Country church mixes ‘cue and confession
By John H. Adams, The Layman Online, April 15, 2004
FALKLAND, N.C. – When Falkland Presbyterian Church in rural eastern North Carolina prepares for a congregational meeting on whether to join the Confessing Church Movement within the Presbyterian Church (USA), it does so with country gourmet and rich aroma.
Bob Drew stirs the hushpuppies while Mark Mueller, right, and Frank Edwards await the outcome.The men slowly barbecue chicken quarters and deep-fry hushpuppies. The women lug in huge bowls of potato salad, coleslaw, baked beans, green beans, cakes and pies. Then, after prayer, about 70 people dive into the feast, and the tables in the jam-packed fellowship hall become alive with chatter.
Having cleaned his plate, Rocky Stone, pastor of the nearby Farmville Presbyterian Church and moderator of the Falkland session, rose to get on with the business – discussing the session’s recently adopted Confessing Church resolution. The session, which had unanimously approved the resolution, asked him to lead the discussion.
Mark Mueller, the congregation’s outgoing lay pastor, had asked the elders to consider a Confessing Church resolution. He told them why 1,300 other congregations had declared their commitment to three foundational doctrines – Jesus as the only savior, the Bible as the infallible guide to faith and practice and God’s enduring standards of holiness.
The session called the congregational meeting specifically to solicit the congregation’s advice about whether Falkland Presbyterian Church should become a part of the Confessing Church Movement. This deeply conservative Southern congregation isn’t the least bit hesitant to declare its faith, but it is wary of “movements.”
Stone described the meeting as “informational” – intending not to have a vote. That wouldn’t be Presbyterian protocol. Congregations don’t get to second-guess sessions. But Falkland is a tight-knit church – almost like a family – where unity takes deep root during table talk over a good meal.
Eventually, Stone got outmaneuvered by several members who repeatedly called for a show of hands. The vote was about 50-3 in favor of aligning with the Confessing Church Movement.
Stone tried to remain impartial. He had prepared a list of “disadvantages” and “advantages” of joining the Confessing Church Movement, which, he said, didn’t necessarily reflect his views.
Rocky Stone of nearby Farmville Presbyterian Church led the discussion about the Confessing Church Movement. His list of disadvantages included: “Would raise suspicion or distrust with some people in the presbytery.” Having first-hand experience of the New Hope Presbytery’s “suspicion or distrust” in response to the congregation’s attempts to keep Mueller as its lay pastor, the congregation didn’t dwell on that issue.
Stone also took a shot at the Presbyterian Lay Committee, which began promoting the Confessing Church Movement soon after a few sessions adopted resolutions. “This movement is too closely associated with The Layman,” he said. “While The Layman may raise issues which are very important to many conservative/evangelical Presbyterians, it is also associated with playing very loosely with the truth and supporting somewhat radical ideas such as withholding per-capita contributions and schism.”
He did not explain what he meant by “playing very loosely with the truth,” a condemnation widely used by liberals who disagree with the Presbyterian Lay Committee’s commitment to orthodox Christian faith. And he was wrong about the Presbyterian Lay Committee “supporting somewhat radical ideas.”
In its Declaration of Conscience, the Presbyterian Lay Committee suggested that sessions prayerfully consider how to spend the tithes and offerings of their congregations so that their gifts support Christ-centered, Biblically grounded ministry. It was not a call to withhold money, but to either restrict its gifts to faithful ministries within the denomination or redirect them to other ministries. The PCUSA Constitution and numerous court rulings have clearly stated that sessions have that responsibility.
Furthermore, the Presbyterian Lay Committee has never promoted schism.
Talking briefly with a reporter from The Layman after the meeting, Stone said he, too, is an evangelical. He cited his involvement with Presbyterians For Renewal and the Presbyterian Coalition.
Whatever Stone intended, the congregation offered no response to the issues he raised about presbytery distrust or the Presbyterian Lay Committee.
It did, however, seem to identify strongly with some of the “advantages” he listed, including: “While we may be a confessing denomination in theory and document, there’s no disagreement that a sizable minority would like to see the church’s historical standards changed” – a pointed reference to activists for ordaining practicing homosexuals, many of whom are openly defying the constitution. “How can it ever be wrong to affirm what (or part of what) the church has historically professed the Bible revealed to be true?” Stone asked.
Numerous members registered strong opposition to efforts to ordain practicing homosexuals. One angrily held up a brochure titled “Homosexuality is Not a Sin,” published by a gay activist organization, complaining that the Presbytery of New Hope had allowed copies of the brochure to be placed on a literature table at its meeting.
Another complained, “Our church is being reformed by the world.”
Ann Barnhill, the presbytery’s vacancy counselor who helps match ministers with congregations seeking new pastors, rose to address the issue. Barnhill is one of three of the seven members of the Administrative Commission who attended the congregation’s dinner meeting on April 7.
“Remember,” she urged, “that Presbyterians wrote the Bill of Rights … We believe in freedom of speech … We ought to enjoy the rainbow” of different opinions in the denomination.
Referring to the meeting of the General Assembly last year, Stone acknowledged that many of the commissioners had a decidedly liberal bent. But he said all church leaders are entitled to “vote their conscience.” He left off the Book of Order requirement that one’s conscience must be “captive to the Word of God.”
But several Falkland members declared that the Bible clearly teaches that homosexual activity is wrong. They offered a spirited defense of the Bible as the Word of God. (As the congregation’s lay pastor, Mueller had emphasized the authority of Scripture. Besides his preaching, he led a year-long, through-the-Bible study in which members in which 13 members read the entire Bible.)
The meeting wasn’t scheduled to be about Mueller. He sat quietly at a back table. But the issues surrounding the presbytery’s refusal to commission him as the lay pastor at Falkland were discussed.
So Mueller stood and briefly recapped what had happened. He said he tried to be faithful, principled and Presbyterian. But he had turned in his resignation out of concern that his commitment to the congregation could bring reprisals from the presbytery. “They (the Administrative Commission) could come in here and put in their own session,” he said. “That is why I gave my resignation.”
In the end, Lisa Hamill seemed to sum up what most of the congregation thought of Mueller. Recalling his visit as she was coming out of a drug overdose, she said, “I want to thank Mark from the bottom of my heart. Mark, you didn’t fail me. You have brought me from evil and delivered me to God.”