘Tired of Fighting’
Other Fellowship leaders who spoke in Minneapolis were on the same page with Peterson. “We’re not angry,” stated the Rev. Jim Singleton of First Presbyterian of Colorado Springs. “Our best solutions will not come out of anger…. It will serve no purpose to throw rocks at the biblical interpretations [of Presbyterian progressives] that we do not share.” Singleton stressed that “Louisville [denominational headquarters] is not the problem.”
The Rev. John Crosby of Christ Presbyterian in Edina, MN, pledged, “We do not and will not seek to demonize the PCUSA in any manner.” On the contrary, he and other speakers specifically praised Stated Clerk Gradye Parsons, who was in attendance. “We think the General Assembly leadership is the best in a generation,” Crosby said, “and we will not call anyone apostate.”
The Rev. Peter Barnes of Westlake Hills Church in Austin, TX, explained, “While we lament the end of national standards for ordination, we do not wish to continue conflict over these matters.” Barnes sought “a commitment to mutual respect” in the church. “We are all tired of fighting,” he said.
Singleton also expressed a desire to refrain from further debates. “We no longer expect to renew the PCUSA by out-voting it,” he said. “This thing has gone on long enough with the 51 and the 49 [percent] battling for control. That doesn’t seem to be the solution.” There was little discussion of the decision to delete the “fidelity and chastity” standard, and no talk about how that standard might be restored. Singleton characterized the presbytery vote to adopt Amendment 10-A (the deletion) as “simply a signal of something larger.”
How Ill is ‘Deathly Ill’?
But the Colorado pastor did use some strong language in describing the larger situation. He reaffirmed the assertion in an earlier Fellowship letter that the PCUSA is “deathly ill.” Singleton amplified the grim diagnosis: “Mainline Christianity is dying in the U.S…. Denominationalism in America is not being maintained.” Citing the “powerfully rapid rate of decline” in PCUSA membership, Singleton humbly admitted that “most of our numbers [in evangelical congregations] are flat…. We’re not growing either. We don’t have much to boast about.” This language was sociological analysis of the decline of an institution. It did not attempt the more sensitive task of assessing the theological faithfulness of a Christian body.
That latter task was attempted at a separate August 24 seminar in Minneapolis sponsored by the Presbyterian Coalition. Whitworth University professor James R. Edwards discussed a paper in which he argued that “the theological foundation of Amendment 10-A is heretical.” Edwards explained: “In devaluing Scripture to the non-binding status of ‘guidance,’ Amendment 10-A invests absolute authority in Presbyterian polity, assuring that the PCUSA will be a denomination of … ‘polity alone’ rather than ‘Scripture alone.’”
The Whitworth professor hesitated to apply the word “apostate” to the PCUSA; however, the Rev. Mateen Elass from First Presbyterian of Edmond, OK, stated, “I do think our denomination has gone apostate.” Elass posed a choice: “We’re at a Josiah moment in this denomination. Are we going to reclaim this denomination, or are we going to leave?” The audience for the exchange between Edwards and Elass was only about 50.
Implicit Criticisms
Fellowship leaders, speaking to 1,950, left their criticisms mostly implicit. Singleton remarked, “We told people it [Amendment 10-A] was going to fracture the church.” He quoted from a 1798 letter in which that day’s Presbyterian General Assembly warned that “certain men have crept in amongst us, who have denied, or attempt to explain away the pure doctrines of the gospel; to introduce pernicious errors….” But Singleton did not specify how that letter applied to the PCUSA of 2011. In a later question and answer period, John Crosby ventured, “We think our church made a pernicious error” in deleting the “fidelity and chastity” standard.
The clearest repudiations of 10-A came from non-Anglo speakers at the gathering. The Rev. Paul Yang of Pilgrim Church in Paramus, NJ, stated, “Most Korean churches are facing serious conflicts, if not crises, as a result of the decision on Amendment 10-A.” Yang said these churches felt they “face[d] a choice between the denomination and the authority of Scripture.” The Rev. Hector Reynoso of El Príncipe de Paz Church in Mercedes, TX, declared: “We see those steps [10-A] as a clear departure from the Christian faith…. These amendments cheapen the grace of Jesus Christ and set aside the authority of the Scriptures.” But none of the other speakers developed that analysis or its implications for how churches should relate to the denomination.
Yet a powerful negative judgment of the PCUSA ran just below the surface of the meeting. Nearly 2,000 people came to Minneapolis out of a sense of crisis—that something of grave consequence had happened that required an urgent response. The main business of the meeting was to discuss various options (called “tiers”) that churches might pursue to address the perceived crisis. All but one of the tiers involved some degree of “differentiation” from the PCUSA. Peter Barnes spoke of a need for “relief of conscience.”
The implication was that the situation in the denomination had become so offensive to Presbyterian evangelicals’ consciences that they had to separate themselves to some degree. The forms of “differentiation” proposed by the Fellowship were all permanent, and some could lead to a complete rupture with the denomination. Presumably, churches would not be contemplating such severe steps unless they were convinced that the PCUSA’s “pernicious errors” were incorrigible.
That implicit conclusion delivered a stinging condemnation of the denomination. If the conclusion had been voiced, it would perhaps have been labeled as undesirable “stinky talk.” So why didn’t Fellowship leaders voice their conclusion more clearly? Aside from considerations of civility and Christian charity (which are not to be discounted), there was a tactical reason. Barnes let it slip in response to a question. “We need the presbytery to deal us the cards to play our hand in Tiers 2, 3, and 4,” the Austin pastor said, “and that’s why we need to maintain good relationships with the presbytery.” Obviously, good relationships would not be fostered through “stinky talk” about the denomination.
Unavoidable Conversations
But what if, despite the best efforts to cultivate good relationships, presbyteries still denied permission for congregations to pursue their options for “differentiation”? Then the congregations would confront a stark choice: either commit to staying in the PCUSA or depart it for another Reformed body. Making that decision would require a full and frank conversation about the denomination’s errors: what they are, how widespread and deeply rooted they are, how they might impinge upon evangelical consciences, and what were the prospects for correcting or mitigating those errors. One might have to assess whether the PCUSA had become apostate.
Whichever choice was made, this kind of frank conversation would be important in laying the groundwork. If a church chose to leave the PCUSA, its members would have to be overwhelmingly persuaded that the denomination had gone so far and so irretrievably astray that remaining in it would violate their conscience, endanger their spiritual health, and vitiate their Christian mission. If a church chose to stay, it would have to gain an accurate understanding of the spiritual challenges that it would face in the denomination, so that it would be ready to stand firm and give witness to its faith under fire.
In neither case would silence or reticence about the PCUSA’s problems be a viable option. Presbyterian evangelicals certainly need to look ahead to new “missional” possibilities, and turn away from bitterness about the past—as the Fellowship leaders invited them to do. But they also need to see with piercing clarity where they stand in the denomination today. It is impossible to move forward otherwise.
Yet the determination to avoid “stinky talk” cut short those kinds of necessary conversations in Minneapolis. They occurred only outside the meeting—in the hallways, on blogs and Facebook pages, and at the Presbyterian Coalition seminar. Maybe the Fellowship leaders were merely intending to postpone the conversations. Perhaps they meant first to exercise the utmost diplomacy in seeking the cooperation of PCUSA structures in enacting new forms of “differentiation” within the denomination (Tiers 2, 3, and 4). Then, if diplomacy failed, they might be willing to engage the difficult conversations.
Nevertheless, the conversations will have to be engaged sooner or later. Is it possible to talk about what makes the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) so “deathly ill”—frankly, soberly, with charity toward those who disagree—without descending into “stinky talk”? Perhaps God might even be glorified in such a conversation.
No comments yet
Leave a Reply