Day Two: No Looking back
Something new in the history of American Presbyterianism began today. I was privileged to be a witness.
Today we witnessed the birth of a missional, Reformed and evangelical fellowship of churches, that will seek to share the good News of Jesus Christ with all the world. It happened with one standing vote of the delegates. They all knew the import of the moment, they knew the risks, the cost and for the sake of the call of God to new possibilities and potentialities, those present were willng to stand up an be seen by all the world. They stood and voted and by that brief act, the future course of Presbyterian history was irrevocably changed.
What is emerging here is only barely glimpsed by those present. But even the first gradual waves of expectancy and hope after the vote could be felt by all. I wondered if Gerrit Dawson, senior pastor of FPC Baton Rouge who moderated the voting, would be able to remain standing and composed! The rush of emotion was in every heart.
Everyone knew that with these votes accepting the formation of a transitional New Wineskins presbytery with the partnership of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church and the moves toward forming covenanted fellowships within the PCUSA, we had crossed a departure point:
There was now no looking back. We had boldly stepped into the future, in humble reliance upon the grace and mercy of God.
What was the spirit of this gathering? Yesterday and especially today, it was a spirit of peace, grace and love.
Mark Smith asked if I saw anger and confrontation. That's a fair question. Certainly some of those present, many of whom have been in the fight for decades had some anger. They're human after all. And confrontation was a minor theme at best, really just a passing and occaisional hint. Again, all of those things are but vestiges of our decades of crisis living and denominational dysfunction.
But God, in his great mercy, overcame all of that. It was only a small part of background noise. The predominant notes in this music were fruits of the Spirit. We were content, strangely and wonderfully content with what God was accomplishing through this fellowship.
Of course, some of this is due to the powerful biblical preaching of Dr. Sameh Maurice. His plain and engaging style really encouraged the gathering to stay humble and trusting in the One who had called us to be there. Yes, the speech of Parker Williamson on day one of the meeting was fiesty, fiery and confrontational, but no one could debate the facts and historical ironies that he presented to us.
And Dr. Luder Whitlock reminded us of our glorious past, our faillures and our promise. He called to be missional in outlook and Reformed in our theology. He called us to return to what makes Presbyterians great in the Body of Christ--church planting and evangelism. He was not angry or prevaricating about that. Dr. Whitlock's speech was an unequivocal call to be the people that the reformed faith calls us to: bold, daring disciples of Jesus Christ, formed by his Word and empowered by the Spirit.
And in our discussions today? We knew what we were doing. We knew that there will be a cost for our decision to follow what we discern to be God's lead into this new way of doing ministry in a post-Christian America and hungering world. We talked of potential missional partnerships with Presbyterian and Reformed sister churches in Africa, Asia and South America. We began to dare to dream of what these growing ties between the wealthy West and the rest of the world might look like and what this might do to revive our churches with the passion of our suffering brothers and sisters in other countries.
There is no real limit to what we can now pursue. Even scattered or coordinated persecution from the PCUSA hierarchy will only make the movement grow. Tertullian was right, as was Paul before him: The blood of martyrs is the seed of the Church. But in all of these things we will stand together, as one.
New Wineskins is now one fellowship in many different associations of interlocking relationships and together we will pursue this new missional/reformed/evangelical ministry with all that we have, even though it may cost us our property, our assets and our security that we have known in the relative safety of the mainline church.
Enough for now!
You'll read PLENTY about the momentous events of today, but please don't think that this was about anger or sour grapes. Don't believe everything you read from a sometimes hostile or ambivalent press. Know that what God is accomplishing through this new thing is forward looking, vibrant, positive and joyful, in submission to Christ and the authority of Scripture!
And in my estimation, all of that must mean one thing--this is of the Lord.
Thanks for taking the time to read my reflections. It was my privilege to be a witness.
65 remonstrances:
Nice review of what happened. I'll link your blog to mine since I could not have said it better.
Peace
Alan
Toby -
Thanks for the prompt reporting. I will be interested to hear of your additional thoughts and actions.
I know I'll be accused of being a troll, since that is the label of choice for those of us choosing to stay anonymous and expressing honesty, but here goes:
Am I the only one who is deeply offended by the continual use of the the phase "our women" by the leadership? It's good to know you'll be taking "your women" with you. Tell me, will your carry them draped across your shoulders?
As a Presbyterian woman, I want to shout out to any NWAC women, "You better be careful. You are making a big mistake." Already Dawson has intimated that NWAC should not try and make the ordination of women an essential, ostensibly due to the hospitality and largesse of the EPC in making room. There's trouble brewing for any ordained woman foolish enough to take what amounts to a five year designated pastorate with no guarantees beyond that. And if you trust the leadership to honor their commitments, just remember that this leadership does not currently honor the trust clause in the PCUSA because it suits their purposes. What makes you think they will not drop you just as fast? They are opportunists, pure and simple.
NWAC women, be careful. Your hard won advances in the "apostate" PCUSA may very weel go up in smoke.
No, Anonymous, you aren't alone. I don't usually indulge myself in the comment section of this blog, but I will offer here that I gag every time I read the phrase "our women," and that a vision of a Cave Man/Woman cartoon comes immediately to mind. It is incomprehensible to me that any woman, ordained pastor or otherwise, would connect herself to an organization that references her in such a fashion.
I also did a double take when I noticed the "our women" phrase. (And I cringe every time I hear it.)
I would not, however, be overly concerned by the status of ordained women in a transitional EPC presbytery. First, obviously the EPC permits the ordination of women - and the NWAC group as a whole is very committed to that. Second, a large number of orthodox women are involved in this movement. The vast majority of these are far more concerned with the departures from the Christian faith that they perceive in the PCUSA - some of them actually enjoined in the name of feminist, womanist, and mujerista theologies - than they are with the EPC's record. Similarly, most consider the endorsement of violations of the Christian faith far more of a betrayal than those who fight over the trust clause. For that matter, since presbyteries alone are given the choice of how to dispose of property, most consider the strategy memoranda far more of a violation of Presbyterian polity (and Christian practice) than any church trying to retain its property.
I have to say that I share the concerns of Gannet Girl and the anonymous poster. From what I can observe by reading between the lines on their website, the EPC as a whole offers little or no real encouragement or support to female Ministers of Word and Sacrament. If I were a pastor, I for one would not be willing to fight that battle all over again. I do wonder if that will change as more former PCUSA congregations join them, but this issue is the main thing that gives me pause when I consider the possibility of going with the EPC.
Toby,
Thank you for answering my questions squarely and from your viewpoint.
My hope for the future is that those who are making the most noise (particularly if it is angry and full of invective, like Parker Williamson) from the evangelical right will go to the EPC. I would hope that those remaining can get back to the normal congenial theological discussions that occur between the wars in the Presbyterian church.
I would also hope that those who cannot respect those with whom they disagree in the PC(USA) will go elsewhere - both on the left and the right.
I really appreciate much of what the NWAC is about . . . I see them following much in the footsteps of our Reformed mothers and fathers. History has lead us to forget that there were many women in the Reformation movement . . . religious women who also broke with their orders to be a part of the new thing God was doing.
My concerns focus on two areas:
1) I have been told point blank by someone who, at least, presents himself as someone on the "inside" that it wouldn't be a problem for him if women weren't ordained. It is not an essential tenet. He also said that the EPC presbytery that the church I belong to would be a part of if we choose to leave has no intention of ordaining women.
2)I had not heard nor read the "our women" comment; reading it today makes me grieve for the women, especially women laity, who trust their male pastors to know what is best for the church and. too often, take his word as gospel rather than do the hard work of working to discern where and how is God is calling them to be faithful to His claim upon their live.
An aside: I find it interesting that in my experiences it is usaully the male pastors who talk about "my" church, "my" congregation while my experience with woman pastors is that their language is usually relational . . . "the church I serve," "the congregation I partner with."
Toby, I do thank you for the reporting; this is one of the places I can turn to to find objective reporting.
About the real concerns expressed here about the status of women in the new transitional presbytery within the EPC:
I share those concerns actually. Is that hard for you to beleive?
I'm married to a pastor! She was ordained to the ministry a full three years before I was.
So, in regards to seniority and experience in ministry--as both a lifelong Presbyterian and someone who was ordained before me, she outranks me!
For the record: I heard the 'our women" line ONCE. Everyone present laughed, as it was evident to all that the one who made the remark was using a colloquialism in a jocular way. He was not joking about our sisters in Christ who are ordained! What he was doing is trying to tell us all--in a clearly jovial way--that the NWAC would never abandon the women within its ranks.
Could it have been said better? Yeah.
But in the end, every little quirk or off the cuff remark will be used against us by those who are hostile to our purposes.
My one regret in all of this is that this remark will be used by our opponents to try and scare off those orthodox sisters who are looking at the NWAC but have bought into the liberal rhetoric that evangelicals don't like women who lead.
In reality, nothing can be further from the truth, at least for the NWAC. I cannot speak for the EPC, as I don't know them and I am not a part of that denomination.
I will promise you all this:
If I get any hint that the NWAC/EPC is ever demeaning the gifts of women in church leadership OR even leaning towards leaving them behind, I'll denounce it from the housetops!
You have my word on that.
Don't be too hasty to judge those who you do not know personally. The leaders of NWAC that I met are fully committed to the women pastors and elders in this new thing.
I would not be a part of it otherwise!
I have to chime in with Gannet Girl and Mark Smith.
Gerrit Dawson's slip of the tongue is very telling of where joining the EPC is going for women clergy (and elders too?), and Parker Williamson also showed his true colors very nicely.
(didn't Jesus say something about the mouth proclaiming out of that which fills the heart?)
You have to wonder if this has as much to do with authoritarianism as anything else. After all, the trigger point was an "authoritative interpretation" that delegated away its own authority. To authoritarians this is an unnatural act. It might even have created a dreaded "local option" loophole. Heaven forbid people think for themselves and get creative.
I suspect that to white male authoritarians having women clergy may prove to be equally unnatural.
Jodie
As a lay woman who was in the meeting and heard the "our women" comment...I thought nothing of it. I think if you had heard it in context, you would not have any issue either. I absolutely trust the commitment to women's ordination that these men expressed. I left the meeting spiritually freshed, encouraged, and excited.
PS Toby,
Good position to adopt, but you are still safe enough to take a chance. How about letting the women decide?
Jodie
Jodie,
You said, "..letting the women decide?"
????
How sexist of YOU!
I never presume to decide anything for another, much less for my sisters in Christ.
God alone is Lord of the conscience. I trust my female colleagues to follow God's Word and the leading of the Spirit.
And whatever they decide, I'll back them 100%.
I guess that its not only some comservatives that have cornered the market on sexist assumptions!
Toby,
You are correct in stating that the opposition will do anything to derail NWAC. It is obvious they are making a big stink about the our women comment so as to hopefully put fear into women.
Thanks for your report, Toby.
My response to the concern about the EPC's policy on women's ordination is posted here:
Mesdames Moderators
Luke 24:21-23
And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place. 22 In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning 23 but didn't find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive.
No Toby, not “sexist”. The right word might be “gender specific”.
“Gender specific” is more appropriate because this entire controversy is fanned and fueled by autocratic authoritarian men. Did I mention white? There are hardly any female voices condemning the PCUSA or the decisions of the general assembly or trying to leave or trying to join the EPC. If the male voices were to stop talking I believe the polemic would starve to death, not for lack of leadership, but for lack of priority and importance.
If you think I am wrong then I propose we run a test. Let’s declare a year of silence for all male voices. Let’s have all the men take a vow of silence for one year and see what issue dominates the airwaves at the end of that year. Let the sword of Jesus separate the Gospel from the rhetoric. If this is the voice of the Holy Spirit then the rocks and stones themselves will cry out. If not, then let the “still small voice” of God be heard instead.
Toby: Thanks for this post. I appreciate your perspective. As an EPC pastor, please allow me to welcome your willingness and that of NWAC to explore the possibilities of ministry together.
There's a lot of misinformation about EPC out there, and I suspect that's only going to multiply as PCUSA liberals seek to derail this movement. Some of that's already at work in the comments on this post. (EPC, for instance, doesn't denigrate the contributions of women leaders--no church is prohibited from having female ruling elders or deacons, for example, and the congregation I serve in Virginia both has female REs and one of the EPC's female pastors as a member; she's a yearly participant in our General Assembly.) As links grow between EPC and NWAC, I'm confident that these efforts will be overcome by the exchange of true and accurate information between us.
I pray for your decisions to come, and hope to meet you in the counsels of the EPC soon!
Jodie said "this entire controversy is fanned and fueled by autocratic authoritarian men. Did I mention white? There are hardly any female voices condemning the PCUSA..."
Jodie, please stop! You are woefully out of touch with reality.
There are many, many, many (did I mention many?) women who are opposed to what is going on in the PCUSA. Let's see, at my church there are four pastors. Two of them are women. Over half of the elders on session are women. The head of the church nominating committee is a women. And guess what? My church is part of the Confessing Church Movement. My church is very conservative. We oppose what is going on in the PCUSA.
To state that this entire controversy is being fanned and fueled by autocratic, authoritarian white men is ridiculous.
Jodie seems to have this misguided notion that it is only the "white males" who are concerned regarding the steady demise of the PCUSA. To the contrary it is the women in the church who have been sounding the clarion call for reform for years.
Nice try Jodie, but your notion did not fool anyone.
1 Corinthians 14:34
women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.
1 Timothy 2:11-12
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
When I left the EPC (about 5 years ago), they had ordained 3 women pastors (although 2 didn't have calls anymore) and the vast majority of the churches did not have female elders (I only know of one that did)
Gerrit's exact words were "we told them we're coming AND we're bringing our women!" And it was said in a jovial way and elicited a hilarious response and applause, because it was meant to reaffirm that NWAC is committed to women in ministry.
But let's look at this issue from the other side for a minute. I'm a white male pastor who has been asked to step down from being a delegate to Synod TWICE, because we had to achieve "balance" and I'm a white male.
I've been passed over several times for membership on the Presbytery Council, because I'm a white male.
In 25 years, I have never been to a meeting of synod or any regional gathering beyond the presbytery where a white male pastor was the keynote speaker.
I support the inclusion of women in ministry. I'm hopeful that the NWAC will attract more minorities who share it's theological viewpoint. And I'm also really glad that there will be a place in the "new thing" for white male pastors.
I think I understand where everybody is coming from except Paul Schmidt (Liberty4u). You’ve pointed to some interesting Scripture, Paul. What are you trying to say with them?
Person-in-the-Pew says I am out of touch with reality. Maybe I am. His church sounds like a perfect place to run the test I mentioned.
Larry thinks I am trying to fool somebody. I am only expressing my honest opinion based on my own experience. He should go read back issues of “the Layman” and examine the role Parker Williamson has played over the years. He is no woman. I think however he is a long time member of the Rev Gerrit Dawsons’ church. They were last heard reassuring all that they had no plans of leaving the PCUSA.
I wonder if it was news to Gerrit's congregation that they are going to the EPC. I would guess that pastors who use strategic deception to achieve their goals won't fit in the EPC any better than in the PCUSA.
Ah the webs we weave. All in a jovial fashion of course. Laughing all the way.
Jodie
Liberty4u is certainly revealing the true heart of this whole mess.
And the only voice from an EPC person has said, and I quote,
"no church is prohibited from having female ruling elders or deacons, for example, and the congregation I serve in Virginia both has female REs and one of the EPC's female pastors as a member; she's a yearly participant in our General Assembly."
Which EPC congregation is this? How many female RE's do you have currently serving on your session and how large is the session? And why is the female pastor a member of your church and not, say, a pastor of your church?
Any woman who goes to the EPC with this movement and has desires to serve in any leadership capacity within the church is about to have a huge wake-up call. Already the writing is on the wall. Please don't fall for the smoke and mirrors being drummed up here in the build-up to the move. It's sort of like those Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Better take a good look at the intel before you leap.
Jodie,
As a voice from "the same side", I think that you're incorrect on this issue.
I would point you to Voices of Orthodox Women and Viola Larson (www.vow.org) as just one example of women who are complaining about PC(USA) leadership.
I'm not saying that I agree with them, but they are certainly present.
It was an glorious event, the amount of time on our knees, the biblical proclamation, the Spirit and Truth worship, the joy of being who we are called to be- witnesses to the glory, love, salvation in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the unity in doctrine- all I can say is thank you Jesus!
Yo, anonymous, before you question my information (and by implication, integrity), why not put your name to your post?
There's nothing secret about me or my church. It's Faith EPC in Kingstowne, VA. It currently has one woman on a session of 13, but has had more in the past. We typically have at least two, often more, women REs among our delegates to presbytery. The pastor I mentioned isn't a pastor because she's retired.
You write, "Any woman who goes to the EPC with this movement and has desires to serve in any leadership capacity within the church is about to have a huge wake-up call." And you know this how? Because of your extensive experience with the EPC? Or because you make assumptions about those more conservative than PCUSA that are nothing more than expressions of blind prejudice?
For conspiracy buffs, how about this scenario? The New Wineskin churches leave the PCUSA with the approval of the 2008 General Assembly. Safely within their own presbytery in the EPC, they leave the EPC to set up a new denomination, so they can take “their" women with them.
Meepsy,
I deleted your last comment.
I will not allow anonymous accusations against brothers and sisters in Christ on this blog.
Feel free to continue commenting, but this is your first warning. A second violation will revoke your right to post comments here.
Reading through the comments concerning Jodie's "white male authoritarians" words, it seems to me that best describe the position of the PCUSA currently.
Isn't the PCUSA's theology reflective of "white male" European liberal theology of the 19th century?
As a result has not the PCUSA alienated the Church of "non-European descent"? i.e. political missions (instead of dealing with sin), policitical agendas, pluralistic theology, receiveing rebukes from other national Presbyerian denominations?
Also was not the keynote speaker throughout the whole convocation African?
I say more at my blog...
Toby,
For the record, my post leveled no accusations against anyway; it was a series of statements of fact. That you should choose to read accusations into them and then denounce me for your interpretation of my words is certainly your privilege.
Toby,
While I can't remember what meepsy said, I do remember reading it. It didn't seem any stronger than the words used against progressives here.
Okay, I'm not much of comment leaving person. As a RE of a evangelical PCUSA church, I and the church I serve, have been very interested in denominational concerns and where we are supposed to go and where God is calling us. I've been trying to read much about what is going on and participate in presbytery. We are not apart of the New Wineskins but we have taken actions like redirecting per capita in faithful protest to current decisions. I have to say the most concerning thing I've seen from my own side on this blog is the post from liberty4U and the lack of response to it from anyone but Jodie. I'll have to do more studying on EPC but I can't say I'm encouraged about their record on ordained women.
What's the deal on posting all the scripture about women being subjected to men? It is clear you are trying to make a point about the role of women in ministry. I'm not a Bible scholar but how can you take those verses with literal obedience and not expect the same in the verses that proceed it that prohibit cutting of hair or wearing jewerly of any form as in 1 Tim 2:9. Does your wife or women in your church wear wedding rings? Wear makeup? Cut their hair? Where is the outrage? If that must be kept in the context of time then so must Paul's words about women in leadership and being ordained. I think that Paul made it clear that Jesus's death on the cross abolished the second class religious status that women had in Judaism. (Eph 2: 13-22) and that for Christians the things that favored circumcised jewish males were no more. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male or female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" Gal 3:28. Isn't there a new covenant? Further in Acts 2: 17-18 does it not say that He will pour His Spirit upon all flesh and your sons and daughters shall prophesy.
I'm sure you can and will speak theological circles around me. I am very unqualified except that I claim the priesthood of all believers, men and women. I'm conservative and I'm an evangelical who recently jumped on the Reggie McNeal missiolgy bandwagon.
Finally, I have to ask, how is it that it is has been okay to send women to the most difficult places in the world to preach and minister as missionaries to both men and women alike but that they can't bring that same sense of calling back home?
Toby, said that he wouldn't stand for it as a man married to a pastor but I'd like to see someone stand up Biblically for women who is more qualified than me lest we allow the left to think we support libertyu's position.
Hi, Toby. I am Clerk at FPC Laredo which in the last two years moved from PCUSA to the EPC. We spoke back then and you said you weren't too keen on the EPC because of the "no female pastors" vibe you got from them.
It is true that in what is now our presbytery (Central South) there is a presumption that there will be no female pastors. However, our congregation has two female ruling elders without any grief. Also, if all you guys come over it will just about double the number of churches we have. Presbytery lines will be redrawn accordingly.
Be encouraged, brother. It has been my experience that as a national denomination and inside our presbytery the elders both ruling and teaching seek God first. If I believed any female elders of any type would be drummed out of the church for that reason, I would not be a part of the EPC. Your wife (and all those similarly situated) will find life and joy among us!
Sean McKeating
sean,
It's not so much the people who are female ruling and (particularly) teaching elders now.
It's a question of whether or not there is a future for a woman called to be a teaching elder/minister in a PC(USA) church that is considering a move to the EPC.
It seems from what you've written that the door would be slammed in her face, at least in your presbytery.
Mark,
In regards to the comment I deleted, I also promise that I will be more vigilant about anonymous accusations from EITHER side in this.
I'll attempt to be as fair as I can be, but in the end, its my blog and I will not tolerate slander.
Jocoeveryman,
Thanks for your comments! Welcome!
So that you know, I will say that the Convocation did commission a study and report about the biblical justification for the ordained leadership of women. The report was commissioned so that we could present it to our EPC brethren.
That's one thing the PCUSA never did. They may have reached the right conclusion--that women should be affirmed as leaders when so called, but the PCUSA chose to avoid the biblical exegesis and go for the 'justice' and 'equality' theme.
For our conservative bretheren, that's not enough to justify anything! They want to see the biblical work that shows how we got to that position.
Where the PCUSA failed in that, the NWAC seeks to succeed. Just hang in there while the work is done and look for the report at the October Convocation!
Sean,
I AM encouraged! I am more energized and spiritually alive today than at any point in my ministry! Thanks for your words of support. We covet your prayers too.
God is good. His faithfulness endures forever!
Regarding the "our women" comment, may I make a (perhaps tardy) observation?
The possessive pronoun has many uses in English. One use does involve ownership and control. For example, "This is my car and I'll paint it yellow with red flames if I want to."
But there are other uses. English does allow it to be used to express ideas of identification, support, nurture and the like. For instance, parents who see their child do well in school could say "that's our kid." They mean "this is the child we've nurtured and supported all these years, whose joys we celebrate and whose sorrows we comfort."
I think this is the usage in Woody Guthrie's "this land is my land." After all, he doesn't go on to sing about how he's going to pollute all the water and air and strip mine all the land if he feels like it. "This land is my land" means he's going to celebrate and care for it.
Or take a familiar biblical image of God as a mother who can not forget her children. That's not an image of condescension, it's an image of compassion.
It is inconsistent with the broad stream of Presbyterianism (both historically and current globally) to make the ordination of women an "essential tenet." There is room to disagree on this issue while maintaining a high degree of biblical fidelity (similarly so with mode of baptism). Most presbyterian and Reformed bodies in the world don't ordain women as officers, but they do believe in Jesus as the sole mediator of the Covenant of Redemption and in the infallible witness of the Scriptures to that salvation.
The place of women in the ministry of the church should begin with a renewed understanding of the general office of believer - which has been so denigrated by our constant bickering over ordination standards. That office isn't seen properly outside of its continuing the ministry of Jesus as Prophet, Priest, and King. However, there have been movements within the PC(USA) - and the mainlines at large - to occlude our understanding of the work of the Mediator. No wonder there's confusion about the ministry of Christ through ordained office holders!
The NWAC/EPC merger demands a reinvigorated evangelical (or, missional if you prefer) Christology. That alone has the power to restore the effectiveness of all the offices in the church (from the general office of believer, to the offices of deacon and ruling/teaching elder)!
PJ,
That is exactly right! Thanks.
Chris,
Well said!
Thanks for the help and clarity, guys!
Toby,
Thank you and that IS good to know. I'll be on the lookout for that. As I looked at several EPC local church sites I couldn't help but notice not a single female listed as an elder. I'm guessing while they don't consider it essential they won't be quick to change.
When I was very young our church went through a very painful split concerning ordination and the group and our pastor that left became a PCA church. They don't allow women elders either to my knowledge.
I'll have to confess that I've had a dream that we'd have the faith and conviction to leave our property behind, turn out the lights and walk away without any notice to PCUSA whatsoever. I wonder how many weeks it would take them to realize we were gone?
Thanks for the warm welcome to your blog.
Jocoeveryman,
If it was not for the fact that I live in a manse, that WOULD be cool! My wife and kids kind of need a home.
Pretty much like Jesus, leave the keys, step out into God's world and follow....
BUT...
Then the PCUSA would use the money and property for other purposes...
Chris,
See I knew someone with a theological education would go right over my head. :-) Of course it isn't that difficult to accomplish that.
Is it correct that most presbyterian and reformed bodies don't ordain women into leadership?
I guess my concern is that the local option isn't left to individual churches but to presbyteries to decide if women can be teaching elders.
Wouldn't it be interesting to be apart of the more moderate part of a denomination for a change? Wow, what a trip.
jocoeveryman: Because it is a matter of local option, there are differences between congregations in the EPC on the issue. Most EPC churches don't list their elders on their Web sites, so don't go solely by that. I would suggest that, as one example of the other side, you take a look at Mt. Pleasant Community Church in Mt. Pleasant, MI. They have a statement on their site indicating their support for female ruling elders. You can find it at http://www.mpcc.org/Downloads/Women%20and%20Men.pdf
Hope this helps.
Drat. Let's try that link again, with HTML:
Find it here.
If roughly 50 of the 140 plus NWAC moved into the EPC and if they were dispersed into the presbyteries what kind of effect would that have upon the women's ordination issue? significant.
As to the "our women" comment - unfortunate perhaps but get over it people.
You know, I have been trying to get a handle on exactly what the "New Wineskins" are, but probably the best idea is to look at bedfellows, namely the EPC. At the risk of sounding critical, I see nothing new about this group (New Wineskins), organization, movement, or whatever you choose to call it. Nice website. Good use of 'some' postmodern terms. Sounds very warm and inviting. The real crux, as I see it, that clearly defines what isn't 'new' is the reversal into an interpretation of Protestant Presbyterian/Calvinism. There is nothing at all new here. Or as folks 'round here would say "Putting lipstick on a pig doesn't make it not a pig." I am not real sure what they are "protesting" other than fellow Presbyterians. Ladies and gents, could we come to the realization that we live in a post-protestant world? Oh, and one other thing I found really amusing. There seems to be much handwringing over the tearing of Christ's church (Presbyterian). I don't think the Lutheran, Methodist, Episcopalians, UCC, Disciples, etc would quite see it that way.
I was moved most by these words:
Today we witnessed the birth of a missional, Reformed and evangelical fellowship of churches, that will seek to share the good News of Jesus Christ with all the world.
I know what this feels like, and I've known it in the PCUSA -- those woefully imperfect disciples of Jesus Christ who ordained me.
I serve a congregation that split in 1987, with the pastor and session - and one third of the members - starting an EPC congregation just down the road. The pastor was the moderator of the EPC just a few years later. And, because we are all sinful and fall short of the glory of God, I know well some of the imperfection within the EPC too.
But friends, we are wasting time here. As energized as I was reading about "the birth," it is more exhausting reading about who's orthodox and who's not, what will happen to the women, how angry people are, etc.
Go out and make disciples of all nations. Bless those who do it well in whatever denomination works for them. Worry less about property and more about the lost living just outside our doors.
Blessings to the New Wineskins. And may this transition be smooth for you.
Wow... I didn't make an exact count while reading these comments, but couldn't help but notice how many times the word orthodox got mentioned.
Is the thought that this whole movment is based around protecting orthodoxy? I never knew I was unorthodox until I read all this.
I'm wondering who defines the term now? Sure seems like there's some ultimate authority that's indicating that some of us liberal PCUSA'ers obviously fall outside the lines now that they have been redefined. Is Parker calling the shots? Or maybe Dean? Who really has the inside information on exactly what "right belief" means at the moment?
To the most recent Anonymous,
Who decides what is 'orthodox' you ask?
Presbyterians have documents called confessions. They are what we affirm as biblical teachings of orthodoxy.
The order of authoritative documents for determining orthodoxy is this:
First--The Bible
Second--The Reformed Confessions
Third--The witness of the Church catholic
Those who stand closest to these standards of faith and practice are called 'orthodox'. I take that to also be a synonym for 'evangelical' as well.
I suggest getting a hold of J.I. Packer's magnificent books to start: "Knowing God" and "Fundamentalism and The Word of God".
Amazon or CBD has them at great prices.
Read and enjoy!
I have to say, I continue to be baffled by conservatives in the PCUSA and by the series of contradictions they embrace:
1) They complain that the denomination is too liberal, even though they win every fight at GA.
2) They dismiss local option on gay ordination, yet embrace it for women.
3) They're the ones leaving, yet they claim liberals are unfaithful.
4) They claim to be "orthodox" yet they're the ones breaking communion.
5) They claim to be evangelical, but find it is easier to cut and run than stay and evangelize to the denomination.
6) They're willing to violate their ordination vows in order to protest what they see as others' violations of their ordination vows.
7) They claim that the "essentials" are important, but ignore what the Confessions say about schism.
etc...
That isn't meant to be spin nor rhetoric nor insulting, it is simply how I see things, and I genuinely do not understand.
"it is simply how I see things, and I genuinely do not understand."
Several of the contradictions you list are (from the point of view of 'conservatives' incorrect.
"1. even though they win every fight at GA." That is far from true. 'Conservative only win fights at the GA when there has been an issue that has drawn enough ire for the GA to actually represent the majority of Presbyterians. The large majority of political actions taken by GA's do not represent the views of most Presbyterians (per the Presbyterian Panel's own statistics). Rarely are these ever modified - and never are they 'conservative'. Items that require presbytery ratification tend to be far more conservative - say ordination standards - at least 4 GA's voted to liberalize them and were rebuffed by presbyteries. 1 GA voted to codify what was already the stand - and it was approved by a large margin of presbyteries.
"3. They're the ones leaving, yet they claim liberals are unfaithful." The "unfaithful" language is usually not helpful. However,when the denomination alters what has been the understanding of biblical Christianity since its inception, then it has left - not the other way around. This has occurred on several issues. The adoption of a Book of Common Worship that includes prayers to other gods - or an assertion that Christianity and other religions worship the same God (which would be fine only if you got rid of Jesus) - is such an occurrence.
4,5,6,7 are variants of the same theme.
"Items that require presbytery ratification tend to be far more conservative - say ordination standards - at least 4 GA's voted to liberalize them and were rebuffed by presbyteries...."
Yup. And yet they continue to complain and rely chiefly on ordination issues to make their case against the denomination. Even though you just admitted that they win, and keep on winning on those issues. Again, as I said, I don't understand it. Frankly, simply restating what I already said doesn't help me understand it any more. Again, 30 years of these battles, which you clearly admit that the conservatives keep winning, and yet they're the ones willing to cut and run.
"However,when the denomination alters what has been the understanding of biblical Christianity since its inception, then it has left - not the other way around."
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Have we adopted some new confession of which I'm unaware? So are you implying that the denomination is no longer a Christian denomination? Are the members of the denomination no longer Christians? With respect, your sweeping rhetoric doesn't do much to explain these contradictions anymore than simply repeating the facts that I presented does.
Alan - I apologize for responding to to your earlier comment because it is clearly an occasion where we are looking at the same data and seeing completely opposite things. Apparently we're even seeing each others posts in opposite ways - as you are attributing to me things I clearly didn't say. A genuine answer would require way too much time and space on Toby's blog; and I hold out little hope that either of us will understand a single thing the other says.
"A genuine answer would require way too much time and space on Toby's blog; and I hold out little hope that either of us will understand a single thing the other says."
Indeed, blog comments are generally not a good place to hash out important issues. However, I have a great deal of hope that we'd be able to understand each other in some other venue. I think you'd be very, very surprised to learn where I stand theologically -- I think we have far more in common than you suppose.
But unfortunately, perhaps you're right and in a broader sense perhaps the denomination has moved so far into rhetorical excess that neither side can actually hear each other over all the yelling.
By the way, it was not my intention to put words in your mouth, I was simply asking for clarification on a statement that seemed very broad.
Alan - Again, I apologize. I was not intending to make assumptions about you - just the difficulty communicating. I likely mistook your tone/comments. It is certainly a legitimate topic for discussion (though this isn't the best venue for that).
Alan,
I agree with you in your confusion.
I also don't understand the NWAC's strategy report's claim as a fact that the AI of G.0108 means a certain thing . I disagree with their presumption but my opinion isn't a fact either as this issue has not even been tested let alone proven. Any claims to fact seem premature right now and recommendation that a presumption be a justification for disaffiliation seem irresponsible to me.
The Trinity report regardless of how helpful or flawed one may see it, it was only received which does not even raise it the a level of denominational guidance let alone modify or replace our current doctrine on the Trinity. If I understand the BoO, for this paper to have any denominational authority as even guidance would have required adoption by a majority of Presbyteries. This document nongrata did not even achieve adoption by a GA, another win being waved as a lose it seems to me.
The Trinity Report was received only - thus it has no status. However, many such documents have been used by offices of the PC(USA) as if they were PC(USA) policy. That is the chief concern with the report. (Its flaws and merits aside - I tend to think it got an overly bad reaction - but I also find myself arguing that it is not as flawed as it could be. I'm skeptical about the motivations for the report to begin with, and I do not believe it substantially benefits the church or advances (or even adequately explores) our understanding of the Trinity.)
From my point of view, I am surprised at the strength of the negative reaction to GA 217 - as it struck me as less controversial (and somewhat more independent) than many prior GAs. It remains to be seen how its actions will be used.
Where I ran into difficulty communicating was around the assertion that 'conservative/ evangelical' Presbyterians win every fight at various GAs. Much of the desire to leave stems from the fact that the opposite is true. It did not occur to me originally that Alan was referring almost entirely to ordination debates - in which case the statement is still not technically true, but the GA's have been overriden by the fact that presbyteries must ratify constitutional changes. (For clarity, if the statement was solely meant to convey that 'conservatives' had ultimately won all the fights about ordination standards (on paper, at least) then it would be correct.) The concern about the AI is that it is being interpreted as providing an illegitimate means of circumventing the Book of Order.
"The concern about the AI is that it is being interpreted as providing an illegitimate means of circumventing the Book of Order."
(An illegitimate means of circumventing the Book of Order? You mean sort of like voting to leave the denomination?)
I think it's remarkable that the very folks who one would think would be hailing the AI, MoreLight Presbyterians, are not. Why? Because they seem to recognize that it doesn't do anything like providing a "local option" or other means to circumvent G-6.0106b. So why are conservatives so angry about it when it doesn't actually change anything? The cynic in me says that it's a good fundraiser for them, an allegation that is not unfounded if the Lay Committee's fundraising letters are any indication.
I wonder if you've read the opinion in the Presbyterian Outlook by Ed Koster, Stated Clerk of the Psbty of Detroit titled, "How Is It That the General Assembly Did NOT Authorize Local Option"? I found it a reasoned response to the Ai, about what it did and did not do.
The article can be found here: http://www.pres-outlook.com/tabid/921/Article/2073/Default.aspx
Even though I sincerely wish that GA had indeed authorized a local option on the ordination question, I don't think it did for all the reasons that Rev. Koster states, and others. So once again, the conservatives win, they paint the win as a loss, get to energize their fundraising, and they find yet another "reason" to leave. Very confusing.
Alan,
You said:
"(An illegitimate means of circumventing the Book of Order? You mean sort of like voting to leave the denomination?"
What utter nonsense and you know it!
The Book of Order has provisions in it for leaving the denomination.
Last time I checked, we are ONLY slaves to Christ and we are decidedly NOT slaves to the PCUSA!
Will,
Our orthodox doctrine has not changed and I believe is shared by the NWAC's proposed Confessions. If any individuals misuse/represent this document, as I feel the strategy team has, they need instruction but the denom does not deserve condemnation for something it did not adopt.
To me holding the denomination responsible to alleged infractions of individuals is a recurring theme in the strategy team report's accusations and justifications. In a group of 2 mil individuals even the transitory groups of individuals acting as a GA for a few days are a tiny minority. The team has conflated the individuals into an "errant majority". Maybe it's just me.
Cameron - You raise a good point. I cannot deny that people sometimes attach more importance to Presbyterians acting as private persons than they should.
Nonetheless, the GA - though a minority, is the highest governing authority - so that actions of a GA do speak for the PC(USA). (There has been some sketchiness on this point, people have denied it from time to time, but if a GA only spoke for a GA it would have no binding authority whatsoever. It therefore should not be able to authorizing spending any PC(USA) money, or hiring any PC(USA) official . . .). The fact is that various GA's do speak for all Presbyterians - whether or not Presbyterians share their views. Similarly, the Stated Clerk and various officials do convey a Presbyterian imprimatur. I happen to believe that these act illegitimately much of the time - without authority to do so, signing briefs, speaking to the press, joining umbrella organizations, etc. They also prepare curricula and provide (sometimes) false information to churches. To pretend these are not Presbyterian actions (for which Presbyterians are accountable) is disingenuous.
You are correct that the actions of these persons and groups do not often accurately reflect the beliefs of Presbyterians - but this is an example of tolerated corruption. (I have not argued that the PC(USA) is apostate because of the actions of a few - yet, were a GA to endorse apostasy, this would make the PC(USA) apostate - even were our confessions to remain intact. That is, in fact, a fashionable practice - to keep the historic faith on paper, while departing from it at the same time.
"The Book of Order has provisions in it for leaving the denomination."
Indeed it does.
G-8.0601 "The relationship to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) of a particular church can be severed only by constitutional action on the part of the presbytery."
As far as I can tell, this isn't the route that those who advocate secession are taking.
"Last time I checked, we are ONLY slaves to Christ and we are decidedly NOT slaves to the PCUSA!"
So are you saying that "God alone is Lord of the conscience?" Amusing that you'd make that statement. Seems to me that LBGT people who desire ordination say precisely the same thing. How's that one fly with you folks? :)
(Oh, and last time I checked, we Presbyterians believed that Christ was head of the Church, that our confessions were authoritative expositions of Scripture, and that Christ gave the church its authority.)
Post a Comment