Ministers give contrasting views on remaining in PCUSA with liberals
By John H. Adams, The Layman Online, September 30, 1999
DALLAS – The centerpiece discussion during the Presbyterian Coalition’s “Gathering IV” in Dallas was a subject that is not normally broached in polite company in the Presbyterian Church (USA).
Should the PCUSA evangelicals cut and run or continue to remain connected to a left flank that doesn’t speak the same theological language?
The alternatives were presented by Jerry Andrews, pastor of Glen Elyn Presbyterian Church in Chicago, and Mark Toone, pastor of Chapel Hill Presbyterian Church in Gig Harbor, Wash.
With equal passion, they argued contrary views. Andrews favors remaining in the denomination and engaging in an honest conversation between evangelicals and liberals. Toone says the conversation has reached a dead end and it’s time for a “gracious separation.”
Repetitive, draining arguments Both expressed their frustration over the repetitive and draining arguments between the denomination’s liberals and conservatives, particularly over such issues as ordaining homosexuals, ReImagining God and self-affirming ideologies that deny the atoning work and resurrected life of Jesus Christ.
But Andrews said the two sides were talking past each other and not honestly examining their call to ministry. He called for “recovenanting,” a process of exploring what liberals and evangelicals share in a call to ministry.
Toone said the litmus test for remaining one denomination should be whether the PCUSA is effective in building the kingdom of God for Jesus Christ. He said a 500,000 loss in membership in the last 10 years suggests otherwise.
During a question-answer session, both speakers were commended for their passion and honesty, but not necessarily for their theological conclusions. Andrews was criticized for suggesting a pain-staking, time-consuming point-by-point discussion with liberals. Toone was criticized for recommending division, or schism, in the church.
Presentations prompt disagreements One participant, Parker Williamson, executive editor of The Presbyterian Layman, took issue with both of his friends. He contested Andrews’ idea of “recovenanting” with liberals, suggesting that the word covenant was being used too loosely. “The Covenant Network of Presbyterians appropriates this word loosely,” he said, “when it cannot even affirm as basic a covenant as marriage, and when it defends those who violate the covenant they made with the church’s constitution.” The Covenant Network has defended ordination of practicing homosexuals and the practice of “holy union” services for same-sex couples. The Covenant Network has also announced that it will provide legal advice and financial assistance to a presbytery that is facing a judicial challenge to its declaration that one of its congregations need not obey the denomination’s constitution.
“Covenant is a rich, Biblical word,” Williamson said. “Our foundational covenant is with Jesus Christ, the Jesus Christ whom we know in Scripture. We have no covenant with those for whom he is merely a concept, those who will not affirm his atonement or his bodily resurrection.”
To Toone, Williamson responded that “gracious separation” would betray generations of faithful Presbyterians whose gifts built churches, seminaries and more than $1 billion in assets held by the Presbyterian Foundation. “When you spew Sophia from the pulpit of one of those churches, the bones of those who built it cries out from the grave. We are like people who live in vineyards and olive groves that we did not plant. We dare not abandon that inheritance to those who follow a counterfeit christ.” Consequently, Williamson said, evangelical Presbyterians have a fiduciary responsibility to uphold the faith of those whose gifts built the churches we inhabit today – and not to divvy up those gifts between liberal and evangelical denominations through a “gracious separation.”
Schism a ‘mortal sin’
Dr. Elizabeth Achtemeier, a retired professor at Union Theological Seminary in Virginia, challenged Toone’s suggestion that effectiveness might be a basis by which the denomination decides to split. She cited numerous Old Testament examples where God told the prophets to preach to people who would not hear or see the truth – a predetermined ineffectiveness. “It is a mortal sin to divide the Church,” she said. “Brothers and sisters, trust God.”
In his presentation, Andrews made the following points:
- There are 18 Reformed denominations in the United States. “I’d prefer 17, 16 and then one.”
- “Amendment C is not in front of us. I know the church has the potential of exhausting the alphabet.”
- “We have bled out two whole denominations from the right side.”
- “We are both (liberals and conservatives) painfully aware that there is a fundamental disagreement.”
- “We need to admit how far apart we are. This is not good. This is not unity. We need to begin to explore how deep our differences are. We need to recognize that Jesus Christ has called us to himself and therefore to one another.”
- The roadmap for liberals and evangelicals to understand and work out their differences should be the Book of Confessions “line by line, paragraph by paragraph … asking for honesty … making no judgment about those who disagree.”
- “We need to begin to build a new covenant. We need to listen and learn. Covenants are made, not by those who agree, but between people who are at cross purposes.”
- The two sides should say, “It’s not a scandal that you and I would have this conversation. It’s a scandal that we wouldn’t.”
- Is the liberal the enemy? Or is it that the liberal has been taken by the enemy. “This is the good fight. When I go astray and when I have lost my way, will you come get me?”
Some of Toone’s points were:
- “I believe we have come to a Paul and Barnabas moment … an opportunity for a gracious separation.”
- “Do you think we’ll ever stop fighting these battles?”
- The Presbyterian Church (USA) is bleeding members and 1983 reunion hasn’t stanched it.
- “Is it worth it? Is it effective for us to fight to regain, retain this institution?”
- The denomination does not have the will to say no except “to those who are more conservative.”
- “We have irreconcilable differences. The Unity in Diversity Conferences (called for by the 1999 General Assembly) are a ploy to wear us out.”
- “At present we cannot make an effective witness for the kingdom of God.”
- “We have become irrelevant to three generations.”