Before meeting begins, key question is where New Wineskins are headed
By John H. Adams, The Layman Online, June 15, 2005
EDINA, Minn. – Greg Ulrick, an elder at Santa Yves Presbyterian Church in California, came to the New Wineskins Convocation loaded with questions.
The big one was whether the convocation, arranged by an ad hoc group of evangelicals who adopted New Wineskins as their name, would lead to a split in the Presbyterian Church (USA).
Suppose, Ulrick asked during a five-hour informational meeting Wednesday before official registration began, the denomination reacted negatively to the New Wineskins movement, would there be a decision to separate?
“The body will decide,” answered Renee Guth, one of the New Wineskins leaders, who repeatedly emphasized that the group’s proposed constitution, essential tenets and ethical imperatives are works in progress, subject to refinement by the convocation’s voting delegates.
Guth added. “We will discern that together. We don’t have control over certain things. We don’t have control over what happens [as a result of the actions of the General Assembly] in 2006.”
“This is not about staying. It is not about leaving. It is about a group of diverse evangelical believers seeking and discerning God’s will,” said James A. “Andy” Curtis, the pastor of the Forks of the Brandywine Presbyterian Church in Glenmoore, Pa.
John McElroy of Missouri, an elder, suggested that the General Assembly will have a negative view of the New Wineskins movement. “They will view it as a proactive, schismatic act.” McElroy was not criticizing the New Wineskins; rather, he was sharing his opinion about the political realities of trying to persuade a General Assembly to take a dramatically new direction.
New Wineskins leaders have acknowledged that they are not recommending business as usual. They call their proposals a “bold new design.” They envision a denomination that in which the General Assembly is no longer the top-down governing body of the denomination, but would become the servant of the congregations.
About 40 people attended all or parts of the informational meeting. Several suggested revisions to the documents. Some questioned the content. But none stated any outright opposition to what is being proposed.
More than 400 people were pre-registered for the convocation, including leaders from 80 congregations whose sessions had affirmed “in principle” the proposed theological and ethical statements. Convocation leaders indicated that they expected several walk-in registrants.
Only the representatives of congregations whose sessions affirmed the documents are authorized to take part in the votes on them later this week.
Many others, including Ulrick, represent congregations whose sessions have not affirmed the documents, but want more information before they make a decision. Other attendees included denominational representatives – although Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick was not expected – and people with liberal groups that are likely to oppose the New Wineskins movement.
The theological and ethical statements represent an orthodox view of the Reformed faith. The Bible is called the “only infallible rule of faith and practice.” The ethical imperatives include a statement rejecting “premarital and extramarital intercourse, homosexuality, adultery, polygamy, pornography, sexual objectification, predatory behavior and abuse.” They also said “abortion, euthanasia, infancticide, domestic violence, oppression, acts of revenge, [and] unjust wars are symptoms of an ethos of death that repudiates God’s culture of life.”
Guth told the group that several presbyteries will be asked to submit the New Wineskins constitution and its theological and moral statements as overtures to the 2006 General Assembly.
It was generally agreed that there would be little likelihood of the 2006 General Assembly adopting the evangelical statements. “The General Assembly would make hash of it and it would be unrecognizable,” said McElroy.
If they make it to the General Assembly, the New Wineskins proposals will face counterproposals from liberals, including overtures to repeal the denomination’s constitutional “fidelity/chastity” ordination standard. Past General Assemblies have approved other counterproposals, ranging from sanctioning partial-birth abortion to depleting the denomination’s foreign mission budget.
Ulrick, probing for an answer to how evangelicals and liberals can remain together in the PCUSA, asked, “What happens to the unlike-minded?”
“We’re not quite subscriptionists, but …,” answered Guth, addressing the necessity within the New Wineskins movement of affirming the theological and ethical statements.
“There’s going to be a rift, right?” Ulrick asked.
“No, there’s already been a rift,” said Dave Moody of Sparta, Ill.
“There’s going to be a choice,” added Curtis. “Somebody says now’s the time to take a step.” He said he had grown weary of attending renewal meetings, “but this is life-giving. I have elders who will tell you they do not agree with how the essential tenets have been written, but not one will tell you it’s a deal-breaker.”