As I’ve been watching the slow-moving train wreck that is the PCUSA, it’s become clear that something is happening, something that speaks ill of the denomination’s leadership, something that is just wrong. It seems the more paranoid elements in the PCUSA have the upper hand, and are determined to stop what they think is the EPC “raid” on their congregations at all costs. Call it the Berlin Wall approach.
In a report that we received at last weekend’s Presbytery of the East, we heard this from EPC Stated Clerk/Executive Pastor Jeff Jeremiah:
Our relationship with the PCUSA is deteriorating. In the early fall, a PCUSA constitutional body declared that presbyteries are not to dismiss churches to our Transitional Presbyteries. After Thanksgiving, PCUSA leadership began complaining to our GA office that representatives of the EPC are “initiating contact, soliciting and recruiting” PCUSA churches to come to the EPC. In addition, they are displeased that we have received churches into our presbyteries before they have completed their constitutional dismissal process (that is, we’re receiving churches that have disaffiliated from the PCUSA). I replied that we do not initiate contact, solicit or recruit churches and leaders outside the EPC. We respond to inquiries and invitations from the spiritual leadership of congregations who want to learn more about the EPC.
This month I received notice that a draft overture to the 2008 PCUSA General Assembly had been received calling for a severing of the “in correspondence” relationship of the PCUSA with the EPC. As more churches seeking to leave the PCUSA find that dismissal is untenable and disaffiliate, I anticipate the momentum within the PCUSA to sever ties with us will increase. I would note to you that PCUSA leadership does not acknowledge that anything is happening in the PCUSA that would cause a church to want to leave. Their position, as represented to us, is that it is because of our actions that their churches want to depart.
In the meantime. we will continue to keep “the main thing the main thing,” and pursue the missional future we believe our Lord has for us. And we will continue to do what we’ve done for the last twenty-seven years–in response to struggling and hurting congregations and leaders looking for help, we will offer God-honoring counsel, comfort and encouragement.
In other words, because PCUSA leaders have deluded themselves into thinking that everything is hunky-dory, and that after the 2006 General Assembly “nothing changed” (despite the recent evidence that the fears of conservatives were in fact well founded), they’ve also convinced themselves that there is no reason why any church would want to leave PCUSA, which means that it must be the fault of the EPC–we’re feeding them false information, or bribing them, or something. What EPC could possibly offer churches to go through the misery so many of their presbyteries are putting them through as they try to leave that would make it worthwhile, when they still have a warm, snuggly, oh-so-orthodox home in the PCUSA, I can’t even begin to guess. But when leaders start thinking this way, no amount of logic or evidence is likely to sway them.
As to the delay/disrupt tactics that Dr. Jeremiah refers so, here’s a bit of confirmation. Bill Crawford, a member of the blog Consistory, is a guy I trust, and the fact that his information lines up with the Jeremiah report convinces me of its reliability. His correspondent wrote:
It seems that Louisville’s new strategy is this:
Get the presbyteries to delay any action on dismissal until after GA, by any means possible (bury in committee, stretch out the process from one presbytery meeting to another, file disciplinary actions against pastors and churches who leave, etc.)
Arrange for an overture that will end PCUSA relations with the EPC to be brought to GA. That overture is in process now in at least one presbytery—expect to see it reported soon.
Pass that overture this summer, based on false accusations that the EPC is actively recruiting loyal PCUSA congregations away from the denomination.
Then presbyteries will be able to say, “We cannot dismiss you to the EPC (including New Wineskins) because we no longer have relations with them,” leaving no acceptable place for churches to land.
This strategy is being seen all over the country with delay after delay after delay. This is why so many churches who were very near dismissal (even months ago) have seen their progress reversed or stopped.
There’s plenty of evidence out there that this is the approach that’s being used. (One situation that immediately comes to mind is out in Sacramento, where two churches were given the presbytery’s leave to go, only to have things held up at the last minute by a church filing an objection that strikes me as having little merit, but will almost certainly delay things until after the 2008 GA and the passage of the “nuclear overture.”) And certainly the legalistic approach is one with which the folks in Louisville are well acquainted.
B ut you know what? The wonderful things is that nothing Louisville, or its minions in the presbyteries, does can keep people from being faithful to God. They can deprive them of their property, perhaps, but they can’t prevent them from following the vision that the Lord has given them. I’ll keep praying for all the folks temporarily trapped behind the PCUSA Berlin Wall, confident that the Lord will bring that wall tumbling down, too.
UPDATE: Welcome to those who are coming from the Layman Online. If you didn’t start at the top of my blog, you might want to go here for the latest.
February 6, 2008 at 2:28 pm
If this is true, and if this is by craft, intentional – specifically if there have been any communications from national PC(USA) employees etc. with any presbytery or any church in presbytery about delaying tactics to hold out for its GA overture – Then the PC(USA) has institutionally become wholly evil.
There is no other option – it is dishonesty, lying, stealing – plain and simple.
Anyone who supports it – again, if the allegation is true – or defends is supporting and defending evil – making them evil in their own right. There is no other option.
How long?
Yet you are right … nothing L’ville and any corrupt colluders (if this is accurate) might imagine in their hearts can’t prevent people from following Jesus Christ – as much as they might want to.
I just hope Presbyterians will see that that is what is about – this (if the allegation is true) is an action to attempt to prevent people from following Jesus Christ. Nothing else. There can be no justification for financially or morally supporting this. It ceases to be about legitimate claims and disputes – which many have. It is about deceit and coercion – and that has no fellowship with Jesus Christ – and Christians dare not even wish its practitioners ‘godspeed’.
February 6, 2008 at 3:14 pm
This is what ’survival’ at all costs looks like, and when ’survival’ (not God, the Kingdom, the Bible, etc) becomes the ‘main thing’ in keeping ‘the main thing the main thing’. Of course, this isn’t ’survival’ at all – it’s merely clamoring for the ruined relics of a kingdom brought low through infidelity.
February 6, 2008 at 7:28 pm
In an August 2005 editorial Parker Williamson warned:
“History tells us that most institutions do not die gracefully. When threatened by extinction, institutional managers instinctively fight for survival, even at the cost of the organization’s own founding principles. Typically, the final phase – when an institution’s demise is imminent – becomes (to borrow from Hobbes’ state of nature) “nasty, brutish and short.” ”
http://www.layman.org/layman/the-layman/2005/3-august-layman/executive-editors-column-august-05.htm
If there is an overture to remove EPC as a corresponding denomination, then Parker’s editorial would appear to be coming true.
February 6, 2008 at 8:15 pm
I’m not sure if this exactly good news or not (it must might be) but you are certainly not alone. Who would have thought that Episcopalians and Presbyterians might find Common Cause together. Could be happening – gotta wonder about that big picture thing.
Please know that you are in the prayers of many many of your Episcopal/Anglican brothers and sisters.
bb
BabyBlueOnline.org
February 6, 2008 at 8:57 pm
I appreciate that, BabyBlue, and you and the Anglicans here in Northern Virgina, as well as Episcopalians all across the country who are seeking to be faithful to Christ, are in ours as well.
February 7, 2008 at 9:53 am
BabyBlue – You’re right – there is a kind of bright side. It demonstrates something very profound: people who have legitimate differences as Christians can cooperate and work together and fellowship with one another with ease … as long as these are not difference about essential doctrines. The very thing that the institutionalists are claiming is what is actually happening among the embattled ‘traditional’ Christians in these denominations. Ironic that unity is the feature of those who are in the process of separating and realigning from the legacy organizations – and disunity is the feature of those organizations – who claim to want unity uberalles.
February 7, 2008 at 10:03 am
It’s fine for the authorities if the people leave … they don’t care about that. Because stopping people from leaving would require a return to theological orthodoxy, which is too hard. But they WILL fight tooth and nail for the property and other assets. It’s good to know the priorities of so much of our leadership.
February 7, 2008 at 10:20 am
My children attend Pioneer club at a Presbyterian (and bible believing) church {the Presbyterian church in Canada doesn’t seem to have gone off the rails as badly as PCUSA – but it could be that this one parish is an anomaly, I don’t know}. Anyway, as an Anglican, I would feel more comfortable worshipping there than in most Anglican churches in Ottawa (although I admit I would miss having Holy Communion every week!)
February 7, 2008 at 10:27 am
Kate: There actually are some Presbyterian churches that celebrate the sacrament weekly. Check out Ben Glaser’s blog Backwoods Presbyterian for a solid argument in favor of weekly communion from a Calvinist point of view.
Will: I agree. I think what’s happening across the mainline churches is the separation of two religions. One will keep the current denominational structures, but they will be evacuated of their historic substance, and gradually decay and disintegrate. The other will move toward different structures, but those will work together closely to form a genuinely missional and confessional Body of Christ.
February 7, 2008 at 11:41 am
Sending an overture is one thing. Getting it passed is another. We jut have to wait, pray and see. With a new Stated Clerk and Moderator anything (good or ill) can happen!
February 7, 2008 at 12:59 pm
That ticking sound we hear is the clock counting down to the next GA and God’s judgment falling…
February 7, 2008 at 10:22 pm
…”PCUSA constitutional body declared that presbyteries are not to dismiss churches to our Transitional Presbyteries”
Does anyone know what constitutional body declared this?
February 8, 2008 at 9:49 am
I find the parallels between the Anglican Network in Canada and EPC fascinating.
I agree. I think what’s happening across the mainline churches is the separation of two religions.
This is exactly what is happening in the Anglican Church of Canada. Two religions are (or rather, were) trying to coexist, and the small “o” orthodox amongst us (ANiC) have decided that enough is enough. (Well, *I* decided that a couple of years ago, but patience has never been my suit with the long pants).
February 8, 2008 at 11:35 am
“but patience has never been my suit with the long pants”
That is a great quote.
February 8, 2008 at 8:31 pm
It was my father in law’s expression, don’t know where he got it.
February 11, 2008 at 12:46 pm
[...] by the Grace Chapel Administrative Commission. It reveals the source of Jeff Jeremiah’s information to EPC presbyteries that we were being accused of initiating contact with PCUSA churches and going to be threatened [...]
February 12, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Question asked: …
”PCUSA constitutional body declared that presbyteries are not to dismiss churches to our Transitional Presbyteries” Does anyone know what constitutional body declared this?”
My understanding is this: the Advisory Committee on the Constitution wrote a “draft” paper on the subject of dismissing churches to “transitional presbyteries” Their advice stated that this action might be unconstitutional. It was only a draft advisory opinion that had been shared and is now considered by some presbyteries as gospel.
February 13, 2008 at 6:21 am
A few quick questions: What does the Bible say about spreading false rumors? Or how about slandering your neighbor? Or giving a false witness against your brothers and sisters in Christ?
If the things this Blogger and his supporters are saying about the PCUSA are correct, then I have my head buried in the sand despite being very involved in the leadership of our Presbytery. You present it as if we sit around scheming on how to battle against the forces of evil in the EPC. You could not be further from the truth— of the Gospel.
Just this past weekend the leadership of our Presbytery spent 2 days planning for our future. We spent all of 15 minutes discussing the congregation who brought suit against us last fall as those seeking schism voted to affiliate with the EPC outside of both denominations’ constitutional processes. The majority of our time was spent discussing strategies for reaching the unchurched, who make up about 85-90% of the general population. We came away with a commitment to grow congregations by reaching those who do not know Christ.
So, in one little corner of the PCUSA, we do not scheme in back rooms discussing battle plans for an all out assault against the EPC. I believe most of us share my opinion that people who are actively involved in the ministries of their churches— is a good thing! And we could care less, what church or denomination they affiliate with. Being a member of the body of Christ IS WHAT IS IMPORTANT!
Please stop all this bickering and mud slinging, and go out and share the love of Jesus with people who do not know him as Savior. You are wasting your precious time. As I feel I just have by writing this response. Please!
February 13, 2008 at 7:22 am
Maybe you’re out of the loop. According to the administrative commission of the Presbytery of Mississippi for Grace Chapel Church, it is the Stated Clerk of the PCUSA who is responsible for this. It is he who has made the accusations against EPC. It is he who has suggested that PCUSA may cut off ties with EPC. It is he who has suggested that an overture to do so, such as was defeated in Mississippi Presbytery yesterday, would be forthcoming. So perhaps your accusations of rumor-mongering, slander, and false witness are…false witness, at the very least.
I’m glad that Northern New England is so fat and happy in its isolation, but believe me, people like the folks at Grace Chapel, and dozens of other churches throughout PCUSA (including Londonderry, NH) don’t feel that way.
February 13, 2008 at 9:15 pm
On Reformation Day 2003 (maybe 2004) a group of clergy and me placed a petition on the wall next to the doorway of the Presbyterian Center in Louisville. One of the statements we made in the posting was, “The PCUSA is irretrievably apostate under current management.” This crisis has been coming for a long time, but evidence of the crisis was clearly visible. Sadly, those of us who signed the petition were vilified by many across the PCUSA. It saddens me still that we were right about this in 2003. I, as have many, and as many more wish they could, have moved to the EPC where the church is led according to God’s Word, by Godly men and women. Blessings and peace, Rus Howard Peters Creek Church, Venetia, PA.
February 14, 2008 at 7:55 am
In response to David Fischler:
We’re not “fat and happy,” in fact we are lean and becoming leaner here in Northern New England. What we recognize is that at the heart of what we are called to do is to make disciples, and here in New England the mssion field is ripe for the picking. As a Presbytery we do not wish to fail in Christ’s directive given in the Great Commission.
That aside, I’ve read the letter sent from the PCUSA Stated Clerk to the EPC Stated Clerk. It is not hostile nor threatening. What it basically says, is that each denomination has a constitutional process for dismissing and receiving congregations. Please abide by and honor your constitution.
What our Stated Clerk was trying to pastorally stress to his EPC counterpart, is that when churches in schism, such as the Londonderry NH church, vote to “disaffiliate,” which is clearly outside of the PCUSA constitutional process for transfer, don’t receive them through a simple vote of one of your Presbyterys.
In Londonderry’s case, they voted one night, and the next morning the New Wineskines EPC Presbytery voted to receive them. Now this is interesting, because at that time, Oct. 1 2007, the New Wineskines EPC Presbytery basically consisted of an AC appointed by the EPC moderator. They had no elected moderator nor stated clerk. The New Wineskins EPC Presbytery had yet to meet as a body.
So here’s the reason for raising the legitimate question of following the constitutions of our respective denominations: If a the session of a church in schism, such as Londonderry, chooses to operate outside of their constitution, should another denomination vote to ignore their constitution and accept those who are clearly renegade (constitutionally speaking), and accept them? I suppose if the receiving denomination values disorder and anarchy, this is a good policy. Because what this leads to is picking and choosing which parts of the BO one likes, and one doesn’t like.
Now I speak with some authority because I am on the Council of our Presbytery and until last week on the AC to Londonderry. At no time did our Presbytery do anything to thwart the Londonderry session from proceeding through the constitutional process to transfer them to the EPC. We knew of their concerns and we did everything possible to reach out to our sisters and brothers in Christ. In the end, it was the session there that made the decision to ignore the BO.
February 14, 2008 at 9:14 am
Pastor Bob,
You assert that “each denomination has a constitutional process for dismissing and receiving congregations.”
Please show us the PCUSA’s constitutionally mandated process that a congregation must follow when discerning its future in the denomination. What are the steps in that process according to the PCUSA constitution? While you’re at it, show it to the GA, the GA Stated Clerk, the GAPJC, and the GA Advisory Committee on the Constitution, all of whom have declared that Presbyterys can not approve such a policy when they can’t find it either.
To my knowledge, there are no congregations leaving the EPC, but if so, the EPC has a very clear process for congregations outlined in her Book of Order (G-5.6).
You seem to suggest the that EPC values disorder and anarchy. I have found blessed order in the EPC – order and clarity in definining and adhereing to Essential Tenents, Ordination Requirements, Examinations, etc. There truly is unity in essentials, liberty in non-essentials and charity in all things. And from my study of the EPC’s history, that motto characterizes her life and ministry since her formation in 1981.
I would suggest to you that the PCUSA’s lack of a constitutional process, and the forbidding of Presbytery’s to create such a process, may have something to do with the ugliness.
February 14, 2008 at 11:11 am
Fair readers,
Pastor Bob is pastoring a group that is suing the entire session of Londonderry. Don’t give him any credit just because he uses fair sounding words.
February 14, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Steve Byrant, G-11.0103 i. No it doesn’t tell how it’s done but it says that dismissal is a function of Presbytery. When a session acts in schism it is not abiding by the constitution. In my experience, the PCUSA constituion is ultimately upheld. Yes, I admit there are people and sessions who ignore the BO, but ultimately they are corrected through our judical process.
I only speak about the Londonderry situation. In their case, a session which was dishonest to their Presbytery, brought suit against their Presbytery, made official decisions without the presence of their moderator, is a disorderly, schismatic group. Does this embody the EPC motto “…in all things charity?” And so I wonder, why would another reformed denomination want to receive such a group?
Tolby Brown, please remember that the session first brought suit against the Presbytery. Unfortunately the session did this and refused to enter into conversation with the Presbytery about their mutual concerns, considerations, and desires to join the EPC. Since they brought civil suit against the Presbytery, did the Presbytery have any choice but to respond in like fashion?
Also, I’m not pastoring the whole Presbytery, just one congregation.
Thanks you for the compliment. I’m doing my best to speak in an honest, Christ like fashion. I hope that the readers of Rev. Fischler’s blog understand that I am simply trying to enter into the discussion in a logical way. Thank you for the time.
February 14, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Pastor Bob,
This is not an argumentative retort to any of your posts. I am thinking about the system, not specific cases like Londonderry, Paola, or Mississippi. I’m asserting that there is at least one major flaw in in the PCUSA Constitution, which is exacerbating the problem. I am interested in your response to this analysis:
In the absence of a constitutionally mandated process, everyone is caught between a rock and a hard place. Across the landscape of the PCUSA, there are congregations that will reach the conclusion that they are being “called out.” Because there is no constitutional process they can follow for discernment, the system is setting them up to be labeled “schismatic.” Then, (in the absence of a constitutionally mandated process), some presbyteries will develop processes for dismissal in the midst of defensiveness and tension, which doesn’t make for good policy. (And, if they do develop such policies, they risk having charges filed against them as higher governing bodies have forbid them to approve such.) Other presbyteries will employ the “Louisville Papers” which guarantees hostility. Either way, defensiveness and tension transition into hostility. And the next thing you know, you’re in a court of law!
Pastor Bob, do you agree with me that there is a systemic problem created by the absence of a constitutional process?
February 14, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Steven,
I’m not an expert on constitutional matters, by any stretch of the imagination. I do recognize that the BO is inadequate in explanation, policy or guidance on such matters. And I’ve not followed all the particulars of churches attempting to be transfered from the PCUSA to the EPC, to know how their Presbyteries have treated them.
I speak about Londonderry because I was and remain intimately involved. While I am no longer on the AC, I was and I remain on Council. Our Presbytery, in the seven plus years I’ve been a member, has always been caring and listening to any concerns Londonderry brought forth. The GP, COM, and the SC of our Presbytery did everything to reachout and be supportive to their session. So it was quite surprising when all of a sudden the Presbytery found itself sued in a civil court by one of its sessions.
So I use Londonderry as an example which does not support Rev. Fischler’s original thoughts in this blog which is to vilify the PCUSA, and specifically the PCUSA GA Stated Clerk. His premise is that the letter sent is a desperate attempt to derail PCUSA congregations wanting to be transfered to the EPC. What I’m trying to communicate is that our GA’s Stated Clerk was asking that both denominations honor their constitutions. One way to do so is to not immediately accept a session like Londonderry’s when they have acted the way they did.
February 14, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Pastor Bob,
Oh well, nevermind.
February 14, 2008 at 4:44 pm
I’ve been reading this blog for awhile and finally decided to comment.
As a PCA member and Presbyterian researcher (graduate student in history), I am incredibly amazed that some evangelicals have remained within the PC(USA). I certainly commend those who are faithful to the Lord in such an environment, but I seriously question staying within a hostile and failing denomination. For those who question the term “failing,” I refer you to statistics and theological standards- enough said.
As a researcher, I find things that don’t get told, papers that can make you downright cynical of ministers and denominations. I also have a different perspective in that I am a 22 yr. old, perhaps younger than most that debate Presbyterian history and “politics.” Most of my generation (at least that I know) see mainline denoms. such as the PCUSA as old crumbling structures that are stuck in their ways. Most of my peers won’t go to church since it’s not the culture. If they go, they want to hear the gospel preached. That is what has devastated the mainline. They are (mostly) nothing more than a social action agency that is increasingly lost in modern culture. In the next few decades, I believe they will become irrelevant. The future of the dominant form of Christianity in America belongs to young evangelical denominations.
I say all of that to ask this of PCUSA evangelicals/conservatives- if you know Presbyterian history in the past thirty years, why have you been surprised at these recent actions (PUP etc)? You don’t hold the majority and haven’t for decades, so don’t you know what is coming? If you know that, what is holding you back from leaving?
But, I don’t wish to bash conservatives (they’ve had enough of that). I will just say that you have my support and best wishes.
(Sorry for the long post/intro)
February 14, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Thanks for reading and for commenting, David. Very insightful.
February 14, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Steven,
I’m just not an expert on the big picture of constitutional transfer. I’m sorry I can’t adequately respond past the specific instance that I have first hand knowledge about.
David,
I wish you well in your studies and research. I hope that God leads you in a way that is productive and positive for leading people to Christ.
Now, with that said, may I, as one of your elders in faith, suggest that casting stones at your brothers and sisters in faith who labor in a denomination other than yours, is not an appropriate behavior for a person of faith.
You speak very negatively about certain aspects of the PCUSA and can’t seem to understand why any of us stay. Your blanket statement that we are losing members because we don’t preach the Gospel and we are nothing more than a social action agency lost in modern culture, is simply not universally true. Our Presbytery in Northern New England is not shrinking, in fact we are adding members. Just barely, I admit. And true, some churches have lost members, but the net gain since 2000 is positive.
I happen to pastor the PCUSA congregation that has the largest net gain since 2000 of all 90 or so PCUSA churches in all of New England. Should I abandon God’s call to pastor in this area because many on this blog or the Laymen or wherever are highly critical of the PCUSA. I don’t believe this is God’s will for my life.
Am I an evangelical? No.
Am I a conservative? No.
Am I a liberal? No.
Am I a moderate? No.
Am I a social actionist? No.
Am I irrelevent? No.
Am I an effective witness to the Gospel of Christ? Yes!
Am I a Christian pastor? Yes!
All the other labels don’t mean a thing. Don’t become bogged down in them and please don’t paint with such gigantic strokes.
February 14, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Pastor Bob Merrill-
I appreciate your response. I certainly don’t mean to label every person in the PCUSA under broad labels. Unfortunately, historians have to use categorizations otherwise research becomes next to impossible. If I may ask, since you do not use those terms, how would you classify yourself? You say you are an effective witness to the Gospel of Christ…what is the gospel to you? How do you view the Bible?
I can’t comment on your experiences although I do wish you the best in your ministry. I’ll have to take your word that you have grown the past few years as the current year (reported on the PCUSA website) shows a decline of three congregants.
Now, as to “casting stones,” one can be negative towards an entity without being personally derogatory. I don’t believe I’m guilty of the charge. My post was primarily intended for those who identified with current conservative movements in the PCUSA. If I offended you, I do offer my apologies. My issue is with the denomination as an entity, not with any minister in particular.
You know as well as I, that statistics paint a grim picture for the PCUSA and other mainline denominations. The PCUSA has been cut in half from the heights of its predecessors. These do not appear to be aberrations either, for they have continued for the past 40 yrs. Do you have a theory as to why the losses are so extensive? It is also quite evident that the PCUSA engages in a large share of social justice work that has increasingly replaced missions. Counts of missionaries over the past decades should bear that assertion out. I don’t deny the need for some forms of social justice, but I assert that the PCUSA has overfocused on this area to the detriment of other needed areas. Now are there perhaps small local variations? Certainly, but I focus on the denomination writ large.
I think the most serious issue, however, is the relevance of the denomination. When I spoke of “relevance” I was not personalizing it; I was speaking denomination wide (and indeed for much of “mainline” Protestantism). Many of my peers want answers and the PCUSA, among other denominations, seems woeful in providing them. Indeed, the PCUSA increasingly cannot find its own answers (see homosexuality etc…) and often questions where to find answers of any sort. Raucus inter-denominational fighting makes great material for researchers, but not for those who seek answers. In some of the PCUSA churches I have visited, I have rarely heard a good biblically based sermon. I would also argue is far too much power vested in the hierarchy/boards of the central administration. Do you make your congregation aware of the major controversies currently within the PCUSA, or do they go blissfully on (as so many have) while a small core controls leadership posts?
True, I am a denominational cynic at times (including my own), but I fear that many in my generation see denominations as nothing more than an outmoded religious structure. Perhaps your congregation will be fine- if so that is good-, but I think you are operating in a system that had more relevancy in the 1950s than the 21st century. I don’t say this so we rush to make concessions to the world. Rather, I say it as a warning that we cannot look alone to our denomination and heritage to keep the church afloat in the modern world. Something far more important, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and the Word of God must guide us through these changing times.
February 15, 2008 at 6:01 am
David,
Thanks for your response. My congregation has had a net gain in membership of just over 100 from Jan 2001 through Jan 2008. We’ve received way more than that, but we’ve lost members to death, moving away, or they left the church because I was preaching the Gospel, as you say.
Please help me to understand you better. You are 22 and a member of the PCA. Have you ever spent a significant amount of time, let’s say, more than a year, in a PCUSA congregation? If you haven’t, I find it difficult to understand how you can effectively evaluate us by simply reading statistical reports, study papers, Laymen reporting, and critical blogs. Even just a handful of visits to a handful of PCUSA churches is not enough.
This would be like me lobbing bricks at all Episcopalians because of the decision of a handful in NH to elect and install their current bishop. I can disagree with that decision, and give a logical response as to why, but it does not grant me permission to be critical of the entire Episcopal Church nor its members.
Which brings us back to the beginning of this particular portion of Rev. Fischler’s blog. He’s a EPC pastor expending considerable time being critical of the PCUSA. He’s also providing a place (his blog) for other non-PCUSA people to add in to the derogatory conversation. In this particular piece, he uses the letter sent from the Stated Clerk of the PCUSA to the Stated Clerk of the EPC as a means to continue the criticism. Has he read the letter? I don’t believe so.
The letter asks that the EPC abide by the provisions in their BO for receiving congregations from the PCUSA. While I cannot speak to the broad picture of the entire “disaffiliation debate,” I can speak first hand about the Londonderry church. In that case, the EPC did not abide by their BO. But here’s the letter in its entirety. I have no idea if the EPC Stated Clerk ever responded.
November 30, 2007
Dr. Jeffrey Jeremiah
Stated Clerk of the General Assembly
Evangelical Presbyterian Church
17197 N. Laurel Park Drive, Suite 567
Livonia, MI 48152
Dear Jeff:
May this Advent Season be a time of hope and renewal for you!
As you know, the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and its related authoritative interpretations make provision for PC(USA) presbyteries to dismiss congregations to another Reformed body of similar doctrine and organization. A number of congregations have been transferred in accord with our Constitution to presbyteries of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC) in the past year. However, in recent months the Office of the General Assembly has received complaints from our presbyteries concerning the reception of congregations and ministers by the EPC prior to Constitutional release by PC(USA) presbyteries.We have also received information that Evangelical Presbyterian Church representatives have been actively recruiting, seeking, and initiating contact with PC(USA) congregations to encourage their leaving this denomination.
Both practices are contrary to the principles and expectations of our respective Books of Order.
I am writing to request that your office advise your presbyteries – including the transitional presbytery –they should abide by the processes in our Books of Order.
If this pattern continues unabated, I expect one or more of our presbyteries will overture the 218th General Assembly of the PC(USA) next summer, requesting that the assembly examine the basis of the PC(USA)’s relationship with the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. Such examination might well result in the 218th General Assembly taking action that would adversely affect the relationship between our two communions and the possibility of being able to transfer congregations between our presbyteries in the future. You may be aware that just over thirty years ago, the 199th General Assembly of the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America considered just such an action.
I also reiterate my invitation to you to come to Louisville that we might discuss how to resolve this current situation in the spirit of Christ and of our common commitment to fellowship with one another in the Reformed community.
Cordially,
Clifton Kirkpatrick
Stated Clerk of the General Assembly
February 15, 2008 at 11:27 am
Pastor Bob Merrill-
I appreciate the response including the letter.
As to your question about me, no, I have not spent significant time in the PCUSA. For spiritual purposes, I never cared to, although I might visit a few congregations in the future for research purposes. Given that, I understand why you are skeptical that any outside person could judge the PCUSA. Such concern would have great standing, however, the PCUSA is not a “secret” organization. I can access all GA minutes, see what views the central admins are putting out etc… I assure you I read both sides. It is no secret what the official denominational view. Your opinion might well differ, but you have chosen to be part of the PCUSA and therefore, by consent, you are, in part, endorsing denominational opinion.
Again, I emphasize denominational opinion. I cannot criticize you personally since I don’t know your actions, but I can criticize the denomination. It’s right there in the GA minutes. Whatever passes GA, must do so with a majority vote… Do you keep your congregation informed of such denominational matters?
I am only aware of basic knowledge regarding the Londonderry case. I’m not presuming to pass judgment on you or anyone else. I have my opinions, however, based on how certain dissenting churches have been treated by the PCUSA and its predecessors. It’s no secret how nasty those “disaffiliations” can be. Some of that, I argue, is the system that the PCUSA uses with supposed denominational ownership of property (courts have not always agreed). Things were ugly in 1906 with the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, bad in 1936 when the (future) OPC left, terrible in 1973 when the PCA left, probably not much better in 1981 (EPC), and things aren’t looking any brighter today. I can’t critique one congregation- I can critique a century trend of nasty and bitter splits.
I am not some hater seeking “fire and brimstone” for the PCUSA, but I believe the denomination is in severe trouble based on tends. Disregarding the spiritual/moral side, a historian/lawyer/business owner could make the same judgment of the denomination. Declining membership, churches, assets etc… all spell trouble. The denomination has also had difficulty sending a clear message on what it believes. Just what it is willing to firmly stand on is rather questionable.
What I attempt is to give opinions from someone who isn’t in the thick of these arguments. I’m no fool- I know liberal and conservative factions have erred in various controversies. In a sense, both are to blame for recent problems. I also don’t claim that the PCA is somehow above all problems- it has its problems. But really, nothing approaching the severity and substance of current issues in the PCUSA.
Now you’re probably saying how dare I make a moral judgment on the PCUSA. Beyond historical scholarship etc…that I discussed earlier, I have the Word of God. When a denomination errs from it or justifies its actions by dismissing large portions as “cultural” or “historical,” I as a Christian can, with proper restraint, make a judgment. Being central to this debate, what is the Bible to you? Again, what is the gospel? And is Christianity anything more than a subjective religious experience?
February 15, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Pastor Bob, why don’t you answer David’s questions from yesterday at 10:31pm?
I am a conservative in a PCUSA church and am labelled “disloyal” because my loyalty is to Christ instead of to the PCUSA.
49,000 people leaving per year is not healthy. The only reason to stay in is because the last person to leave gets to sell all the property that you (the PCUSA) are amassing.
I agree with David and other posts here – the PCUSA (the greater denomination not any specific individuals within it) is a dying denomination and gets more angry and un-Christian with each person and each congregation that leaves.
(Rev 2:4-5) Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken your first love. Remember the height from which you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place.
The PCUSA has forsaken its first love (Christ) and is in serious danger of losing its lampstand.
February 15, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Gabriel, you have my sympathy being in that type of denomination. Yes, the mainline is dying- I can see no end to the losses. Christianity does not equal Presbyterianism. Our denominations/structures are faulty. Thank goodness, a relationship with Jesus Christ is so much more.
February 20, 2008 at 7:27 am
Gabriel,
Let me appologize for not responding immediately. I had more important ministry opportunities in the face to face world and couldn’t come back to visit here fore a few days.
My guess about the specific question of many that David asked, is the one “Do I make my congregation aware of the controversies within the PCUSA or do I keep their heads burried in the sand?” (Pardon my paraphrase, I can’t seem to cut and paste all the time in this blog.) The short answer is yes. But not just me but websites and newspapers, and other mailings give it more time and energy, than I have. And when a member comes to me with a question, we have a conversation about the issue.
But here’s the difference, the vast majority of my congregation is not interested in petty bickering. What they are truly interested in and are passionate about is sharing the Gospel and leading people into a relationship with Christ and the wider community of believers.
The topic of this particular blog is to cast criticism at the PCUSA Stated Clerk about the letter he wrote in Nov 2007 to the Stated Clerk of the EPC. It was characterized at the beginning of this section by the EPC Stated Clerk’s own quoted words in a very neagative way,
“….After Thanksgiving, PCUSA leadership began complaining to our GA office that representatives of the EPC are “initiating contact, soliciting and recruiting” PCUSA churches to come to the EPC. In addition, they are displeased that we have received churches into our presbyteries before they have completed their constitutional dismissal process (that is, we’re receiving churches that have disaffiliated from the PCUSA)….
This month I received notice that a draft overture to the 2008 PCUSA General Assembly had been received calling for a severing of the “in correspondence” relationship of the PCUSA with the EPC…”
I believe he is refering to the letter I posted earlier. The way the blogger and the EPC-SC present the correspondence from the PCUSA-SC is rather negative and simply false. The letter from the PCUSA-SC contains a request; abide by your BO when it comes to receiving congregations from the PCUSA. Unfortunately, because of the actions that must be wider than the Londonderry situation (which I know something about), some or one PCUSA Presbytery is considering an overture to the GA asking us to sever ties with the EPC. Now, overtures are a part of our BO and as any well informed Presbyterian knows, an overture doesn’t mean a thing until it has taken about two years to pass, if it ever does.
So here’s a question: I live next to the State of Vermont. It’s a small state. Only about 3/4 of a million peope live there. But there are many people who would like Vermont to leave the USA and join Quebec and Canada. They argue that Vermont should do this because their politics are more aligned with Canadians. There is serious talk about adding this to a state referendum.
Let’s say they take the vote and 66% approve that they want to become Canadians. And so on the next day the legislature and the Governor, decide to designate the borders with NH, MA, and NY as international borders. It now takes a passport to cross the river into VT on an interstate bridge and highway that the citizens of the entire USA, basically paid for. Besides highways, and bridges, there are other significant federal asets in VT. If this were to happen, should the rest of the USA simply say goodbye to VT and not do a thing? And what about the 33% who voted to remain US citizens?
When a majority percentage in a congregation votes to “disaffiliate” and an EPC Presbytery votes in less than 24 hours to “receive,” should the PCUSA simply say adios? Despite the fact that in both the vote to disaffiliate and the vote to receive, the respective BOs were not followed.
April 17, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Blog Hopper…
Hi There. I’m blog hopping….