The Reformed Pastor

The leadership of the PCUSA has responded to the “Fellowship PCUSA” letter. Stated Clerk Gradye Parsons, General Aeembly Moderator Cynthia Bolbach, and General Assembly Mission Council director Linda Valentine put out a missive entitled “Future of the church” that says about what you’d expect. Most of is is standard boilerplate, but this caught my eye:

We hear many voices seeking God’s guidance in discerning how to move forward in a rapidly evolving church and culture. A number of pastors recently issued a Letter to the Presbyterian Church, expressing frustration and calling for something new. Elsewhere, an open invitation has been extended to a conversation about more vital, faithful and connectional congregational ministry in the “next” PC(USA). The 219th General Assembly (2010) empowered a Middle Governing Body Commission, not only to consider the relationships of our middle governing bodies, but to act, upon request, responsively in new expressions of the church.  Another task force has been set into motion to consider the whole form and function of our meetings of the general assembly, another is examining what the nature of the church is in the 21^st century, and yet another is considering how we can live up to our aspirations for racial and ethnic diversity. Presbyterians everywhere long for vibrant congregations and communities of faith, and relationships built upon trust and our common faith in Jesus Christ.

Talk about missing the point. In one paragraph, they manage to mention not one, not two, but four committees, two of which have to do with tweaking the machinery, one of which has to do with secondary theology, and one of which has to do with a problem that is virtually non-existent in the mainline churches. If committees could solve the problems of the mainline churches, they’d be the biggest, most vital religious organizations in America.

The problems of the mainline are three-fold. First, there’s the theological problem. Much of the bureaucratic leadership, virtually all of the seminary teachers, and a substantial portion of the pastors have abandoned historic Christian orthodoxy, so that they have no good news to offer to a lost world. Second, the the mission problem. Because theological orthodoxy has been abandoned, the mission of reaching the world with the gospel of Christ has been laid aside, and political activism has replaced it. Finally, there’s the spiritual problem. As theological orthodoxy fades, and the biblical mission of the church takes a back seat, congregations–the heart of any denomination–lose heart, see themselves as increasingly irrelevant, isolated, and purposeless. All the institutional tinkering in the world isn’t going to change any of this.

For the PCUSA troika to talk about “middle governing bodies” and “new forms and functions” for General Assembly indicates that they still don’t realize that the crisis of the mainline in general, and the PCUSA in particular, isn’t a polity crisis. It’s a God crisis.

I’m not actually a football fan–for me the real season starts in a couple of weeks when pitchers and catchers report for spring training–but in recognition of the triumph of Cheeseheadism, I offer this collection of highlights from the Mystery Science Theater 3000 episode, “The Giant Spider Invasion,” which really was filmed in Wisconsin:

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.

Formerly Great Britain continues down the path of making itself an national Monty Python routine. If you thought the election of a Conservative government would stop stuff like this, you were sadly mistaken. According to the Daily Telegraph:

Children are to be taught about homosexuality in maths, geography and science lessons as part of a Government-backed drive to “celebrate the gay community”.

Lesson plans have been drawn up for pupils as young as four, in a scheme funded with a £35,000 grant from an education quango, the Training and Development Agency for Schools.

The initiative will be officially launched next month at the start of “LGBT History Month” – an initiative to encourage teaching about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual issues.

A group of PCUSA pastors has sent out a letter that seems to be proclaiming the death of the denomination as its members know it, but also seems to be calling for a cloning of the New Wineskins Association and Evangelical Presbyterian Church. You can read it all at the Layman Online; here are the highlights:

Homosexual ordination has been the flashpoint of controversy for the last 35 years.  Yet, that issue – with endless, contentious “yes” and “no” votes – masks deeper, more important divisions within the PC(USA).  Our divisions revolve around differing understandings of Scripture, authority, Christology, the extent of salvation amidst creeping universalism, and a broader set of moral issues. Outside of presbytery meetings, we mostly exist in separate worlds, with opposing sides reading different books and journals, attending different conferences, and supporting different causes. There is no longer common understanding of what is meant by being “Reformed.”  Indeed, many sense that the only unity we have left is contained in the property clause and the pension plan; some feel like withholding per capita is a club used against them, while others feel locked into institutional captivity by property. While everyone wearies of battles over ordination, these battles divert us from a host of issues that affect the way our congregations fail to attract either young believers or those outside the faith. Thus, we age, shrink, and become increasingly irrelevant.  Is it time to acknowledge that traditional denominations like the PC(USA) have served in their day but now must be radically transformed?

This sounds exactly right to me. Polities and official theologies, differ between the mainline churches, but it also sounds like an accurate description of the ELCA, the United Methodist Church, and to a lesser extent the Episcopal Church (less so there simply because liberalism has so completely triumphed that the denomination is now in the process of purging itself of dissenters, which while it will leave ECUSA irrelevant–Unitarianism in fancy vestments–it will eventually reduce conflict, as has happened in the UCC). Anyway, granting that the diagnosis is correct, the pastors offer the following by way of a new vision:

We need something new, characterized by:

1. A clear, concise theological core to which we subscribe, within classic biblical, Reformed/Evangelical traditions, and a pledge to live according to those beliefs, regardless of cultural pressures to conform;
2. A commitment to nurture leadership in local congregations, which we believe is a primary expression of the Kingdom of God.  We will identify, develop, and train a new generation of leaders – clergy and laity;
3. A passion to share in the larger mission of the people of God around the world, especially among the least, the lost, and the left behind;
4. A dream of multiplying healthy, missional communities throughout North America;
5. A pattern of fellowship reflecting the realities of our scattered life and joint mission, with regular gatherings locally, regionally, and nationally to excite our ability to dream together.

Our values include:

1. A minimalist structure, replacing bureaucracy and most rules with relational networks of common purpose;
2. Property and assets under stewardship of the local Session.  Dues/Gifts for common administration should only allow and enable continued affiliation among these congregations;
3. Rather than large institutions, joint ventures with specialized ministries as congregations deem helpful [PC(USA) World Mission may be a source of joint support, aspects of the Board of Pensions, Presbyterian Foundation, Presbyterian Global Fellowship, Presbyterians for Renewal conferences, Outreach Foundation, etc.];
4. An atmosphere of support for congregations both within and outside of the PC(USA).

Once again, this is terrific, and I think it mirrors what we have in the EPC.

OUR PROPOSAL:

1. A Fellowship: The most immediate change we intend is creating a new way of relating in common faith, a Fellowship (name to be determined). The primary purpose of this Fellowship will be the encouragement of local congregations to live out the Good News proclaimed by our Savior, increasing the impact of the Kingdom of Heaven.   This Fellowship will exist within current presbyteries for the time being, but energies and resources will flow in new directions.  It is an intermediate tool to bring together like-minded congregations and pastors, to enable us to build a future different than our fractured present.

I’m not sure how this differs from the New Wineskins Association, or any of several evangelical groups within PCUSA.

2. New Synod/Presbyteries: In the near future we will need “middle bodies” that offer freedom to express historical, biblical values amid ordination changes in the PC(USA).  More importantly, we long for presbytery-like bodies with theological and missional consensus rather than fundamental disagreement over so many core issues.  We need new processes that identify and support the next generation of leadership differently than the current model, which unintentionally weeds out the entrepreneurial persons we so desperately need in our congregations.  Many current functions should be removed; some, like curriculum and mission relationships, have become less centralized already.  We will work with the Middle Governing Bodies Commission since changes to The Book of Order will be needed to step fully into this reality.

This sounds very much like the proposal that came from Beaver-Butler Presbytery at the last General Assembly that my friend Toby Brown helped bring forth. It went nowhere.

3. Possible New Reformed Body: Congregations and presbyteries that remain in a denomination that fundamentally changes will become an insurmountable problem for many. Some members of the Fellowship will need an entity apart from the current PC(USA). It is likely that a new body will need to be created, beyond the boundary of the current PC(USA), while remaining in correspondence with its congregations.  The wall between these partner Reformed bodies will be permeable, allowing congregations and pastors to be members in the Fellowship regardless of denominational affiliation.  All kinds of possibilities exist, and much will depend on how supportive the PC(USA) can be in allowing something new to flourish.

This sounds like what already exists, namely, the New Wineskins-EPC partnership. Lots of New Wineskins churches have come into the EPC, but a lot of them have not, and the NWA has a foot in both worlds. This simply sounds like a duplication of something that already exists.

4. Possible Reconfiguration of the PC(USA): We intend to continue conversations within the PC(USA), and have met with both Louisville’s leadership and that of the Covenant Network in the past few months.  We believe the denomination no longer provides a viable future and perceive that the Covenant Network also sees a broken system.  We hope to work together to see if some new alignment might serve the whole Church.

The Covenant Network may see things this way, but I suspect that most of its allies on the left do not. That’s why they continue to bring up the same issues over and over again, and will continue to do so until they get their way. In fact, they would rather destroy the denomination than not get their way, thinking it an evil institution that deserves to die if it can’t be forced to serve The Cause.

These folks are hosting a meeting in Minneapolis in August. Perhaps they’ll invite NWA and EPC leadership to discuss their efforts, perhaps not. In any case, I wish them well.

UPDATE: Joseph Slife at the Methodist Thinker found a FAQ regarding this effort that is worth reproducing in its entirety:

Where Are the Names of Women/Minorities/ Small Churches/ Elders on Your Letter?

The letter distributed on February 2, 2011 is just the first public sharing of a conversation that started several months ago between pastors who had known one another for many years, and who decided to step forward in faith, inviting all who would to join them. We are deeply committed to the leadership of women in ministry. Three of the seven people on the steering team have theologically trained/ordained spouses in ministry. This commitment is part of what distinguishes us from the EPC.

A gathering in Scottsdale in January 2011 – an annual meeting of larger church senior pastors – was simply our first step toward broadening the conversation. We recognize and acknowledge the urgent and unquestioned need for the voices of younger and older leaders, men and women, small church and large church leaders, people of all races, and clergy/ non-ordained to be equal partners in the conversation and this Fellowship. Our desire is that by the time we gather in Minneapolis in August, we will have a robust conversation going, profiting from the rich diversity of the Body of Christ.

How Is This Fellowship Different Than the New Wineskins?

Many of us were part of the founding of the New Wineskins, and chose for various reasons not to depart the PC(USA) at that time. Part of our hesitation was a desire to draw together a larger group of churches rather than splintering over time. At this point, we have not decided to affiliate with any particular organization; we have a strong desire to make the boundaries of this “new thing” as broad as possible.

Why Not Go With the EPC?

We wholly respect the ministry of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church and may forge some partnership down the road. For the present, we want to honor their distinctiveness rather than “swamping them” with a large group of churches that may change the DNA of their institution, especially in the sensitive area of women’s ordination. We have no desire to cause strife or step immediately into another contentious discussion over ordination. Additionally, we hope to be “radical” in our understanding of the unique needs and opportunities in the rapidly changing culture around us and to structure our organization differently than traditional denominations have been understood.

How Is This Fellowship Different than All the Other Renewal Organizations?

We commend the work that so many of these renewal groups have been doing within the PC(USA), and members of our steering committee have been involved in their efforts. We share these organizations’ commitment to faithfulness in the work of Christ. Our desire, however, is not to spend more time trying to resuscitate our denomination, but to live into a new, 21st century reality. Our energies will be focused on living in a new configuration and deciding how to accomplish that rather than expending effort on the existing PC(USA).

Like some kind of disgusting ooze that just keeps spreading, the Kermit Gosnell saga has now crossed state lines. According to USA Today:

The owner of Atlantic Women’s Medical Center in Delaware — who employed the West Philadelphia abortion doctor facing murder charges for killing infants who were delivered alive — also owns an abortion clinic in Louisiana that in 2009 was cited for a list of health and safety violations.

Yet Delaware regulators cannot say if Atlantic Women’s Medical Center — where Gosnell worked one day a week for a number of years — suffers from similar health and safety deficiencies because abortion providers are not subject to the kind of routine sanitary and safety inspections that restaurants, beauty salons and tattoo parlors get. [Emphasis added.]

Here’s one thing that’s really striking about this: abortion supporters will go on and on about how their only concern is for the health and well-being of women, and yet they will fight tooth-and-nail against regulations that would require abortuaries to be as sanitary as tattoo parlors.

Abortion clinics do not fall under the definition of medical facilities in the state that require routine inspections, like free-standing surgery centers, according to the Delaware Division of Public Health.

The state’s Division of Professional Regulation, meanwhile, only investigates complaints against doctors, “not facilities,” said Division Director James Collins.

Mark A. Meister Sr., executive director of the Medical Society of Delaware, said he did not know of any agency in the state that regulates abortion clinics or similar medical clinic facilities in Delaware, which he conceeded was “hard to believe.”

“You are asking an excellent question,” he said. “The answer may be at this point in time there is no regulatory authority over a clinic or organization like that.”

Meister may find this “hard to believe,” but those of us who have watched the growth of the abortion industry over the years do not. The entire idea of state regulation of abortion clinics is anathema to the same people who want virtually every other aspect of American life to be regulated. Can’t imagine why that would be.

Abortion-rights advocates say providers should not be singled out for different oversight.

“If there’s a concern about physician quality, it should be a larger conversation not just targeting health care clinics that provide abortions,” said Emily Knearl, spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of Delaware, which performs abortions in Wilmington and Dover.

I believe Captain Picard has a response to that. Captain?

The concern isn’t about “physician quality,” Ms. Planned Parenthood. It’s about abortion clinics! You know, the businesses that in Delaware aren’t regulated as stringently as tattoo parlors!

In other states, legislators have tried to regulate things like the width of hallways in an abortion facility to increase their expenses and put them out of business, said Vicki Saporta, president of the National Abortion Federation, a professional association of which Atlantic’s Wilmington office is a member.

“You don’t want politically motivated guidelines that have nothing to do with the standard of care,” Saporta said.

This is just pathetic. The reason why building permits are needed in virtually every jurisdiction in the country is so that the government can ensure that safety standards are met that are appropriate to the facility. Our church, which hasn’t built anything but is renting a commercial property, had to have an assembly permit, wherein the county would make sure that we had enough exits in case of emergency. Width of hallways in an alleged medical facility would be to ensure that there was enough space for something like a hospital gurney, as pointed out by Mary Spaulding Balch of National Right-to-Life in the article. The idea that somehow abortion clinics, alone among all the buildings in the United States, should be exempt from such rules is just another illustration of the Planned Parenthood mindset that says that abortion rights are uniquely and supremely important.

Or, at the very least, that their right to make money off of abortions is absolutely sacrosanct.

(Via Michelle Malkin.)

UPDATE: Forgot to mention. It’s now two weeks since the Philadelphia Inquirer broke this story, and there’s still no word of response from the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice or any of its mainline members.The United Methodist General Board of Church and Society is out with a new newsletter today, which among other things touts a “study resource” on the Tucson shootings from the UM General Board of Discipleship. Do you think the GBD will be putting out a study resource any time soon on the man who is perhaps the greatest killer of live infants in American history? Let’s just say I’d sooner bet on the Washington Nationals winning the Super Bowl next year than on that happening.

Just sayin’.