Analysis
Response to PFR’s ‘new synod’ proposal
By Carmen Fowler, The Layman, October 27, 2009
Living into the Biblical mandate, everything that you read here has been said privately in conversation, via written correspondence with the leadership of Presbyterians For Renewal, and around the table at the Presbyterian Renewal Network meeting. I attended the PFR regional gathering in Jacksonville, Fla., in early 2009, and participated in the conversation about reshaping the Presbyterian Church (USA).
Related Article
PFR proposal would create new non-geographic synod
Since 2001, when the idea for the New Wineskins initiative was first proffered, I have been engaged in the conversation about the “new thing” God is doing. I served for six years on the board of New Wineskins and for a year on the Joint Commission of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church assisting congregations desiring to realign from one branch of the Presbyterian family to another. I am a fan of our moving toward a more missional expression of Presbyterian polity that is built upon shared theological essentials and a mutual commitment to ethical imperatives that grow out of those essentials.
I agree with PFR’s assessment that “the current state of the PCUSA hinders many throughout the denomination as they seek to fulfill (the) calling” of the Great Commission. I agree that “as a denomination, we are incapable of articulating a compelling unified witness to the person and work of Jesus Christ, the mission and purposes of God, the authority and interpretation of Scripture, and the role of the Church in the world.” I do not agree that in the face of such an assessment, exercising one’s constitutional right to realign with another Reformed body is, as PFR’s FAQ #15 characterizes it, “Biblically unfaithful.” I do not agree that the thousands of individuals and dozens of congregations who have come to the conclusion that realignment is God’s calling for them is evidence that they have claimed “individual sovereignty” nor that they are turning their backs on the ministry to which God has called them. To the contrary, they have been liberated from the interminable cycle of fighting and voting, set free to actively engage in and pursue the Great Commission to which we are all called. I actually think that PFR itself makes this argument in affirming that “the fundamental unity of the Body of Christ (the Church) binds all congregations together regardless of denominational affiliation.”
I agree that change is coming and I agree that the General Assembly of the PCUSA “would benefit from the juxtaposition of various recommendations” in addition to the nFOG proposal. I would hope some presbytery would forward multiple options for the GA to look at. Options ranging from the eLink proposal proffered in 2008, the New Wineskins constitution, a real “forced choice” two-synod model that moves the denomination toward amicable division, and even an option through which we in the PCUSA become a subset within a larger, more faithful expression of the global Presbyterian Church, like the Presbyterian Church of East Africa. Crazy thoughts, I know, but truly missional.
For your consideration, here is the direct feedback I gave to PFR when asked to comment on the proposal:
A few ‘What if’s?’ and ‘I wonders’
I wonder if some congregations won’t see this as an opportunity or a stepping stone to realign from hostile PCUSA presbyteries to friendly new synod presbyteries on their way to another Reformed body. For congregations that are currently “trapped” in liberal presbyteries or presbyteries that will defend the denomination’s assertion of property trust to the death, this proposal is a welcome path that leads to dismissal. I know that is not your intent. It was not the intent of New Wineskins. And yet …
I wonder what the motivation of those in power would be to allow this to progress.
Looking specifically at item #7: Imagine for a moment that the majority of presbyteries in a current synod voted to be originating presbyteries in the new synod, would not that synod be so gutted as to be rendered obsolete? Why would the current bureaucracy allow that?
What is the motivation of an existing geographic presbytery to allow its congregations to “go” with their property to a non-geographic presbytery? What is the motivation of the presbytery of origin to release those resources?
Looking specifically at item 1.3-1.6, it seems unlikely in the current environment that existing presbyteries and synods would give away this much authority.
When New Wineskins leadership had conversations with PCUSA leaders about implementing a non-geographic, flat, “missional polity” built around a connectional system based on shared essentials and a mutual commitment to ethical accountability, to tell you that the reception was “cold” would be polite. Granted, things have changed and PFR is making the bid, not New Wineskins, but the content of what you are proposing “looks” almost exactly like the missional polity of the New Wineskins constitution. I might not be the only person who sees that. Further, according to the nFOG Task Force, the GA is being offered a missional polity for “everyone.” Non-renewal types are likely to have a “now just hold your horses” response to one “side” staking a claim to the missional future of the PCUSA.
Nitty gritty
The response to #14 seems disingenuous. You’re trying to say “yes, it’s time to give up trying to understand and work together” without actually saying “yes.” Let your yes be yes or your no, no.
The response to #15 condemns those who feel called to realign with other Reformed believers as “turning our back on the ministry to which God has called us,” and “Biblically unfaithful.”
First of all, those congregations are exercising a right provided for in our mutually agreed upon constitution.
Secondly, those people are our friends, colleagues in ministry and fellow saints.
Thirdly, those might not be bridges you want to burn, just in case someday you find the need to cross them.
Fourthly, before we are PCUSA we are Presbyterian; before we are Presbyterian, we are Reformed; before we are Reformed, we are Protestant; and before we were Protestant, well, yes, friends we were Roman Catholic. And we are not anymore. We left what was understood to be a vacant husk, a theologically corrupt corpse, for life – and the liberty to do ministry. Was the entire Reformation “Biblically unfaithful?” If congregations realigning from the PCUSA to other (more theologically Biblical and Reformed) fellowships is “Biblically unfaithful” then …
Finally, reread the response to #15 in conversation with the response to #6.
The response to #15 isn’t just offensive, it’s confusing. Having separated out into what is effectively an enclave, how are folks to see themselves as also “participating in the whole life of the PCUSA” when doing that has already been acknowledged as “hindering” their ability to do ministry?
The response to #25 is unconvincing. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck … well, you get the idea. Denying that a cocoon is what is being created actually works against you here. People want a cocoon! If you are not creating a safe place in the midst of storm tossed seas, if you are not offering space on a life raft, then what is the point of a congregation going t
hrough all the trouble of building theological consensus, expending leadership capital, explaining to their people that the denomination is so broken it cannot be renewed, then casting a vision and building a practical missional theology, and then creating buy-in to the new proposed missional polity outlined in the new synod model… “So, what are we doing? Where are we going? Who are we going with? Why? And we’ll still be ‘in’ the PCUSA?” Yes. It will be difficult to make the case for realignment into a new synod when you take away the promise of a hoped for “safe place” or the ultimate promise of exiting together.
The other thing that people are going to contest about #25 is the necessity of establishing a separate bureaucratic entity that will invariably require financial support.
Then there’s #29 … please re-read in conversation with #6.
Now, having said all that, assuming it passes, here are a couple of observations that grow out of my experience with the NW/EPC transitional presbytery:
Not everyone whom you “expect” to join will. Some will remain where they are out of lethargy and some will remain where they are out of a genuine sense of calling to serve as missionaries to and in the PCUSA. As missionaries, they will be offended by the suggestion that they should join an evangelical enclave where they will be protected from the denominational culture that God has sent them to permeate and transform. They may be your most vocal and virulent opponents. That was my experience in New Wineskins – the most fierce and unfriendly opposition came from fellow evangelicals and renewalists who I had long considered my friends.
Not everyone who joins will join for the “right” reasons. Some will join to escape hostile presbyteries where they have been oppressed and maligned and marginalized for years. Some will join because “you” are PFR and they want to be with their “friends” (but in reality, they will have no understanding of the concepts of “missional” theology nor polity. They will not understand that they will be required to live up to and into a new system of greater accountability. They will not understand that in order for the new thing to “work,” they will have to “work.”) And yes, some will join with a genuinely missional spirit to forge ministry alliances and advance God’s Kingdom purposes.
Questions we did not anticipate, but had to deal with pretty quickly in the formation of the NWEPC:
What if a congregation outside the PCUSA (or outside the country) applies for membership?
How will requests from “specialized” clergy be handled? (I’m thinking here about seminary faculty, chaplains, counselors, missionaries, those in validated ministries and those of us who are currently “adrift” in a system that doesn’t know what to do with us.)
How will New Church Development be handled when 17th synod presbyteries are juxtaposed to other PCUSA presbyteries?
How will discipline be handled when the “supra-standard rules” that apply to those in the new synod are “different” from the “rules” that apply to everyone else?
The bigger question: Might there be an easier way?
Could the same ends be achieved by an “open” presbytery model where the presbyteries you have identified could simply become “open” non-geographic presbyteries without an additional formalized layer of synod governance? These presbyteries would likely in turn forge relationships with one another and functionally achieve what you’ve suggested without having to make it a formal part of the constitution.
Could we look at the concept of “religious orders” and restructure around multiple options instead of just creating an option for one “group?”
Could we come up with a five-synod model utilizing Jack Haberer’s book GodViews, which recognizes five distinct theological positions?
Is there another idea out there that’s better than all these?
Might it be time to simply “undo” Reunion? (I know that the end result would not be constituted in the same way that the two pre-cursor denominations were comprised, but I feel certain you get the point of the suggestion.)
In closing, I appreciate the ministry of PFR and I look forward to an ongoing dialogue about the re-formation of the PCUSA that promotes and provides for theological integrity, leadership accountability and missional effectiveness. Let me reiterate that I share your heartfelt desire for the Church to bear authentic witness to Jesus Christ in the midst of a world where the truth is actively suppressed.