Written by Jerry M. Roper, Ph.D. and John W. Daniel, D.Min., Crestwood Presbyterian Church
“Churches paying big bucks to get out of the PCUSA” was The Layman’s October 28, 2015 headline story. Crestwood Presbyterian Church in Richmond, Virginia wasn’t mentioned in the article, because the dismissal terms of $1.5 million were not yet agreed to by Crestwood’s session and representatives of the Presbytery of the James (POJ) at the time of publication. Today the terms are finalized, having received approval by Crestwood’s congregation and the POJ. This million-plus settlement amount makes Crestwood, a congregation of about 800, one of the highest per capita settlements in the nation.
Crestwood’s dismissal from the POJ stretched over three years, and involved 19 months of contentious negotiation with two presbytery bodies; first an Administrative Commission (AC) and when those negotiations failed, the Board of Trustees. Crestwood detailed for these 18 POJ representatives the crushing impact a million dollar plus settlement would have on evangelism, missions, and ministry. Yet throughout the lengthy dismissal process not one of these POJ representatives stood up for Crestwood or advocated for the people served by our outreach and mission programs. How is it that teaching and ruling elders, who in some cases have known and worked with Crestwood elders for decades, can remain silent and participate in foisting such a crippling financial burden on those they call “brothers and sisters in Christ?” The answer is that the POJ representatives have a vision of God and humanity that is fundamentally different from the vision embraced by Crestwood’s session. The struggle between these two visions drove Crestwood’s dismissal process, and likewise is driving the ultimate demise of the PCUSA. Sessions contemplating dismissal or already in the dismissal process can benefit by understanding the nature of the competing visions and their ensuing spiritual and practical consequences.
Unconstrained vs. Constrained
Thomas Sowell in his book, A Conflict of Visions, observed that people are guided by one of two visions, and regardless of the issue, people are going to line up on sides based upon their vision. He termed the two visions “unconstrained” and “constrained.” People subscribing to an unconstrained vision of life generally believe that a goodness exists in human nature, and with the right policies, doctrine, and systems in place goodness can flourish. The unconstrained vision relies upon an ever increasing understanding of nature based on science, and therefore, developments in environmental science, genetics, and medicine (particularly neuroscience) that result in a deeper understanding of nature and the human make-up are in turn used to shape, influence, and design more informed policies, doctrines, and systems. These improved policies, doctrines, and systems, according to an unconstrained vision, bring enlightenment and can unlock the inherent goodness in humans. Thus, redefining marriage from the definition that is as old as civilization itself to a new definition is a great advancement to unconstrained individuals. They are simply relying upon the latest thinking to unlock human potential and happiness. Those who oppose them are simply unwilling to incorporate new knowledge and understanding, and therefore, they cling to outdated ideas of faith, piety, and order.
Individuals fitting Sowell’s constrained vision hold that human nature is inherently self-interested and motived by base intentions that seek advantage over others. People in the constrained camp believe that no amount of scientific information or understanding is going to alter human character. In fact, the constrained look at scientific findings cited by the unconstrained, but interpret those findings as having no new revelations about the inherent character, i.e., soul, of humans. The constrained subscribe to an understanding that the base motives of human nature must be controlled and guided by timeless policies, doctrines, and systems that do not change, i.e., scripture, because human nature does not change.
The true divide that separated the POJ representatives and the Crestwood session was therefore not single issues such revised ordination standards, redefining marriage, or the role and authority of scripture. These were merely symptoms of the deeper divide between the constrained and unconstrained visions, which goes right to the heart of our understanding of Creation that in turn defines who we are, what we are, and who God is. Therefore, the starting point for how unconstrained and constrained individuals view the world is fundamentally different and, not surprisingly, different starting points lead individuals down dramatically different paths. These differences produce colliding worldviews. These are not just different ways of looking at issues, but fundamentally different ways of viewing life and the world in which we live.
Enlightenment vs. judgment
The first question posed to anyone wishing to join a PCUSA congregation is – stating it roughly – are we hopeless sinners or not? Those in the constrained camp of the PCUSA immediately say yes, while those counted among the PCUSA’s unconstrained cannot fully in their hearts voice affirmation. This divide is huge, and it very much separates the two sides of the negotiating table in the way presbytery representatives view the departing congregation. The unconstrained individual believes those in the departing congregation are simply unenlightened. If they would just open their eyes, they would see that enlightenment happens all around them. And, God doesn’t have to be absent from this view, because God can provide enlightenment through a new, better interpretation of scripture based on the latest scientific findings.
John Shuck in an article entitled “A Call to the Entire Church” (see page 4) that appeared in the Presbyterian Voices for Justice [Fall 2015] brilliantly articulated the unconstrained vision, as illustrated by the following quote from his article:
I think our theology is still in the 17th century while we live in the 21st century. The dogmas of our religious heritage do not meet the challenges of the world presented to us by science and by social science. All of the beliefs we are supposed to affirm such as Creation, Virgin Birth, Resurrection of the body of Jesus, miracles, original sin, atonement, heaven and hell, and a supernatural interventionist god called God are metaphors.” [emphasis added]
Shuck’s candid explanation of the unconstrained vision points to the trap concealed inside the “Big Tent” argument used by PCUSA loyalists. The “Big Tent” is a way of saying, “Let’s live together until you’re better enlightened.” Therefore, during Crestwood’s dismissal negotiations when the POJ representatives referred to members of the session as “brothers and sisters in Christ,” they weren’t being disingenuous. They were simply saying, “We’re all unenlightened in some way so let’s live together as brothers and sisters and see what accommodations you can make to our ‘religious heritage’ in order to ‘meet the challenges of the world presented to us by science and social science.’”
Constrained individuals are of course horrified at this worldview. For the constrained, who believe in the depravity of human nature, one word comes to mind – judgment. The constrained read the Old Testament and see God’s judgment on Israel for accommodating pagan worship, and they say, “We cannot enter the ‘Big Tent’.” To enter the “Big Tent” would be sin, and sin, of course, implies a final judgment. To be clear, the unconstrained don’t necessarily discount a final judgment, but they believe that an enlightened God will not judge sin harshly, and certainly a God of love will condemn no one for eternity. Therefore, the starting points for the unconstrained vs. constrained individuals are far apart, and the roads traveled diverge even farther apart, as the next step of this journey illustrates.
Solutions vs. wisdom
Both the unconstrained and constrained read from the same scripture. The unconstrained, affirming that humankind is basically good, believe that interpretation of scripture, not only can be, but should be informed by enlightenment. When an enlightened mind turns toward the interpretation of scripture, they bring with them an immediacy based upon what the most prolific thinkers of the day identify as needing reform. Typically, these are social, moral, or political constructs, but the environment is also included. Thus, problems need to be solved – discrimination, income disparities, denial of rights such as marriage for homosexuals, climate change, and the list goes on. Problems require solutions and the unconstrained set about to find the right mix of policies, laws, persuasion, and ultimately force to implement their solutions. The constrained see the same issues and problems, but interpret them as manifestations of the same root problem – sinfulness in a fallen world. As a consequence, the constrained believe there is a single solution to all problems, and that solution is Christ’s salvation. Therefore, they seek wisdom on how to best apply “the solution,” i.e., Christ’s salvation, to the multitude of problems that beset humanity. In a nutshell here is the divide: those seeking solutions want to change the system in order to bring about salvation, while those seeking wisdom want to change the heart to bring about salvation which in turn changes the system. These two approaches result in very different outcomes.
Despair vs. hope
The fact that PCUSA is demanding ever increasing dollar amounts from departing churches is indicative of a despair settling in at PCUSA offices in Louisville. Using the power of the Trust Clause fortified by church court decisions in the Tom and McGee cases, Louisville is determined to make churches think twice about leaving, and if they do take a step toward the door, the departing churches must be prepared to write a very large check. But why is this the case? Shouldn’t enlightened individuals seeking solutions to many of humankind’s deepest problems be happy that after decades of fighting with the constrained faction of the denomination, those folks are leaving? In a new “pure” PCUSA, the unconstrained will be able to conceive and implement their solutions without constant naysaying from the constrained faction. Further as a bonus, the denomination will have a multimillion dollar war chest to implement their solutions. In spite of all these advantages, the PCUSA has a smell of desperation, while departing churches appear to have a sense of hope. Why? The answer lies at the very core of the unconstrained vs. constrained visions.
A.W. Tozer, the great 20th Century theologian in The Pursuit of God wrote of a void in the human heart that only God can fill. The constrained, knowing humankind’s sinfulness welcome God’s filling and that brings them hope; they have an eternal view of any problem that confronts them. Judgment and wisdom are encompassed in this eternal view. The unconstrained attempt to fill the void in their hearts by applying solutions to important problems; they have a temporal view of problems – things need to be fixed now, not later. For the unconstrained, enlightenment and solutions are like two very powerful searchlights shining within the PCUSA, and when that light hits the constrained faction, an immediate pushback and reaction occurs. The strong reaction affirms to the unconstrained that they are on the right track; their solutions are good, and they in turn are good themselves. Otherwise, why would the unenlightened be reacting so strongly? And so, the unconstrained heart is filled, but this filling comes with a very high price tag. If the searchlights of enlightenment and solutions illuminate a constrained faction that is so small and feeble as to be nonexistent, then no significant pushback or reaction occurs, and the unconstrained heart is left wanting.
Dismissal settlements in the PCUSA are of course about money and the exercise of power, but at a deep level, the unconstrained know that without the constrained, they are unimportant; no one will really care about their solutions and their hearts will be empty; hence their despair. For if a “pure” unconstrained PCUSA changes the definition of marriage or even advocates for say polygamy, who cares? They are merely one of dozens of organizations advocating for the same issues. Therefore, in the long run, departing churches may threaten PCUSA’s existence, but in the short run, they call into question the PCUSA’s self worth. Louisville is determined this must stop. Gracious dismissal – if it ever existed – is out the window and departing churches are tied to the rack of the Trust Clause and stretched until they recant or pay. These are the actions of desperate individuals.
Though being stretched, hope abounds at departing congregations. Certainly, Crestwood is hopeful. The $1.5 million settlement is an unwarranted, burdensome demand placed on us by the POJ, but it is also a demonstration of our congregation’s faith, and we believe a witness. How much is our faith and fidelity to Holy Scripture worth to us? A fortune – all we have!
A message to departing churches and their AC’s
The session of departing churches must have a clear understanding of why they are leaving, what they hope to accomplish by leaving, and most importantly, know the nature of the PCUSA. It is a denomination wedded to advancing an unconstrained vision, and this doesn’t mean they are “bad” people. It does, however, mean that they are deceived about the most fundamental aspects of Creation, most importantly the true nature of humankind, and that the PCUSA elites, like Eve when confronted by the serpent, are trying to figure out what did God really say – if there is a God? Ironically, the unconstrained believe that their endeavors to usher in a more enlightened society based on contemporary thinking is brand new, when in fact it is very old!
Visions have consequences
Early in King Josiah’s reign (ca. 600 BC) enlightened individuals following the contemporary thinking their time traveled outside Jerusalem to the Valley of Hinnom to seek solutions to their problems. In this valley that was also called Topheth, they sacrificed their sons and daughters to ensure climate change for better crops and bring about – in their eyes – a better society. Then during renovation of the Temple, King Josiah found the Book of the Law. The timeless revealed truth of the Book showed him that the “enlightened” killing of children in the Valley of Hinnom was actually a sin and he stopped it. The contest between evolving enlightenment and unchanging revealed truth is as old as the Bible. Let us pray that God will send a King Josiah to the PCUSA. In the meantime, departing churches should remain confident that they are on the right side of the competing visions driving them to a new denomination. But those who depart must also be cautious that they do not in the end seek to create a better version of what they departed. In this regard, the Exodus account provides a powerful illustration.
Having fled Pharaoh, the Children of Israel camped “at Etham, on the the edge of the wilderness.” [Exodus 13:20]. Behind them that night was Pharaoh’s army, and in front was a star-filled desert sky full of hope, but also danger. The danger on this spiritual journey lies not from without, but from within, and that danger is pride. Departing churches must truly repent and seek to be ever diligent in being constrained by the Lord of Lord’s and the word he has given.
13 Comments. Leave new
Thank you for this article. The insights provided in it are very helpful in understanding the different philosophical worlds inhabited by the current PCUSA powers-that-be and by evangelical, Bible-believing Christians.
The article also brought to my mind the first profession of faith question in the old PCUS Book of Church Order: “Do you acknowledge yourself to be a sinner in the sight of God justly deserving his displeasure and without hope save in his sovereign mercy?” It didn’t take very long after the PCUS/UPCUSA merger for this question to disappear from the new PCUSA Book of Order, for reasons that your article makes abundantly clear.
I remember Crestwood Presbyterian Church quite well from the time I spent many years ago in (what was then called) Hanover Presbytery. You have been a faithful witness to the Gospel over the years, and I am confident that God will richly bless all of you in the years that lie ahead.
This is still the first membership vow required of those who would join a PCA congregation. When it was asked of me earlier this year, I answered the affirmative without hesitation.
For those who “cannot fully in their hearts voice affirmation” to this vow, I have to wonder from what, exactly, they believe it is that Jesus Christ has saved them, if they profess Him to be their Lord and Savior. (The second membership vow, for reference, is: “Do you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and Savior of sinners, and do you receive and rest upon Him alone for salvation as He is offered in the Gospel?”)
“Do you acknowledge yourself to be a sinner in the sight of God justly deserving his displeasure and without hope save in his sovereign mercy?” What an honest and wonderful question. It should still be asked….
Convert, or pay the jizyah. At least the PC(USA) hasn’t yet resorted to adding the third alternative of death.
:/
Does history have a habit of repeating itself? Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin, Martin Luther… 16th Century. Protestant Reformation. Could this be an Evangelical Reformation? Praise be to God.
We at First Presbyterian, Fort Myers paid $500,000 to be dismissed this past January, and our congregation numbers just under 200. But as one of my congregants so aptly phrased it, “I would rather be on the giving than the receiving end of that payment.” It will mean a couple of difficult years for us financially. But we will reap the reward for decades to come, should our Lord tarry.
This is only going to get worse, the louisville sluggers at their finest with their budding real estate business.
The millions ($) lining PCUSA coffers from settlements will never be enough.
There’s a defining difference between one who earns income and faithfully tithes over an adult lifetime and one who has a windfall settlement dropped in his lap. The first knows how to create economic value and give generously; the second knows neither.
Neither Rome nor a Presbyterian church was built in a day. These seven-figure properties were constructed by faithful servants over decades; it will not take that long to squander the ransom.
It is not so much a constrained vs. unconstrained philosophical outlook that impacts the church dismissal process but the soft-totalitarianism inherent in all things PCUSA. Or what I call corporate elitism. That the PCUSA is sole repository of all things “Presbyterian” or “reformed”. That they themselves can redefine human relationships and constructs to their will. That all “truth” resides in their halls of academia and institutional structures. Departures from their plantations or theological ghettos are to be punished and those who advocate such, disenfranchised or persecuted. We all have seen this movie before.
The philosophical and intellectual underpinnings of the PCUSA is not found in anything of historic or orthodox Christian theology but in the dialectics of Hegel, societal revolutionary thought of Alanski and others. That’s their playbook.
There is both good and bad news here. The good in that the structure and plumping of the PCUSA is in a death spiral and institutional collapse. Money or property extorted will not change that narrative. The bad is that the philosophical underpinnings of organizations like the PCUSA in the secular-political Left will carry on their quest to remove faith from the public square and seek to use the vehicles of law and policy to silence Christians and persecute those who do not adopt their unconstrained world view. As example, ask any PCUSA operative if those who deny or question climate change orthodoxy should be charged with a crime and put in jail. You will get your response.
Excellent response, Peter. Sad but excellent and well written. Thank you and pray for those of us who are seeking dismissal.
These things go both ways: http://www.news-leader.com/story/life/faith/2016/03/26/new-church-bursts-into-life/82181284/
We are better to focus on moving forward, instead of just looking back and complaining and putting labels on others.
http://www.news-leader.com/story/life/faith/2016/03/26/new-church-bursts-into-life/82181284/
Unconstrained versus Constrained, two sides of the same coin though neither will acknowledge much less see in themselves. The Unconstrained, a group whose moral compass has been struck by a ball ping hammer with true north never to be found again. The Constrained, a group who went through church life resembling Rip Van Winkle. They awaken over LGBT matters yet turn a blind eye and deaf ear to PCUSA’s position on abortion. Are we really surprised PCUSA has found herself where she does when it has no qualms in the matter of the unborn, LGBT was predictable, but I digress.
These two sides will never co-exist, the divide is too great and the discourse far too destructive on both sides of the aisle. The Unconstrained are wrong in their LBGT stance because it cannot rise to the Biblical standard of marriage, period, pure and simple. LGBT proponents will tell you the choice is truly not a choice but rather nature. Interesting as I have yet to meet anyone who does not have some genetic chunk in their armor. Our inability to minister to the LGBT community should not result in its condoning, that is simply magical thinking but then again, the Unconstrained have a propensity to engage in such.
The Constrained, what can one say about this group. You knew, or at least your clergy knew, of the Trust clause of PCUSA and rather than doing the honorable, to simply walk away, you have chosen to pursue litigation, mediation and the likes. You knew what blinded, if you truly believe your position to be righteous then start anew. Was always taught that ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’.
Gracious separation has been anything but that. Look at the words we use ‘faithful remnant’, what does that make the dissenting voices, ‘unfaithful remnant’. I can appreciate a presbytery enacting a fee to separate given the Trust clause. However, the wheels begin to fall off when associating with a like Reformed Body is prescribed. With all due respect, it is none of the presbytery’s business who the ‘unfaithdul remnant’ cast their lot with. Talk about arrogance on the part of PCUSA leadership and they wonder why membership and monies continue to shrink, you have done it to yourselves.
The real losers in this divide are those PCUSA congregations that are too small, too poor to disaffiliate and they are no longer at home. They are caught ‘between a rock and a hard place’, no where to turn as PCUSA has left them and could probably care less as the Unconstrained have the disdain for the Contrained as the Constrained has for them.
Do I have any solution? No, the damage is done and the vilification of one another too deep. Should we, the body of Christ, have a voice in societal matters? Yes and we do when we faithfully proclaim the gospel and resist the temptation of rendering ourselves to petri dishes of social experimentation.
Steven
Thank you for your leadership and faithfulness to the Lord!