By Leslie Scanlon, The Presbyterian Outlook.
In June, the General Assembly’s The Way Forward committee will discuss what shape and form the Presbyterian Church (USA) structure should take in a changing time. On the table: proposals to consider merging the Office of the General Assembly (OGA) and the Presbyterian Mission Agency (PMA), plus questions of how the General Assembly should operate, and how quickly or carefully to move.
Not surprisingly, Presbyterians with a stake in the answers are beginning to weigh in on what should happen next. The discussion also comes at a time when the PMA is cutting its budget and the denominational leadership is in flux – with the assembly due to elect a new stated clerk in June, and with Tony De La Rosa serving as the PMA’s interim executive director.
At its meeting in Louisville April 27-29, The Presbyterian Mission Agency board (PMAB) will make its response to the recommendations of the Committee to Review the Presbyterian Mission Agency, which released its report in January. That report is part of the regular review cycle of the six PC(USA) agencies – and the committee had some strongly-worded findings on issues such a lack of transparency in the way PMA allocates administrative costs and what it described as a “highly stressful and sometimes even unhealthy work environment” at the PMA offices in Louisville.
A team of board members has prepared a proposed response to that report, which the full board will consider this week. The proposed response addresses only the review committee’s three formal recommendations – but not the long rationale section of the report, which outlines broader concerns about the stressful organizational culture within PMA, a lack of coordination with other PCUSA entities and a lack of a clear strategic direction.
Also at this meeting: The board will consider a response from the Board of Pensions. The Board of Pensions has raised objections to the proposed response to the review committee recommendations – objections that raise the possibility of tensions at the General Assembly between the Presbyterian Mission Agency and other PCUSA entities.
18 Comments. Leave new
Since the louisville sluggers are in a consolidating mood to save money, they should consider closing down the Office of Public Witness and the United Nations office as well. Fat chance of that happening, but you can always hope.
There is no sign that the loss of membership has ended. It is expected to continue into the foreseeable future.
It seems clear that, with constantly declining membership, the funds available will also constantly decline. All agencies of the PCUSA must budget for this reality.
Consolidation would seem to be in order.
I think that no one in Washington pays any attention whatsoever to the Office of Public Witness.
The GA is coming soon and decisions need to be made there.
It seems that the proposal to merge by the Review committee is
a hard pill to swallow and PMAB/OGA is resisting or stalling this choice.
There is denial and blindness to what is happening in the Denomination.
I have found that the progressive liberal views are held so strongly that
there is a mind set that says things will turn around. Some say that if they can only get their message said, heard, in the churches everyone will agree, get along and we will all live happily ever after.
The response is denial of the true problems facing this denomination.
That is the sad part of this article revealed by the response by OGA and PMAB . The Board of Pensions gets the urgency because they have responsibility for their members and finances.
What these leaders need is clear direction from the GA. (They need a Stated Clerk that will shake things up but I don’t think that is going to happen). They serve at the will of the member churches! The current Stated Clerk, PMAB and OGA are responsible for the chaos in this denomination and Commissioners at the GA need to speak up boldly to hold them accountable going forward.
In a denomination sliding into irrelevance and oblivion it seems to me that more and greater openness and transparency is required, not less. But as expected, the bureaucratic machinery of the PCUSA/PMA offers more opaqueness, double talk, and simply confusion through more study commissions and committees. The darkness at the end of the PMA/PCUSA tunnel is simply more darkness.
The Board of Pensions is correct to raise the flag. You have 7 billion, others want it. In their dreams the OGA/PMA pine of getting their little hands on that pot for their endless ambitions and causes.
It seems Washington or the UN or many local congregations have the Louisville office validity. Not vitally connected for a congregation and confessional church [or denomination].
No validity. Left out a word.
I find it interesting (and sad) that the first response I see here in regards to the article reverts to the predictable right/left, liberal/conservative paradigm. Re-envisioning, restructuring and recalibrating for the church we are becoming is an organizational shift based on thoughtful and practical analysis of our reality. Conservatives and progressives together at the table, figuring out how to authentically serve God and the world and love one another. Period.
“Conservatives and progressives together at the table”
WHAT table? The progressive have relegated the conservatives to the kids table.
A good book to read related to your post would be :
MISSION DRIFT:THE UNSPOKEN CRISIS FACING LEADERS, CHARITIES, AND CHURCHES, by Peter Greer
Mr. Maxim,
Has it occurred to you that perhaps “conservatives” are trying to conserve the very thing from which “liberals” are striving to liberate the Church, and the tension caused by the pursuit of these two mutually exclusive goals is preventing said “conservatives” and “liberals” from joining each other in genuine Christian fellowship at your proverbial “table”? Have you considered that just maybe “conservatives” believe that the “progress” which “progressives” believe is vitally important for the Church to survive and thrive in the postmodern world is diametrically opposed to what is the “upward call of God in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 3.14)? Have you seriously thought about the implications of what it means to “conservatives” that “liberals” have a virtual monopoly on ecclesiastical offices and seminary governing boards and professorships in the PC(USA)? Can you see how being represented by only a token presence effectively mutes the witness of “conservatives” on national boards and task forces dominated by “liberals”?
You do understand, don’t you, that “conservatives” have remained in the PC(USA) for as long as they have to be salt and light (Mt. 5.13-16) and to prayerfully warn the denomination away from its self-destructive course? But when they see these aspirations unfulfilled, when they see their witness spurned, when they see the PC(USA) conform itself more and more to the ways of this sin-sick and fallen world, in spite of the Scriptures’ admonition not to do that (Rom. 12.2, I Cor. 1.21, Jas. 4.4, I Jn. 2.15-17), it is natural for them to turn from what they perceive to be a barren mission field to devote their energies more fully to presenting the Gospel of Jesus Christ to those who truly appreciate their own spiritual poverty and their need for Jesus Christ to be their Lord and Savior, and to no longer participate in the PC(USA)’s unwelcoming “table”.
In case you cannot decode Loren Golden’s words here, let me simplify: Conservatives are right, Liberals are wrong – we know what the Bible says, you do not, we will not work with you, so if you don’t do as we want we will take our toys and go somewhere else…
I think your satirical response only highlights the reality that there cannot be unity between Conservatives and progressives in the PCUSA any longer.
The day is coming when Liberal will say “you are right ” to each other and no one will provide the check and balance that will keep the denomination from heretical thinking. God does not remove the consequences of our action in most cases. If the denomination wants unity under the banner of being progressive, then God will let them go and do whatever seems right in their own eyes. Most Evangelicals are hearing the call to leave…..
it is a leaving that will allow even more progressive, political designs on the trajectory of the denomination. What will that look like?
Ten years from now people will say….What were we thinking? To allow
a free for all in the Theological doctrinal practice of this denomination.
Sometimes when we seek our own way, we miss the real life God has…
the reality is that there is no longer unity, peace nor purity in this denomination.
But there is work to do and evangelicals will leave to be in a place where that work can be done. Amen!
Since you put it so simply, yes. I moved myself and family to a denomination that has remained true to Biblical teaching, as many others have and will continue to do.
Thank you, Andy James. Your comment effectively underlines and confirms what Loren Golden has written in this post. The undisguised contempt that you display here toward those of us of a conservative point of view is more than clear, and is very well represented in the PCUSA.
Can you not see, Andy, that any minimally sane person in this world — of any persuasion, left, right or center — will always decline to participate in an ecclesiastical organization where his deeply held beliefs and values are treated with such scorn and disdain?
You may chose to heap derision on those who do not share your point of view, Andy, but you need to understand that doing so only serves to diminish you in the eyes of those who read what you have written, and to define for them ever more clearly just how “welcoming” the PCUSA actually is toward those who disagree with its reigning ideology.
Well done.
What Andrew James said, and he’s right, those of us who pay all the bills, will take our toys(money),and go somewhere else…….like the ECO,EPC,PCA etc.
Mr. James,
What did you hope to accomplish by twisting my words, which were honestly spoken, and recasting them into the most unfavorable light possible? Do you believe it illegitimate for Christians to break fellowship over deep-seated doctrinal differences, over Biblical truths in which they believe deeply and passionately? If so, do you likewise hold the Sixteenth Century Protestant Reformers to the same contempt you have shown me? When Martin Luther proclaimed, “Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason—I do not accept the authority of popes and councils for they have contradicted each other—my conscience is captive to the Word of God; I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe; here I stand, I cannot do otherwise, God help me, Amen,” do you suppose that he was saying to the Roman Catholic Church, “Protestants are right, Catholics are wrong—we know what the Bible says, you do not, we will not work with you, so if you don’t do as we want we will take our toys and go somewhere else”?
Do you believe it illegitimate for Christians to break fellowship over issues of the sinfulness of homosexuality? If homosexuality is to be regarded as a legitimate expression of human sexuality, in contradiction to the clear teaching of the Word of God (Gen. 19.4-9, Lev. 18.22, 20.13, Dt. 23.17-18, Judg. 19.22-25, I Kg. 14.24, 15.12, 22.46, II Kg. 23.7, Rom. 1.24-27, I Cor. 6.9-11, I Tim. 1.9-10, Jude 7), what then, on the basis of the authority of Scripture, should we regard as “sexual immorality”? If you think sexual immorality to be an outmoded form of thought that served the people of the First Century but should by no means be authoritative in the Twenty-First, why do you suppose identified it as the sole legitimate grounds for divorce (Mt. 5.31-32, 19.9), or said that it proceeds from the heart to defile a person (Mt. 15.19-20)? What do you think of Paul’s command to the Corinthian Church (and by extension to us) “not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother (i.e., Christian) if he is guilty of sexual immorality” (I Cor. 5.11)? Is it still a valid command today, and if not, on what basis is it passed away? What constitutes a valid reason for disregarding Biblical commands that were acknowledged by the Presbyterian Church a hundred years ago (and by the Church Universal for the nineteen centuries before that) but today have fallen out of favor with the Presbyterian Church (USA) and other like-minded denominations and churches? How is this not to be perceived as what Paul had written to Timothy in his final epistle, saying, “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths” (II Tim. 4.3-4)?
The second half of the third sentence of the second paragraph should read: “why do you suppose that the Lord Jesus identified it as the sole legitimate grounds for divorce (Mt. 5.31-32, 19.9), or said that it proceeds from the heart to defile a person (Mt. 15.19-20)?”