In the wake of the release of the “Fellowship PCUSA” letter that I wrote about here, it was inevitable that Presbyterian Voices for Justice (formerly known as the Witherspoon Society) would chime in. The result is entirely predictable:
The statement recently issued by “Fellowship PCUSA” clearly contains echoes of past struggles within the PC(USA) over what it is to be church together. For some it will echo of New Wineskins; others will be reminded of the Presbyterian Church in America effort of 35 years ago, others of the Confessing Church. There are also more recent efforts that claim a new “way forward,” or that represent tall-steeple churches that do not feel they need much from the denomination.
We note that the General Assembly just affirmed a new Form of Government and authorized a commission to work on presbytery, synod and other inter-council relationships. This letter suggests that some ministers are making their own moves regardless of how those churchwide efforts go; perhaps, despite all those echoes of past efforts, they have something new to propose.
One thing looks pretty old, though: the lack of any women among the signers. This is deplorable, coming from a large group of pastors who seek to speak for Presbyterian churches.
What’s actually pretty old is that, like so many other relics of the 60s, PVJ still thinks in terms of quotas, considering a person’s gender more important than what they think or believe. It’s certainly possible that women pastors were asked to sign on, and for whatever reason decided not to. That’s their choice. But to the folks at PVJ, the lack of female names automatically means that they can discount anything that’s said, since that lack, in and of itself, is deplorable.
Oh, and by the way, despite the fact that the letter is reprinted on the very same page as the PJV response, the writer apparently didn’t bother to read all the way to the end (distracted, no doubt, by that lack of female names), and notice that the signers specifically say that they aren’t speaking for their churches:
*Signatories represent themselves, not necessarily the Session or congregation of their respective churches.
So anyway, PJV goes on:
We reject the notion that the movement for LGBT ordination rights is the root of the conflict that plagues our church. History shows us that justice-seeking – on behalf of people of color and women – has not been without struggle, but in the end it has made the Presbyterian Church stronger and more consistent with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We stand with all Presbyterians who believe that faithfulness to God’s justice-loving call demands that we extend to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons all of the rights and privileges of membership in the PCUSA.
It is undoubtedly true that gay ordination isn’t the “root of the conflict.” Of course, there aren’t many evangelicals who would say that it is. Instead, they would point abandonment of historic Reformed standards regarding biblical authority and trustworthiness, as well as the introduction of an alien hermeneutic, as the root. The issue of gay ordination is just one manifestation of this problem, though it has obviously been front and center.
As for the rest, however, it’s not a response so much as a repetition of tired cliches, fallacious analogies, and political slogans.
As we read this call from “Fellowship PCUSA,” we see a challenge (perhaps unintended) to our church’s leadership to be more visionary and inspiring, to present with conviction the distinctive calling of the General Assembly and of the Presbyterian Church (USA) itself. We do not need an echo of elements in the culture blaming Big Government and urging a kind of ecclesiastical privatization. We do not need threats that the PC(USA) must “do it our way or we’ll do it alone.” We do need a church united to face the challenges confronting our middle class and poorer congregations, at a time of growing inequality and the fading of the American empire.
Reading this, you’ve got to wonder whether PJV is capable of seeing the church as anything more than secular politics using religious language.
We do not believe that God is calling our church to further division in the name of some kind of doctrinal or moral “purity.” Rather, we are convinced that God calls us today, as always, to follow Jesus, the Christ, with courage, love, and respect for all people – which means doing justice, loving others with mercy, and walking in humility with God.
Right. Doctrinal and moral “purity” mean nothing. Being on the right side of the political issues, now that’s what church is all about.
February 5, 2011 at 9:20 pm
What bothers me is that the letter is seen as coming from just “tall steeple” churches, as if this was some high-and-mighty movement saying that big churches don’t need little ones. As the letter has released and some others of us have signed on, it’s no longer pastors from pastors with large congregations. That was just a way to try and pigeonhole this group, and it’s unfair.
February 7, 2011 at 12:21 pm
If all the “TS” and all the “weeKirks” and all of the other “reform groups” unite under one umbrella–then we may have something, otherwise it may be just another group that comes and goes.
February 8, 2011 at 1:28 pm
Jason Huff – you are right – that is an argument designed to take all focus off the substance of the letter.
Frank Norment – I really have no desire to discourage, but for some reason, I don’t see that happening. Now, anything is possible. But I fear that we have a problem (as I’ve said in other places, I’m no longer PC(USA), so I have no dog in the hunt – but I’ve spent a lot of time and effort on this problem … so take this for what it’s worth only): I fear we do not think.
What I mean is that so many different people, motivated by true and sincere desires to follow Jesus Christ, still retain varied and conflicting agendas. None of us seems to be willing to set aside our own agendas or ‘better’ ideas because we rightly see the situation. Namely – theologically conservative elements in the PC(USA) have been fighting this fight for fity years. (One could argue more than 100 years). In all that time we have been outmaneuvered at most turns. Sure, there have some victories. But the inexorable movement to where we are now and where the PC(USA) seems to be heading today – has continued consistently.
It is true that there are certain advantages in communication now that did not exist before. However, the numbers were overwhelmingly in our favor before. They are not now.
February 8, 2011 at 1:37 pm
From my own point of view – I camed to an appreciation of historic reforemed theology as an adult. I also came to realize that the problems I had with reformed theology for the most part stemmed from the fact that I didn’t actually understand it before. (I would distinguish between “reformed” and “biblical” – but the Reformed understanding is the closest match to my read of the Bible.)
I mention this because – at the very time I was “discovering” historic Reformed theology, and coming to an increasing appreciation for it, I suddenly noticed that the PC(USA) (among others) was hellbent on rejecting its Reformed traditions. So that some of the very things that were the most meaningful to me were those things most loathed and even ridiculed in the organization.
There is something very dreary about watching people in the process of rejecting what I love – and doing so in a way that usually demonstrates they don’t actually understand it.