Analysis by Carmen Fowler LaBerge, The Layman, Posted Tuesday, January 29, 2013
The Moderator of the 220th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Rev. Dr. Neal Presa, has posted a report of his activities for the first six months of his two-year term. In addition to the moderator’s travelogue, the report describes the groundwork the moderator has been laying for a “Unity with Difference” Gathering.
Immediately following the General Assembly meeting in Pittsburgh, Presa, Vice Moderator Tom Trinidad and former GA Moderator Rick Ufford-Chase who now heads the Stony Point Conference Center issued an invitation to six organizations who were each in turn to designate two leaders to send to the event. The invitation described the purpose of the event: “To engage in a dialogue process between/among the leadership of the renewal and progressive affinity groups of the Presbyterian Church (USA) towards constructing a common language of being Christ’s community called the Presbyterian Church (USA). The process envisions a mutual ‘peace accord’ that can be offered to the whole denomination as a means of living into and dignifying difference within the lordship of the triune God, as embodied in the sacramental unity of baptism.”
That event took place at Stony Point in New York in early December. The meeting expenses were covered by the moderator’s budget but the meeting was not open to the press. Although the moderator’s report says that “leaders of six organizations met,” his pastoral letter to the church on the occasion of the Baptism of the Lord Sunday lists seven.
- * Covenant Network of Presbyterians
- * Fellowship of Presbyterians
- * More Light Presbyterians
- * NEXT Church
- * Presbyterians Voices for Justice (formerly The Witherspoon Society and Voices of Sophia)
- * Presbyterian Welcome
- * That All May Freely Serve
Although the Fellowship of Presbyterians is comprised of churches largely identifiable as formerly engaged in denominational renewal, the FOP is expressly not a renewal organization. The other six organizations are easily identifiable as progressive. Five of them are expressly pro-LGBT and are working to redefine marriage. No group associated with The Presbyterian Renewal Network participated in the event. One struggles to imagine the value of fruit produced at a table set almost exclusively to one side.
Why was the table so lopsided?
The Layman has learned that two other “renewal” minded groups were invited to send representatives to Stony Point. The board of directors of both Presbyterians for Renewal and The Presbyterian Coalition declined. Why? Three reasons rise to the top.
First, there is nothing on which to compromise when it comes to the convictions of those represented on both sides of the theological divide in the PCUSA. Second, a shift has occurred among organizations historically focused on the institutional renewal of the PCUSA. They are almost all now focused on personal and congregational renewal, seeking to foster healthy congregations that advance the Kingdom of God without investing further in the denomination. Third, these groups and their leaders have plenty of past experience with bi-lateral talks orchestrated by denominational officials. By my count, there have been at least four such public efforts.
In 1996 and 1997 it was the search for “common ground.”
As Parker T. Williamson recounts in Broken Covenant, Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick “invited Mrs. Betty Moore, executive director of PFR, the Rev. John Huffman and the Rev. Craig Barnes, both of whom were members of PFR’s board, to enter into ‘Common Ground Discussions’ with members of the Covenant Network and denominational staff members. Although the three evangelicals accepted Kirkpatrick’s invitation to participate, they stood their ground and refused to compromise their convictions. These ‘Common Ground Discussions’ revealed little common ground and were not continued once they failed to achieve consensus on denominational issues.” (Broken Covenant, p. 274)
In 1998 it was the “Call to Sabbatical.”
Following the 2-1 defeat of attempts to remove G-6.0106b from the constitution, Kirkpatrick arranged a meeting held on a private estate in San Diego. Covenant Network representatives Rev. John Buchanan and Rev. Laird Stuart met with Coalition representative Rev. Jack Haberer and Rev. Roberta Hestenes who chaired the General Assembly committee that led to the adoption of G-6.0106b. The meeting produced a supposed “consensus” document and agreement called “A Call to Sabbatical.”
In it “The liberals promised not to initiate or promote further General Assembly overtures seeking the removal of G-6.0106b if the conservatives would refrain from enforcing it via disciplinary action” (p. 208). Some in the renewal wing felt betrayed by the action and the stated clerk’s effort to demonstrate unity resulted in further fracture as positions on both sides became more entrenched.
In 1999 it was the quest for “Unity in Diversity.”
The stated clerk tried again in 1999 by inviting Presbyterians to a national “Unity in our Diversity” conference in the denomination’s largest presbytery, Greater Atlanta. The denomination spent nine months promoting the event through its agencies, mid-councils and publications. Williamson chronicles that “the conference was designed to forge a bridge between evangelical and revisionist camps, demonstrating that theological and ethical diversity could be encompassed under a broadly inclusive denominational tent.” (p. 274)
Ultimately the effort failed because the event leaned so heavily to the left. “In the final count,” Williamson reports, “this national conference that was designed to show-case thousands of ‘diverse’ Presbyterians in a unity display drew fewer than 250 participants.”
In 2000 it was the search for “third way language.”
Going it alone without official denominational involvement, leaders from the Covenant Network and the Presbyterian Coalition held two meetings in 2000. After back and forth negotiations about what would actually be done and what each hoped to accomplish, the meetings were primarily a study of the book of Ephesians. These meetings were attended and covered by several PCUSA related news outlets.
“During the second meeting, Covenant Network representatives proposed a ‘unity in our diversity’ statement,” as a joint declaration. “Coalition representatives declined to sign the statement, observing that although the discussions demonstrated civility and friendship, they did not reveal unity in any substantial sense. In fact, they proved that in matters of faith and practice, the two groups were dramatically different” (p. 278).
Denominational bureaucrats were unable to resist seeking to influence the process and potential outcome. 113 mid-council employees issued an open letter “lauding the fact that the meeting was occurring … they urged participants to come up with a ‘third way’ on issues of same-sex” relations. “Coalition representatives … recognized the ‘third way’ statement as a lobbying effort … designed to push them into the compromise position that was proffered by Covenant Network representatives.” Suffice it to say that no “third way” was found acceptable to those who believe in only One Way.
Past as prelude to present
Over the past decade it was the Peace, Unity and Purity Task Force and the related report and another call to sabbatical. Now the language we’re hearing is that of “mutual forbearance.” Much like the call to sabbatical, mutual forbearance suggests that everyone agree to allow everyone to do whatever is right in their own eyes. If conservatives do not press for discipline or accountability to the mutually agreed upon constitutional standards related to marriage then progressives won’t push for mandating the ordination of lesbian, gay bisexual and transgender (LGBT) persons.
None of this addresses the core concern: Where there is no fundamental agreement on the essentials of the faith and the nature of faithfulness and where there is no agreement on the nature of holiness in response to the authority of God’s Word and Spirit in the life of a disciple, there is no unity of the Spirit and therefore, no bond of peace. Yes we all share a baptism, but our understanding of Christ’s Lordship could not be more different.
The hesitancy of evangelicals in the PCUSA to attend an orchestrated conversation that is advertised in advance as intending to result in “a peace accord” is not surprising when one understands the litany of attempts to have evangelicals compromise away their convictions in accommodation of others who continue to seek to push the PCUSA further away from the essentials that once bound us together as one visible expression of the Church.
The good news is that Christ is not divided and the Church is ultimately One because He is One. His is a unity not so much sought as received, by the power of the Holy Spirit who is the bond of peace.