Jack Haberer has seen churches come and go in his years of association with the Presbyterian Church (USA), both as an ordained pastor and editor of The Presbyterian Outlook. He understands decisions of churches wanting to leave the denomination, but he also can make a case for wanting to stay.
Haberer outlined that case at the third annual Big Tent gathering during a Presbyterian Communicators Network national conference luncheon at the Kentucky International Convention Center on Aug. 2 in Louisville, Ky.
Haberer’s topic, “Reconnecting our Connectionalism: Making the Case for Staying Together,” explained why many congregations are departing the PCUSA but made an argument for a need to stay connected.
“We are in an age where churches are leaving the denomination or engaging in a discernment process to determine if they will remain in our fellowship or go somewhere else,” Haberer said. “We think, ‘What’s with these people? Are they just radical – (you fill in the blanks)?’ We are in a time and place where people are leaving us.”
And Haberer can understand where those individuals and congregations are coming from.
“I can relate closely to some of those folks saying it’s time to leave, time to relocate and find another place to worship,” he said. “When the buttons get pushed, and you hear talking around the church about discernment, it’s really time to go.
“That leads to a question. Is there anything at all you and I can do or say to get them to stay in the PCUSA, to re-engage, re-connect and live out life in the PCUSA?”
As he sees it, yes, there is a way. It’s a three-step process for reconnection that requires re-tuning, responding and re-presenting.
In re-tuning, Haberer noted various frequencies that need to interconnect in order for the church to function as it should. Those frequencies include:
- Confessional Godview: holding truth and understanding how it is to be;
- Devotionalist Godview: a closer walk with God;
- Ecclesial Godview: working in partnership as the Body of Christ;
- Altruist Godview: compassion and care for the needy; and
- Activist Godview: breaking down oppressions, bringing equality and justice.
“We have to learn from and challenge each other, be more of what God would have us be in the Body of Christ,” Haberer explained.
Haberer said many of those congregations leaving or thinking of departing the PCUSA are taking a Confessionalist Godview, the belief that if they know the truth they will be set free, that false teachings can lead to lives of unfaithfulness. They uphold standards of ethical and moral behavior.
“Our first appeal is to listen to them – on their terms,” Haberer said. “It’s better to befriend them and seek them out now instead of waiting until they have crossed that line and turned on to that exit path.”
Responding to the concerns of those seeking departure involves three major issues being debated by churches entering discernment: authority of Scripture, uniqueness of Jesus Christ and expression of sexuality. Most churches leaving the PCUSA cite one or more of those issues as their reason for seeking a new denominational home.
Haberer contends that the arguments about the inerrancy of the Bible occur because of what it is.
“You put a group of Presbyterians in a room with Bibles, and it will start an argument,” Haberer joked. “Why do we argue about it? Because we take it so seriously. It’s God’s Word. It proclaims the love of Jesus Christ, tells us how to live and how to tell others about Him.”
He referred to 2 Timothy 3:16 as a basis for that stance. The passage reads, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness ….”
Haberer was succinct and to the point discussing the unique aspect of Jesus Christ.
“There is this concern that Jesus is not the unique way to salvation. That’s explained in John 14:6,” Haberer said. “I don’t think Jesus came to earth to make it easier to send people to hell. Everyone has their own God? That’s weak. Jesus Christ is the only savior.”
Again citing Scripture, Haberer referenced Ephesians 2:8 (“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God ….”) and 2 Timothy 2:4 (“…who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.”) as his basis.
The PCUSA staff of Theology and Worship drafted a document called “Hope in the Lord Jesus Christ” that was adopted by the 214th General Assembly in 2002. That document, once discussed by Haberer and Jack Adams, former editor of The Layman, is an example of orthodoxy to follow, he said.
“I was talking about that with Jack Adams some years ago and asked what he thought about (the document). He said to me, ‘That’s Reformed. You can’t get any better than that.’ I stand there. That’s about as orthodox as you can get.”
As far as sexuality issues, Haberer said he understood the ordination of Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender/Queer (LGBTQ) people to be a sticking point for many in the denomination and they felt it was unacceptable.
“But which church are you going to where you have leaders you would not have selected?” he asked pointedly.
He went on to say that the denomination is not doing much to change the opinions that have been formed about it in relation to decisions it has made through the years, many of them often controversial.
“We need to respond openly, responsibly and faithfully to people wanting to leave. An accusation met with silence is automatically interpreted as an admission of guilt,” Haberer said. “We’re doing an abysmal job at this in every part of the church. We’re not stepping up to say, ‘No, that’s not right about us.’”
Haberer’s final point was that the denomination needs to show what makes it special, why congregations and individuals should choose to be part of the PCUSA rather than in another Presbyterian denomination.
He used the metaphors of a university church (education); a hospital church (a place to heal from the wounds of sin and failure); a supermarket church (a church of minimal uniformity with open options); and an open book church (one that makes its information available to the public).
“I’d rather be in a church that’s open and publishes its stuff and makes it available to the public,” Haberer said. “It’s much better to be disclosing than concealing.”
While no one knows for sure what the face of the Presbyterian Church will look like in the future, Haberer is confident in one thing.
“I can’t predict what the church will look like 20, 30, 40 years from now, but I do know this: this church has been built on a rock, the rock that is Jesus Christ,” he said. “I have the basic confidence going back to the basic book of the Bible that the One who began a good work among us will bring it to completion by the day of Jesus Christ.”
16 Comments. Leave new
I agree with something important said by Jack Haberer, specifically: “I’d rather be in a church that’s open and publishes its stuff and makes it available to the public,” Haberer said. “It’s much better to be disclosing than concealing.”
Is that meant to be an argument in favor of the PC(USA) as opposed to other Presbyterian denominations such as the ECO, EPC, PCA? How does he respond to the litigation tactics of the PC(USA) which were kept secret until revealed by the publication of the “Louisville Papers” and more recently by the revelations concerning the Presbytery of South Louisiana and the Carrollton Presbyterian Church?
Hi, John.
I, too, was at the lunch where Jack gave this address. When he made that comment, he was speaking to the fact that we have our own in-house department of research services. He was celebrating the fact that we as a denomination have a history of looking analytically at ourselves — we’re committed to a deeper understanding of who we are as Presbyterians and why we do what we do. He wasn’t talking about whistleblowing per se; instead, he was speaking of our interest in self-exploration.
Blessings,
Jodi
Jodi, it’s good to have more context about Rev. Haberer’s statement. I still question whether the PC(USA) is somehow superior in “self-exploration” even in that context.
So, what sort of argument is that for staying in a denomination that 1) doesn’t know what it believes; 2) requires members and congregations to compromise the truth, the gospel, the scriptures, church discipline, and God’s moral law; 3) involves supporting programs and policies detrimental to the advancement of God’s truth?
The PCUSA “is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in the mirror. For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like.” (Jas. 1.23-24) The PCUSA seems to have no genuine interest in looking at its reflection in the mirror of the Bible and evaluating how it stacks up. In the later days of the kings of Judah, a scroll of the Law was found in the temple and brought to the king to be read in his hearing. Thus hearing the Law read and reflecting that he and the nation of Judah did not stack up, King Josiah repented and instituted reforms intended to bring Judah back into conformity to the Law (II Kg 22-23). This is the kind of “looking analytically at itself” that the PCUSA needs, and it’s precisely this kind of self-examination that the PCUSA is not doing.
Congregation after congregation is going into seasons of discernment to determine whether or not to remain affiliated with the PCUSA or to seek dismissal therefrom, and ARCs are formed with the express purpose of listening to these congregations. Yet, they have the attitude of thinking, “What can I say that might persuade this congregation to end its season of discernment and to remain affiliated with the PCUSA?”, rather than say, “Perhaps there is something to their complaints, that the PCUSA truly has drifted far from its Biblical moorings, and that our approaches to Biblical interpretation, interfaith relations, and homosexuality are not only un-Biblical but even offensive to God.” There is no contriteness of heart in the PCUSA. There is only the excuse, “Well, our interpretation of Scripture is just different from your interpretation; neither interpretation is more or less faithful to God and to Scripture—just different.” As long as this remains the heart attitude of the PCUSA, the seasons of discernment and the disaffiliations will continue.
I didn’t hear the full presentation, but the article makes it sounds like Mr. Haberer’s believes that evangelicals should stay in the PCUSA even if they disagree with the ordination of GLBTQ leaders because “…which church are you going to where you have leaders you would not have selected?”
I can agree with this position on many issues — but unrepentant sexual immorality isn’t one of them. 1 Corinthians 5:9-11 makes it very clear that when someone who names the name of Christ is involved in unrepentant sexual sin, we “must not associate” with them.
And in this case, the PCUSA isn’t just asking evangelicals to “associate with” those who name the name of Christ and are involved in sexual immorality. Rather, by ordaining GLBTQ ministers, the PCUSA is also requiring that evangelicals to be subject to their leadership and discipline.
Dear Reverend Ferrell,
The answer to your question is nothing. There is entirely too much, in the Biblical and catechetical vein, that enjoins the elect to separate. there is no margin for guesswork on this one. Furthermore, dialogue within the walls of the PCUSA is pointless. Show me one PCUSA “national leader” that doesn’t engage in sophistry and Scriptural declension and I’ll show you one who suffers from laryngitis. God mercifully led me to Nashua OPC (Pennsylvania) in 2012. I never saw such commitment to God’s plenary truths and consistent dedication to the sanctity of the Lord’s Day as now. Those who opt to stay and “slug it out” don’t know what they’re missing. But when God gets ready for them to know, you and I both know they will!!! Real talk!!
Loren –
God will forgive your disbelief. We are called to be disciples, not judges; none of us can fully know the heart of the Lord. We must listen to our heart illuminated by God’s love, not your preconceived human notion of purity. Jesus has called us to practice forgiveness, which we all need. Your judgmental outlook is yet another futile practice of the creation of God in YOUR image. Do we not wear fabric of mixed fibers to worship? Do we exclude women in their monthly cycle? Do we enforce a covering of the heads of women and not allow them to speak in worship? Your vision of God’s law would forbid all of these, yet those of us as progressive believers continue to listen to the Spirit and find more light to yet shine on the WORD.
Your conception of God’s will is YOURS not God’s. God will forgive you this transgression because the Lord of Hosts is almighty and not limited by your limited intellect and inbred ignorance and hatred. I will continue to pray for you.
God is clearly the final judge in matters of salvation but it is silly to maintain that as disciples we are prohibited from using judgment. What is a “season of discernment” if not a time for judging? A judgment free theology is Universalism to the point of being no theology which is, of course, part of the PCUSA’s problem.
As to meaningful and open discussions, how exactly does that happen under the cloud of property seizure and Administrative Councils formed in the dark of night?
As a life long Presbyterian, the majority of my focus has been to follow Scripture and live a Godly, sanctified life. Theology is not something I like to wrestle with, but can appreciate the finer minds that do. I remember in the 60’s and 70’s folks arguing vehemently about Free WIll vs Predestination, Charismatic gifts, losing your salvation, never losing your salvation, sprinkling vs immersion. And to decipher this in light of God’s word is good and helpful—but not at the exclusion of DOING God’s work. There needs to be a balance of the theologically bent mind-sets with those who worry more about how to “do church”…diciple those within the church, and reach out to those outside the church, to give a cup of water in Jesus’ name. To believe that one denomination can meet all needs is unrealistic. And there is no doubt that the main-line denominations are getting smaller and smaller: Episcopalians, Lutherans, Baptists, and most of the various Presbyterian denominations as well…except for EPC and ECO which seem to be the destination of many of former PCUSA churches in the last 10 years or so. I’m not wise enough to counsel going or staying for anyone, but believe that God will lead each church to where He wants them to be. The church is His bride. He died for her. We are His. Even in the light of these troubling times, God would have us unite together as One in worshipping Him…regardless of denomination affiliations. This is the setting of the last 3 gatherings that I have attended. We worship an incredible God together. Mankind seems intent on compartmentalizing like-minded with like-minded. We’re more comfortable with that. God seeks to grow us and to stretch us and to pull us out of our comfort zone…but to unite us in worshipping Him. I’m hanging on for the ride. God is good and faithful…we need to remember that as we seek to love and forgive one another of our failures. And isn’t it wonderful that God loves us exactly where we are this instant…but too much to leave us where we are.
It seems to me that when those comfortable with the direction of the PCUSA point to those who are not and accuse them of cherry-picking what part of God’s word they will uphold are guilty of the same thing. Or worse, guilty of not upholding anything in Scripture as holy. No wonder the denomination is a mess.
Eric: I’m glad you found a church where God’s Word alone is the standard for faith and practice. I pray many others, by His grace, will do the same. But, amazes me that any think there is reason to remain in a denomination that has ceased to bear the marks of a true church of Jesus Christ. I’m a great admirer of the Free Church of Scotland folk (one-third of the Church of Scotland) who in 1843 walked away from their church buildings and manses in what came to be known as the “Great Disruption” to form a new denomination faithful to the scriptures and Westminster Standards.
Where does that light come from that shines upon God’s Word. Jesus Christ is found in the Holy Spirit inspired Bible alone. Even PCUSA officers take an ordination vow affirming, “Do you accept the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be, by the Holy Spirit, the unique and authoritative witness to Jesus Christ in the Church universal, and God’s Word to you?” If unique and authoritative, there is no external standard for measuring or understanding God’s Word.
The Westminster Confession of Faith rightly says (I:9): “The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.”
Your reference to Old Testament ceremonial law fulfilled in Christ-
WCF XIX:3- ” Beside this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the new testament.”
– demonstrates either your ignorance or misrepresentation of biblical interpretation.
We are called to judge, not self righteously, by God’s standard, discerning mad dogs, wild hogs and lying preachers by the standard of God’s Infallible Word.
Only by your judgment of what I say here can you reject it. We all judge. But, by what Standard?
One can not rightly worship a God whom he does not know and whose Truth one does not believe or obey.
The Westminster Confession of Faith XXV:3 provides the purpose of the Church: “Unto this catholic visible church Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and doth, by his own presence and Spirit, according to his promise, make them effectual thereunto.”
Without these God provided oracles (truth found in His Word, understood, taught, applied, obeyed) and ordinances (sacraments and biblical church discipline) the saints will not be gathered or perfected.
All the warm fuzzy hopes, sentiments, words and thinking in the world will not accomplish the purposes of God for His People in this life or the next.
However, when one group calling themselves Christians no longer obey, He will provide others who will. God’s Purpose and Will shall be done.
Mr. Haberer,
The Bible is either God’s Word and authoritative or it is not. I wonder if you would still feel this way if you were not so much a part of the PCUSA establishment. I believe that those associations, as well as your plush job as Editor of The Outlook, have colored your thinking. The Bible is indeed God’s Word. It is authoritative and our only rule of faith and live. It says what it means, and it means what it says. You can’t stand on the fence and pretend that there is some transitional place where members in the PCUSA can do a balancing act – accepting a little of this and a little of that when it comes to the Bible. It is because of PCUSA leaders like you who have put the denomination in a place of apostasy. As Dr. Michael Youssef has said (and he was converted by PCUSA missionaries in Egypt), PCUSA members should flee and go to a church where God’s Word is reverenced, taught, and authoritative. The PCUSA is NOT one of those churches, and evidently you are not one of the leaders who adheres to this, either.
It never ceases to amaze me how some people identifying themselves as “progressive believers” have the audacity of charging Bible-believing Christians of judgmentalism, idolatry, ignorance, and hatred while unashamedly displaying their own. A case in point, Mr. Stewart-Smith charges that my vision of God’s Law would purportedly forbid “wear(ing) fibers of mixed fabric to worship”, “exclud(ing) women in their monthly cycle”, and “enforc(ing) a covering of the heads of women and not allow(ing) them to speak in worship”. Evidently, he thinks me some kind of straw man, easily toppled by the prowess of his superior intellect!
With respect to forbidding the “wear(ing) fibers of mixed fabric to worship”, Mr. Stewart-Smith refers to one of the favorite passages of Scripture that “progressive believers” love to cite when they want to come up with a passage that sounds ridiculous in the contemporary context. To quote it in full, Leviticus 19.19 reads thus: “You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind. You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth of two kinds of material.” In the first seven chapters, Leviticus described the five different kinds of sacrifices that He required of the Israelites. Chapters 8-10 detail the consecration and ordination of Aaron and his four sons as priests, with Chapter 10 describing the Lord’s execution of Nadab and Abihu for offering “unauthorized fire”. (Lev. 10.8-11 details a proscription against the priesthood drinking wine, strongly suggesting that Nadab and Abihu were drunk, leading to an inattentiveness when it came to offering incense before the Lord.) In Lev. 10.3, the Lord said, “Among those who are near me, I will be sanctified, and before all the people I will be glorified.” In the next chapter, the Lord made a similar statement, saying, “For I am the LORD your God. Consecrate yourselves, therefore, and be holy, for I am holy.” (Lev. 11.44) The rest of the book of Leviticus describes how that holiness was supposed to look like for the Ancient Israelites. Chapters 11-15 described various foods, leprous diseases, and bodily discharges that made one ceremonially unclean, and therefore ineligible to come to the holy Sanctuary of the Lord at the Tabernacle (later the Temple) to make the offerings that He required in Chapters 1-7. Chapter 16 detailed the requirements of Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) that the Ancient Israelites were required to observe, and Chapter 17 detailed the requirement of the Israelites in the desert to offer any meat they wanted to eat as a Peace Offering in accordance with the requirements in Lev. 3.1-17, 7.11-36 (this was later relaxed when the Israelites entered the Promised Land; see Dt. 12.15-16). Chapter 17 also expands on the proscription (first given in 3.17) against eating blood. Chapter 18 expands the concept of uncleanness to encompass moral acts. In Chapters 11-17, none of the things that the Lord forbade the Israelites (except eating blood) was a moral wrong. In Chapter 18, the Lord identified several acts that He regards as moral wrongs: a dozen forms of incest, having sexual intercourse with a woman while she is in the midst of her menstrual cycle (which is a moral wrong, distinct from the man who is already having sexual intercourse when her menstrual cycle begins, which was a ceremonial law; see 15.24), adultery, child sacrifice, homosexuality, and bestiality. The Lord bracketed these proscriptions by saying that it was because the Canaanites had broken all these moral laws that He was driving them out from the Promised Land before the Israelites, and He strictly warned the Israelites not to commit any of them. Chapter 19 gives various laws that tell the Israelites how they should practice holiness in their everyday lives. It is a mixture of moral, ceremonial, and judicial laws that are found side-by-side and not in any particular order. As such, the ceremonial proscriptions of v. 19 (which are passed away, as I shall demonstrate momentarily) immediately follow the moral command to love one’s neighbor as oneself in v. 18 (which is most certainly not passed away). In the New Testament, the Lord Jesus Christ offered Himself as a sacrifice for the sins of humanity. In so doing, He abolished the first order (i.e., the Old Covenant, which required the sacrifice of bulls, rams, and goats to atone for sins) in order to establish the second order (i.e., the order in which His one sacrifice on the Cross atones for all the sins of all those who trust in Him; Heb. 10.1-18). As such, all those laws intended to teach the Israelites what it meant to be holy (except the moral laws, which never pass away) are passed away, including the law against “wear(ing) a garment of cloth of two kinds of material.” Likewise, the second law to which Mr. Stewart-Smith referred, “When a woman has a discharge, and the discharge in her body is blood, she shall be in her menstrual impurity for seven days” (Lev. 15.19), and, “Thus you shall keep the people of Israel separate from their uncleanness, lest they die in their uncleanness by defiling my tabernacle that is in their midst” (Lev. 15.31), is passed away for the same reason.
With respect to “enforc(ing) a covering of the heads of women”, Mr. Stewart-Smith refers to a passage in which the Apostle Paul wrote, “Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or to shave her head, let her cover her head.” (I Cor. 11.4-6) Covering one’s head or not covering one’s head is not a moral act. Now, to be sure, in the context of the Corinthian culture, the people believed it right for the men to keep their heads uncovered and the women to keep their heads covered for the sake of decency. Our culture has no such conventions regarding covering one’s head. But our culture does have conventions regarding decent and modest behavior and attire, and the principle behind the rule that Paul was giving to the Corinthian Church still applies and requires that believers in Jesus Christ today adhere to the cultural conventions regarding decent and modest behavior and attire so as not to unduly offend those around us. Now in other cultures around the world, conventions would have women wear more modest apparel than the cultural conventions here in the United States, and in those situations, Christians are obligated to adhere to them, so as not to cause undue offense to the people of those cultures.
Finally, with respect to “not allow(ing) (women) to speak in worship”, Mr. Stewart-Smith very evidently has not followed the link to my blog, where I have written a post entitled, “On the Ordination of Women”, in which I Biblically defend the ordination of women to office in the Church. Inasmuch as those arguments can be found there, I will not repeat them here.
Now, Mr. Stewart-Smith would enjoin us to “listen to our heart illuminated by God’s love”. There is no such command in Scripture. Neither, for that matter, can it be deduced from Scripture that God would have us “listen to our heart.” Indeed, as it is written, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it? I the LORD search the heart and test the mind, to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his deeds.” (Jer. 17.9-10) And again, “The intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth.” (Gen. 8.21) Moreover, it is by reading the Scripture and listening intently to its messages that we learn the love of God. It is then reading the Scriptures, paying close attention to its message, as illumined by the Holy Spirit, that we should follow, not our hearts.
Finally, it is written, “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” (Mt. 7.1-5) Mr. Stewart-Smith has wrongly judged me for judgmentalism, idolatry, ignorance, and hatred. I would strongly suggest that Mr. Stewart-Smith read and adhere to the Lord Jesus’ words in Mt. 7.1-5.