PCUSA: Goodbye to all that

My church and I have joined the Midwest Presbytery of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC). After a long, divisive, frustrating struggle with a stiff-necked and ungracious Administrative Commission (AC), we (the session) finally said "enough!". We scheduled an information meeting and vote without the AC's permission.

More than 300 of 550 active members showed up last Sunday to vote on disaffiliation from the PCUSA. The vote was 270 to leave and 36 to stay. In addition to immediate disaffiliation, members voted to seek membership in the EPC and to retain our pastors, session, and Board of Deacons. Additional details are available at the Layman Online.

We still have the presbytery's inevitable claim of an alleged trust in our property to deal with. We continue to hope that our dissenting members will choose to stay in their church family rather than cast themselves adrift in the PCUSA.

In a strange way, I am grateful to that unkind and unreliable AC. If they had shown some consideration for our church, we might still be trapped in their interminable process - and the PCUSA. Is this a case of God intending their evil for our good? I can't say for sure, but as a new member of the EPC, I can say it's a real possibility.

PCUSA: Obfuscating the Bible

As an academic (Computer Information Systems), I usually appreciate other academics' creativity. I enjoy novel ways of thinking that lead to interesting and maybe useful results. But not when the academic is trying to make the Bible hard to understand.

The utterings of theologians and Bible scholars must be approached with caution and often taken with pounds - not grains - of salt. A professor doesn't get tenure by writing "Calvin was right." No, getting tenure generally requires the production of ever more novel and esoteric ideas. This is especially true when grants are involved. That's fine in most fields but not when explaining God and his Word.

I am not a theologian or a Bible scholar (just a lay student of the Bible), so I don't keep up with what is all the rage in this global academic village. But as a Presbyterian, I sometimes read about what Presbyterian scholars are up to. "No good" is often an accurate summary. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the current debate over homosexual practice.

In the interest of full disclosure, I confess I often wish God would lighten up a little. I've worked with and been friends with homosexuals most of my adult life. I've worked in college, community, and summer stock theater. (Accuse me of stereotypes if you will, but it is what it is.) I lived at a YMCA in New York for a while - not "the" YMCA of Village People fame - but not much different. I team taught an adult Bible study on homosexuality with a friend who was trying to escape "the life". (He has since quit trying, but I still greet him as a beloved brother whenever I see him.)

It grieves me that as a man married to a woman I can enjoy sexual intimacy within Biblical bounds but these friends and colleagues can't. God, however, didn't ask my opinion. He sets his standards and I can't change them. Neither can I ignore them or urge other Christians to. Theologians and Bible scholars shouldn't either, but too many do.

The PUP report, for example, contained the astonishing assertion that the Bible’s teaching on same-gender sexuality is too “diverse, subtle, and complex” to make any determination of what it actually says. Had they asked, I would have referred them to the excellent Scripture and Homosexuality by Dr. Marion L. Soards, a professor at the very liberal Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary. Unlike some of his colleagues he is indeed able to read and understand what the Bible says. (My friend and I used Dr. Soards' book and How Will I Tell My Mother? as resources for the class.)

But there are plenty of Presbyterian academics who want us to believe that the Bible was written for intellectuals with advanced degrees. To these exalted few, we poor yokels in the pews are unable to grasp what the plain text means without their intervention. Strangely enough, what they present is often an obfuscation* of what the Bible says, not a clarification. (I have written before about the PCUSA's penchant for word games.)

Such were the speakers at the recent Covenant Network victory celebration. Walter Brueggeman and Stacy Johnson gave attendees what they wanted hear - strained exegesis that they can use to claim that the Bible says what they wish it said. James Berkley (the Berkley Blog, formerly the Institute for Religion and Democracy) has written in the Layman Online about the talks by Breuggeman and Johnson.

Presbyterians who want to know what a faithful academic has to say about the Bible would be better served reading J. Gresham Machen, Francis Schaeffer, or the aforementioned Dr. Soards.

* Obfuscate: To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand: "A great effort was made . . . to obscure or obfuscate the truth" (Robert Conquest).

PCUSA: The Sundquist disaster

The Sundquist decision is reminiscent of Roe v. Wade. In that case, an activist Supreme Court searched the Constitution high and low to find a hook on which to hang its desired result. Through some of the most tortured logic since the Dred Scott case, the Court found the right to an abortion tucked away in the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Likewise, the GAPJC discovered powers invested in the presbyteries that until now have lain completely hidden in the Book of Order, awaiting discovery by a greedy and desperate bureaucracy.

The really alarming thing about the Sundquist decision is the practical reality of how churches wishing to escape the clutches of the PC(USA) might initiate the process. The session can't ask the congregation what they think. The session can't vote to ask the presbytery to launch their intrusion into the life of the congregation. There seems to be no mechanism to compel the presbytery to take action, so particular churches must beg the presbytery to act. They are entirely at the mercy of the presbyteries who have been granted authority to lord it over them like the Gentile kings and call themselves "Benefactors".

It seems the denomination's dreams of converting presbyteries into bishops (cf. the Louisville Papers) is coming closer to fruition. With this decision in hand, it will be much easier to convince a judge that a presbytery is not a body governed by representatives of local churches, but is in fact a powerful hierarch with ruling authority over those churches.

One has to wonder if the the part of this decision that limits expressions of conscience to speech only (no action permitted) will apply to the broad right to scruple. If one had any confidence in the integrity of the GAPJC, one would assume that the first case involving a candidate scrupling G-6.0106b would result in the candidate being told "You can verbally disagree with the standard, but you can take no action that would violate it." Odds, anyone?

Frankly, this comes as no surprise. Those of us who have studied the Supreme Court over the years have witnessed its growing tendency to act as though the Constitution means whatever the Justices say it means. This seems to be a common weakness in constitutional systems of government: Where the legislative body is either weak or complacent, the highest court is free to interpret the constitution any way it pleases. So it is with the PC(USA). Perhaps the GAPJC took its lead from the 218th GA's authoritative interpretations that declare meanings not found in the actual words of the Book of Order.

Discipline in the PCUSA: An undisciplined process

When our session announced a year a go that we believed God was calling our church out of the PCUSA into the EPC, it galvanized a small opposition group into action. Initially, they sent a letter to our congregation that listed their objections to the EPC. Whether by design or honest mistake, the letter contained many misleading and inaccurate statements about the EPC and its beliefs and policies. After that, the group went underground, refusing many invitations to discuss their concerns with the session, rebuffing several efforts at reconciliation, and never publicly giving any reason to remain in the PCUSA.

But underground didn't mean inactive. Instead of addressing the issues, they mounted a full-scale assault on both of our pastors, several session members, a Sunday School teacher, and even the church organist. Part of the strategy was to file complaints against these people with a willing and compliant presbytery. On October 9, I received a letter from the moderator of an investigating committee along with copies of two complaints. These complaints alleged that I had intimidated an anonymous party and that I had failed to show this unnamed person (or perhaps another) proper respect. The alleged offenses seem to have taken place at a congregational feedback meeting held in August, 2007, so the time line went something like this:

• August, 2007 - alleged offenses in a public meeting with a hundred or so witnesses


• November, 2007 - session (including this curmudgeon) announces unanimous support for move to EPC


• February, 2008 - complaints filed with presbytery


• October, 2008 - notice of complaints and investigation sent to alleged offenders

My initial reaction was to cut the complaints up into little bits and send them back to the Investigating Committee. Instead, I explained why I would not be participating in their broken process. This was my reply:

October 13, 2008

Dear Moderator ---;

I am writing in response to your letter dated October 8, 2008 concerning two complaints against me filed with the Presbytery of Wabash Valley. My purpose is not to respond to the accusations but to bring to your attention violations of both the Bible and the Book of Order.

According to D-1.0103, [t]he traditional biblical obligation to conciliate, mediate, and adjust differences without strife is not diminished by these Rules of Discipline. Although the Rules of Discipline describe the way in which judicial process within the church, when necessary, shall be conducted, it is not their intent or purpose to encourage judicial process of any kind or to make it more expensive or difficult. The biblical duty of church people to “come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are on the way to court . . .” (Matthew 5:25) is not abated or diminished. It remains the duty of every church member to try (prayerfully and seriously) to bring about an adjustment or settlement of the quarrel, complaint, delinquency, or irregularity asserted, and to avoid formal proceedings under the Rules of Discipline unless, after prayerful deliberation, they are determined to be necessary to preserve the purity and purposes of the church. [emphasis added]

The meetings described in the two complaints took place more than a year ago. At no time in the intervening months has any member of our church fulfilled his or her “duty to try … to bring about an adjustment or settlement.” Had my accuser(s) honored this simple obligation, a five minute conversation would have ensued. I would have clarified my words or actions which were never meant to disrespect or intimidate anyone and I would have sincerely apologized for any offense given, however unintentionally. This did not happen, however, and any opportunity to bring about a resolution has been lost.

By shielding the identity of my accuser(s), the IC [investigating committee] has “abated”, “diminished” and indeed eradicated any possibility of my “coming to terms quickly” with my unknown accuser(s). By not admonishing my accuser(s) to be obedient to the Bible and the Book of Order and by pursuing these complaints in this manner, the IC is actively impeding any effort to bring about a resolution consistent with the principles that bind us as Christians and as Presbyterians. All that now remains are the “formal proceedings” that we are directed by the Book of Order to avoid. I find it particularly shameful and ironic that while I may have unwittingly created the appearance of disrespect or intimidation, this deliberate circumvention of Biblical and Presbyterian procedures can have no other purpose than to willfully disrespect and attempt to intimidate me.

I cannot in good conscience be a party to this un-Biblical and unlawful process. This letter concludes my participation in the IC’s investigation. I request that you include this letter in the official record of the investigation, lest anyone mistakenly believe that my silence bespeaks either an admission of guilt or a lack of due regard for the process the Bible and the Book of Order both prescribe. I assure you that, in choosing this course of action, I do not stand on any “right to remain silent” conferred by the Book of Order. Rather I stand on the right conferred by Christ himself to stand silent in the face of malicious accusations.

Sincerely,

I copied the Interim Executive Presbyter and the presbytery's Stated Clerk. As expected, I have received no further communication. My experience with our presbytery has convinced me that the Bible and the Book of Order are little more than convenient sources of quotes. They offer no roadblocks to the pursuit of power and property that drives the presbytery and its local allies.

Add this to my list of reasons to leave the PCUSA and reasons not to stay. Of course, if this nonsense actually went to a trial (without my participation, of course), they would probably kick me out of the PCUSA. Oh, darn.

Women in the EPC: "Second-class citizens"?

This, of course, is the interpretation PC(USA) spin doctors put on the EPC's local option regarding the ordination of women. With our church growing impatient with the PC(USA) and its deep dive into cultural accomodation, we are looking very hard at the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC). Ours is a church where more than a third of the elders are women and our Associate Pastor is a woman. As a member of the session, I've given this matter a lot of thought and study.

Peace, unity, and purity (the real deal)

Rev. Dr. Jeff Jeremiah, Stated Clerk of the EPC, spoke to our congregation last year. (The discernment process has been interminable.) He mentioned that the PC(USA) and EPC cultures were different and that they often used the same words with different meanings. He noted that one difference in culture evident to outside observers is the degree of trust and real fellowship that seem to prevail within the EPC compared with the PC(USA).

One PC(USA) pastor who attended the EPC's General Assembly in June last year described his experience this way:

The time at the GA was encouraging, energizing, hopeful and so Christ centered that there was no mistaking why the church had gathered to do business - to best be Christ's church for God's glory! I was really taken with ... the spirit of grace and humility exhibited by the EPC folks.

This description stands in sharp contrast to the usual wrangling and in-fighting exhibited at a PC(USA) General Assembly. There were no demonstrations and counter-demonstrations, no staged walk-outs, no horse-trading and back-room deals, and no politically-charged circus atmosphere. Instead, there was peace and unity.

Dr. Jeremiah attributed this culture to the EPC's focus on Christ and to the absence of doctrinal warfare. The EPC knows what it believes and requires officers to share its core beliefs. They have not elevated human conscience above the essential tenets of Reformed Christian orthodoxy as the PC(USA) has. Neither has the EPC elevated the ordination of women to similar status.

Prohibiting the ordination of women

Prior to 1930, the mainline Presbyterian denominations did not ordain women. The ordination of women to the office of elder was introduced into the original PCUSA in that year. The ordination of women as ministers of Word and Sacrament came to the old PCUSA in 1956 and to the UPCUSA and via the PCUSA's merger with the UPNA in 1958. The PCUS followed in 1964. Now, section G-6.0105 of the PC(USA) Book of Order simply states that "Both men and women shall be eligible to hold church offices".

When it comes to ordaining women, the greatest difference between the PC(USA) and the EPC is this: The PC(USA) has a history of prohibiting the ordination of women to any office. The EPC has no such history and has never had an institutional prohibition against the ordination of women. For that simple reason, the EPC has never had to alter its Book of Order to correct its former position. Having never barred the ordination of women, the EPC has no need to explicity authorize or require it.

But, in typical fashion, the PC(USA) treated the ordination of women as both an ecclesiastical issue and a political one. Celebrating the ordination of women was transformed into demanding the ordination of women. Not satisfied with the ecclesiastal decision to allow and even encourage the ordination or women, the PC(USA) embraced a political mechanism - affirmative action - to require it. While there are no formal quotas and no set-asides, the direction and intent are clear. No dissent is allowed, no excuses are accepted.

There's just one teeny little problem with this politicized approach. It either (1) puts God in a box or (2) denies his sovereignty. Either the PC(USA) believes that (1) there can be no church where God chooses to call only men to leadership or (2) people, not God, do the calling. My opinion is that the latter is more akin to the way our denomination operates.

Allowing the ordination of women

So which denomination has it right? Is it the PC(USA) with its demands for gender equality and proportional representation? Or is it the EPC with a policy that simply says, "let God decide whom to call"?

Is life perfect for women called to leadership in the EPC? No. The Midwest Presbytery of the EPC has never ordained a woman to the office of teaching elder. But there is reason to hope that an ordained woman from the PC(USA) seeking ordination in the Midwest Presbytery would find

• confirmation that her call was to God's ministry, not to the PC(USA)'s alone


• the decision to ordain would be made by a body that has a culture of seeking God's will in a spirit of fellowship and doctrinal unity


• that body would be free to enact its decision without fear of reprisal.

Such cannot be said of the PCUSA with its political culture and its delusions of being the "true church".

PCUSA: Why not stay?

As my church struggles through an endless process of discernment, yoked to an Administrative Commission that seems dedicated to stalling and dividing us, I decided I needed a clear answer to the question "what harm is there in staying in the PCUSA?" This is what I will tell anyone who asks:

Jesus had a special warning for those who lead “these little ones astray”. Our children are watching us. The 218th General Assembly took deliberate action to discard the Bible’s clear and consistent condemnation of homosexuality. It intentionally bypassed the Book of Order and gave presbyteries permission to ordain practicing homosexuals. Our denomination has approved what the Bible condemns. By remaining a part of the PCUSA, we are leading our little ones astray.

The PCUSA is officially “neutral” on the matter of abortion, neither condoning nor condemning it. (The 217th General Assembly did approve a statement that opposes “partial-birth” abortions.) But the PCUSA has financially supported the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC), a lobbying organization that opposes all restrictions on abortion. It has gone to court to oppose the federal ban on partial-birth abortions. The PCUSA went so far as to give the RCRC a “partnership in mission” award. By remaining a part of the PCUSA, we too partner with the abortion advocates.

The mainline Presbyterian church has been embroiled in a clash of world views since May 1, 1922, when Harry Emerson Fosdick, a liberal Baptist preacher, gave a sermon at First Presbyterian Church in New York entitled “Shall the Fundamentalists Win?” The “fundamentalists” he opposed were Presbyterians who believed in (1) the inerrancy of the Scriptures, (2) the virgin birth and the deity of Jesus, (3) the doctrine of substitutionary atonement by God's grace and through human faith, (4) the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and (5) the authenticity of Christ's miracles. Fosdick rejected those doctrines and laid out the principles of modern “progressive” Christianity that continue to divide the PUCSA. By remaining part of the PCUSA, we continue to waste resources opposing an enemy we have allowed to thrive in our midst.

Throughout its history, the Presbyterian church has declared what it believes. Sometimes this declaration has been in the form of a confession such as the Scots’ Confession or the Westminster Confession of Faith. The Apostles’ Creed is a similar statement of faith. Most Presbyterian denominations – the Presbyterian Church in America, the Evangelical Presbyterian, and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, for example – have summarized their beliefs in a handful of “essential tenets”. In fact, the fundamentals Fosdick opposed were the essential tenets of the Presbyterian church in 1910. These “essentials” are the core, non-negotiable principles that define what it means to be a Christian. The PCUSA no longer clearly states what its bedrock beliefs are. Where nothing is declared non-negotiable, everything is negotiable. By remaining part of the PCUSA, we agree that everything is negotiable.

The Presbyterian church has always respected individual conscience. As early as 1729, the Presbyterian church in the American colonies adopted measures that protected the right of the individual to disagree with the church in some areas. However, the right to declare a conscientious objection (called a “scruple”) did not extend to the core beliefs of the Christian faith. After the 218th General Assembly, the PCUSA declared that “the scrupling of either belief or practice is now allowed.” There is no longer any standard of belief or practice that presbyteries cannot waive when a candidate for ordination declares a “scruple”. By remaining part of the PCUSA, we agree that standards are whatever a presbytery and candidate agree they are.

According the Book of Order, “ordination for the office of minister of the Word and Sacrament is an act of the whole church carried out by the presbytery, setting apart a person to the ministry of the Word and Sacrament.” When a presbytery ordains a minister contrary to Scripture, every church and every member participates in that act. When a presbytery allows the candidate to “scruple” a belief or practice, every church and every member consents to that presbytery’s decision. By remaining part of the PCUSA, we join in the ordination of ministers whose beliefs and practices are unknown to us.

PCUSA: Why I want out

It seems to me that God tolerates institutional divisions in the church (otherwise known as denominations) for two possible reasons:

1. Doctrinal unity. None of us understands God’s theology. We struggle to grasp the principles that underlie his redemptive plan and our place in it, but we come to different understandings. Rather than watch us waste time endlessly debating our differences, God graciously allows us to join together with like-minded believers. This enables us to teach one another, admonish one another, encourage one another, hold one another accountable, and grow in faith together as we believe Scripture leads us.

2. Working together. Denominations provide a way for roughly a billion Christians to subdivide into smaller and smaller groups yet remain in fellowship with a larger body. This enables us to carry out our collective mission in ways that single churches or even churches in a single community might be unable to do.

The PCUSA fails on both counts.

1. There is no doctrinal unity in the PCUSA. We have no non-negotiables (sometimes called "essential tenets") in the PCUSA. Our denomination gags on the idea of non-negotiables because to identify them would bring about the horrors of "subscriptionism" - we might require officers of the church to "subscribe" to the beliefs that are embodied in the essentials. This, in turn, would violate the consciences of candidates who don't hold those beliefs.

This claim, of course, is a red herring. Nobody would be required to subscribe to anything. Any candidate for any office is always free to believe anything he or she wishes. The church would simply say to some candidates, "we respect your right to hold to your beliefs and we certainly don't want you to change them in order to get a job. We just can't give you this job."

In a denomination that has made individual conscience its new god, subscriptionism is the greatest heresy. Oh, wait; the PCUSA isn't sure there is such a thing as heresy any more. OK, in the PCUSA, subscriptionism is just a Really Bad Thing.

Where there are no non-negotiables, everything is negotiable.

2. As for working together, simply consider the resources God has given us to proclaim and win souls for his kingdom that we in the PCUSA have squandered fighting over number 1. Some of us try to achieve doctrinal unity while others try to convince us that doctrinal unity doesn't matter. Either way, we don't work together nearly as well as we could if we had number 1.

We are, as noted by J. Gresham Machen and Parker Williamson nearly a century apart, two different faiths occupying one institution. One of those competing faiths has captured the institutional apparatus and now - proudly, vindictively, greedily, deceptively - tries to hold the other in chains. It is not altogether surprising that those who worship the god of conscience resolutely refuse to honor the consciences of those who can no longer stomach the PCUSA's apostasy.

Before long, I will "officially" leave the PCUSA - with or without my church - because this earthly institution has departed from the body of Christ. The reality is that leaving the PCUSA is a mere formality because the PCUSA has already left me.

PCUSA: "Transformative power"

Once again, the commissioners to the General Assembly of the PC(USA) have elected a moderator who is opposed to the denomination's constitution. And once again the selection will encourage continuation of the progressives' endless struggle to sever ordination standards from their Biblical foundations.

The new moderator, Bruce Reyes-Chow is being hailed as some sort of hip, connected electronic pastor, in part because he blogs. Former moderator Rick Ufford-Chase actually set the precedent several years ago. I applaud this trend because sometimes the blogging wolves forget to don their sheep's clothing.

U-C, for example, revealed in his blog that he doesn't seem to know much about Jesus. According U-C, Jesus is nothing more than a "radical" solution to the suffering that exists in this world. Crucifixion? Atoning sacrifice? Fully God, fully human? Salvation? Justification? A mansion in his Father's house? Nope. Just a temporal fix for the human physical condition.

Reyes-Chow - according to the blogosphere - seems to have an equally truncated understanding of who Jesus is and what he accomplished. I have spent some time searching his and other blogs for R-C's understanding of Jesus. Probably the most succinct answer I found was his response to Presbyweb's simple question "What is the gospel?

R-C's answer was "The gospel is the Christ-centered reality of being a presence of peace in a time of anxiety." The heart of the gospel seems not to be found in Christ's death and resurrection or in his deity or in reconciliation with God the Father or in salvation. No, R-C began his answer to "what is the gospel?" with Luke 8:24-25: The disciples went and woke him, saying, "Master, Master, we're going to drown!" He got up and rebuked the wind and the raging waters; the storm subsided, and all was calm. "Where is your faith?" he asked his disciples.

R-C - who obviously has the heart of a peacemaker - does appreciate the "transformative power of Christ." No problem there. But he and other progressives who see in Jesus little more than an answer to today's woes have a gaping hole in their theology. Jesus was holy and sinless. He calls us to be holy and sinless. The "transformative power of Christ" is his Holy Spirit indwelling us and enabling us to have hope for a sinless life when we trust in the Spirit to deliver us from temptation to sin.

Jesus does not empower us to live in sin. So my question to the progressives is this: If you believe in the "transformative power of Christ", why don't you believe that very power can deliver a homosexual person from behavior that the Bible condemns?

Never mind; I know the answer. The Bible doesn't mean what it says; it means what progressives believe it would say if only God were as progressive as they. These folks remind me of the bumbling Nazis in the first and third Indiana Jones movies who thought they could harness God's power (i.e. the Ark and Holy Grail, respectively) to propel their own earthly ends. Likewise, progressives like U-C and R-C seem to think they can harness the "transformative power of Christ" to bring about their social objectives.

That's one reason the dear old PC(USA) lost more than 57,000 members last year.

PCUSA: The Trinity - lost in the FOG?

The authors of the FOG Foundations Draft 5 have some work to do on their "Core Theological Commitments". The triune God of the Bible is MIA.

Not surprisingly (this being the PCUSA), they couldn't seem to bring themselves to mention "God the Father". Indeed, the word "father" appears only twice in this theological "core", both in scripture passages that do not name God so much as refer to him:

• "Father of us all" (Ephesians 4:6)
• as part of the church's call to be "Christ's faithful evangelist", to baptize "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"

Thankfully, they didn't choose a politically correct, gender-sanitized paraphrase, or even those references wouldn't appear.

In section 1.01 God's Activity, this inability (or unwillingness) to deal with the essential relationship between God the Father and God the Son leads to a bit of uncertainty about the Trinity itself, described in Jim Berkley's blog. As he noted, Jesus (section 1.0102) and the Holy Spirit (1.0103) seem to be separate entities, apart from God (1.0101).

The confusion is evident in the statement that the God of section 1.0101 (not the Jesus of section 1.0102) created the heavens and the earth. The New Testament teaches that the Jesus of section 1.0102 was the member of the Trinity who did the creating described in the Old Testament: "by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth". (Colossians 1:16). So who is the God of section 1.0101?

Berkley offers the opinion that section 1.01 presents - not a Reformed understanding of the Trinity - but the heresy of Modalism. Modalism would answer the question this way: The Old Testament manifestation of God (1.0101) created the universe. Later, this same single person (not a member of the Trinity) manifested himself as Jesus Christ (1.0102) and was credited by Paul for the creation he accomplished in his earlier manifestation.

Further, the writers don't seem to know - or be willing to proclaim - some important truths about Jesus. For example, section 1.0102 Jesus Christ creates the impression that he did not exist before his incarnation in human form. Nor does it mention that he is the Son of God, of one substance with the Father. Both of these lapses point to Modalism.

As Berkley observed, this is not a good start. It could be that the committee hurried over the theological foundation in order to get on with the fun business of writing a new constitution - and meeting an absurd deadline. A lot more is liable to be lost in the rush to have a new FOG ready for the next GA 19 short months from now.

PCUSA: Chains and things

These chains that bind me
I can't lose, I can't lose these chains and things

These lyrics by blues great B.B. King and Dave Clark popped into my mind as I thought about what might bind a congregation to the PCUSA. Despite all the huffing and puffing by the TTF, I can find nothing biblical standing in the way of a local church that discerns unbelief permeating the denomination and chooses to no longer be yoked together with unbelievers.

So why would a Bible-believing church stay? There are lots of reasons, of course - "love" of the PCUSA, inertia, indifference, fear, ignorance and no doubt others. Most powerful, I think, are these chains and things.

OUR CHAINS

Our chains are good principles gone bad, essential characteristics of our denomination that once ennobled us but have now been corrupted: connectionalism and unity.

Connectionalism

The purported "connection" among members of the PCUSA - once based on shared belief - has become nothing but a constitutional artifact, mere words of men to which we assented years ago. Whatever doctrine, whatever essential tenets, whatever Reformed distinctives that once joined us have all been eroded and washed away.

Decades of humanism have slowly pushed the PCUSA right off its biblical and confessional foundation. In the face of such complete polarization and widespread abandonment of shared faith, any claim of meaningful connectedness is just hollow rhetoric.

Unity

The PUP report's brand of "unity", masquerading as oneness in Christ, is simply membership in a particular organization. Similar unity exists among Elks, UAW members, and the Flat Earth Society. It is the false invocation of Christian unity that allowed the TTF make this preposterous threat:

Christians cannot even entertain the notion of severing their ties with sisters and brothers in Christ without also placing themselves in severe jeopardy of being severed from Christ himself. (page 4)

This is theological baloney, of course, having no other purpose than to bolster the self-serving claim that to depart the PCUSA is to depart the Body of Christ. It seeks only to bind us with chains, not to unite us in a common identity in Christ.

OUR THINGS

The most pervasive thing binding us is property. It binds us through an obsolete and baseless trust clause. The trust clause is obsolete because the connections that once sustained it have long since been severed. It is baseless because the unity of shared faith and mission that once justified it is shattered. Is it even a "trust" clause in any meaningful sense of the word? Not if we examine the meaning of "trust":

• "reliance on the integrity, strength, ability, surety, etc., of a person or thing; confidence"
• "a fiduciary relationship in which one person (the trustee) holds the title to property (the trust estate or trust property) for the benefit of another (the beneficiary). " (source: dictionary.com)
  

The second, legal definition derives from the presence of a relationship based on the first meaning. But does such a relationship exist throughout the PCUSA? Obviously not:

• Presbyteries, not trusting the outcome of the AI, are ensuring that ordination standards will be maintained within their jurisdiction.
• Churches, not trusting the bureaucrats at some or all levels, are withholding or redirecting per capita assessments.
• Individuals and churches, not trusting the denomination's stewardship, have made most gifts unrestricted where in the past the majority were unrestricted.
• Membership continues its downward spiral as other Presbyterian denominations grow
  

The connections are broken; unity is a ruse; the trust is gone. All that remains is a legal provision that the Stated Clerk and his minions want desperately to apply in civil courts.

Should a departing church contest the denomination's claim? Yes, unequivocally. Our buildings, for the most part, are the product of faithful Christians who brought their tithes and offerings, their time and effort, their gifts and talents to serve God. They were not directed by the Bible or by the Holy Spirit to bring them to enrich the PCUSA.

No, they brought them to enrich God's kingdom on earth by facilitating Christ's mission on earth. A church, convinced that the PCUSA has turned away from God's kingdom and Christ's mission, should not easily surrender the product of such faith and obedience. Members of such a church should not consider themselves bound by a clause that has lost its ethical and theological base.

Despite the Stated Clerk's overbearing efforts to inject himself into the process, the dispute is between a departing church and the presbytery. In my mind, the only question is, how should a church engage the presbytery?

Toby Brown offers some wise insight into this question. There are two playbooks, he writes, that might be used, the Mammon playbook and the Jesus playbook. It seems to me the Stated Clerk has picked the Mammon playbook. As Peggy Hedden so aptly described it, what's missing from Kirkpatrick's playbook is "something of Jesus Christ".

A departing church should assume that the presbytery is more interested in serving Jesus than Mammon and follow the Jesus playbook. If the presbytery decides to follow the Stated Clerk's example and play by Mammon's book, the church can justly and - righteously - oppose Mammon in whatever venue his servants choose.

Ultimately, of course, a departing church should be like Jesus, prepared and willing to lose. The chains - connectionalism and unity - are just an illusion; they no longer bind us. Our commitment to serve Jesus in whatever place he calls us - our building, a high school gym, a parking lot, will free us from our things.

That's how we can lose these chains and things.

PCUSA Realty Inc. Clifton Kirkpatrick, Broker

Is the Stated Clerk secretly studying for his real estate brokerage license?

In a story on the ACSWP meeting, James Berkley of the IRD mentioned seeing an advance copy of the Stated Clerk's annual questionnaire to clerks of session:

The questionnaire probes extensively into financial matters, such as detailed questions about loans, investments, plans to expand or renovate facilities, bequests, and value of planned giving receipts and gifts from estates. Thirteen of the fifteen questions deal with such matters.

Berkley observed dryly that "it just seems a little worrisome to have the Stated Clerk so very interested in the specifics of congregational assets". Worrisome, yes. Surprising, hardly. This Stated Clerk seems to have focused on little but property lately. Consider:

• His long history of ignoring other constitutional issues such as ordaining bodies ignoring ordination standards
• His legal beagles' notorious secret strategies (here and here) for harassing churches and seizing their assets
• His AO #19 asserting his claims to PCUSA ownership of property
• His letter to synods and presbyteries demanding maximum financial benefit from departing congregations
• His cold indifference to the pain he and the 217th GA have caused among conservative and evangelical Presbyterians

It's hard not to come to an unwelcome and disturbing conclusion: Given the train wreck the PCUSA has been on his watch, this greedy approach to "connectionalism" might be easily understood. Kirkpatrick has a cushy job with a six-figure salary to protect. He journeys to far-flung destinations to schmooze with his left-wing political allies in the WCC and WARC.

Yet he is faced with falling membership and income and the concomitant shrinking budget. Per capita income this year is showing the effect. The total from the presbyteries' per capita is short $430,000. The per capita amount is already scheduled to go up next year. But will that produce an increase in the amount of cash flowing into Louisville's depleted coffers?

Some churches are simply leaving; more churches will withhold or redirect their per capita payments; defiant presbyteries may remit even less of what they have available. An increase in the per capita amount demanded may yield a higher budget total, but the actual income will probably shrink even more. What to do?

Is this aggressive pursuit of property Kirkpatrick's way of salvaging some of the tribute the presbyteries are compelled to pay to Louisville? Does he figure that income from seizing and liquidating the assets of departing congregations would make it easier for him to squeeze the presbyteries? Is he planning to go into the real estate business?

It seems like it would be an attractive solution. He could save his PCUSA salary and perks and draw a commission on every sale of church property. And all the while, the number of annoying members calling for orthodoxy, fidelity to Scripture, commitment to the BOO, and relief from political correctness and cultural accommodation would diminish.

Such a deal.

PCUSA: The great divide

I (and many others) believe that recent General Assemblies have been out of touch with a sizeable segment of PCUSA members (not to mention the Bible and orthodoxy). This story convinced me the gulf is wider - and the depth of smug self-satisfaction greater - than I in my most cynical moments ever conceived it could be:

Despite continuing roiling controversies in its wake, the 217th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) was rated highly by the commissioners and advisory delegates that comprised it.

I'm accustomed to the Alice-in-Wonderland quality that often envelops pronouncements from Louisville, but commissioners and ADs? These folks come from the hinterlands like the rest of us. They aren't supposed to be pickled in the worldly brine that has soaked 100 Witherspoon Street in recent years (or decades).

Slack-jawed with what little capacity for disbelief I retained, I was compelled to read on: Seventy-eight percent of them said that their sense of Presbyterian “family” was deepened by the Assembly. After patting themselves on the back for disenfranchising the presbyteries - and worse - they had a sense of "family"?

The positive evaluation by commissioners and advisory delegates stands in stark contrast to the ongoing debates within the church about several actions taken by the assembly, particularly the report of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity of the Church (PUP).

Thanks, Mr. Marter; I couldn't have said it better. Was self-destruction the purpose of the "family" these people discovered? Is that why these people are so proud of what they accomplished? Did any of these seventy-eight percent give a damn about the anguish they caused?

Well, no; of course not. It wasn't a big deal to them at all:

Commissioners and advisory delegates, however, rated the assembly’s consideration of the PUP report and ordination standards as only the fifth most important aspect of the assembly.

Only a pathetic twelve percent thought that deciding whether to divide the denomination and drive off more thousands of members was the most important thing they did. What did the greatest number think was most important? Worship and preaching, according to thirty-eight percent of them. And why not? They got to sit around and sing Kumbaya and be blissfully untouched by the suffering they were about to inflict.

And what did the OGA learn from all these happy campers? Not much of any substance, apparently. According to a spokesperson, the post-GA assessment of assembly planners “is that whatever we do has to be pastoral and listening in nature.” Oh, yes; the Stated Clerk's cold-hearted vendetta against wounded congregations and compassionate presbyteries is quite "pastoral".

Listening? To whom? To themselves? Some listening to members and presbyteries - not to mention the greater church in the Global South - would have been nice. There were certainly plenty of early warnings of the quagmire they were about to drag the PCUSA into. But they weren't listening. Or maybe they just didn't care. Or both. Probably both.

The spokesperson was further quoted, “if the feedback we got is that the assembly was a positive experience for so many, we should invite those key partners into the process of spreading a positive word.” Oh, now I get it. All those "key partners" will join the bureaucrats and talk down to us poor, benighted hicks out here in the sticks. We'll do the listening, see the error of our ways and give thanks for this highly rated GA.

When pigs fly, as Flo would say.

Perhaps, in the alternate reality the bureaucrats and the GA seem to inhabit, pigs actually do fly. That would go a long way toward explaining this great divide.

PCUSA: Do we need a spin doctor?

In a story on the just-concluded GAC meeting in Louisville, the Layman Online reported this little nugget:

After the issue of communications was raised, one council member suggested the denomination needed to hire a press secretary to make sure the news is positive. Council members have frequently complained that news stories – even some from the denomination's Presbyterian News Service – have given the council and the denomination a negative image.

This was a joke, right? Surely this unidentified council member didn't mean to suggest that a PR flack could alter reality and "make sure the news [of the PCUSA] is positive." Surely he or she didn't believe that squandering the denomination's shrinking funds on a spin doctor would be responsible stewardship - or be likely to succeed. Surely this council member wasn't serious.

Alas, the unidentified member probably was serious and simply reflecting a common knee-jerk reaction to published reports that the denomination has once again done something dumb. This blame-the-press/control-the-press mindset is well-established in the PCUSA.

Oscar McCloud of the New York City Presbytery tried the same tactic at the 217th GA with regard to the divestment debacle. Rather than just admit that trying to punish Israel for the actions of Palestinian terrorists was a bad idea, he offered this language instead: "We regret any reporting that has caused any misunderstanding of the PCUSA's commitment to peace and justice in Palestine and Israel." [emphasis added] McCloud seemed to be saying "We're fine with beating up on Israel; we just regret that it was accurately reported." A few others climbed on the same tired, old bandwagon but, in the end, the GA wasn't interested.

[In the same story, McCloud was credited with a brutally frank and accurate assessment of how the PCUSA responds when the GA's actions cause members to suffer: "I don't believe we have a tradition of apologizing when what we do pains Presbyterians." Indeed.]

Those of us who have been around for a while remember 1993 when the Louisville bureaucrats thought they could manage the news of the original Re-Imaging God conference. But the news was too awful and too widespread. It eventually cost one staffer her job and was very likely the reason long-time Stated Clerk James Andrews lost his bid for re-election in 1996. [At the time, given his efforts to paint a happy face on the hideous paganism that permeated the conference, I thought Andrews got what he deserved. Looking back over the reign of the man who defeated him, I'm not so sure.]

These folks remind me of Amity mayor Larry Vaughn in the movie Jaws. He had to deal with the arrival - just before the lucrative Fourth of July weekend - of a man-eating shark off the town's beach. His solution to the problem was spin control. Ignoring the obvious danger to both swimmers and the long-term welfare of his town and its merchants, he tried to manage the news and minimize the threat.

He was living in a dream world, of course; no positive word, however skillfully spun, could deter the great white shark patrolling the waters crowded with bathers. But Larry tried, fully prepared to sacrifice both people and Amity's future for a profitable holiday.

We shake our heads at Larry's lack of integrity. We wonder at the blind self-interest that leads people like him to think they can change the harsh realities they face by trying to "make sure the news is positive". But the truth has a nasty habit of leaking out despite the best (or worst) intentions of those who would like to mask or hide it.

The PNS isn't going away; we hope it won't be compromised any more than it already is.* The Layman isn't going away; neither are the readers who find it - with all its flaws - more trustworthy than the denomination. The secular press that reported the GA's stealthy implementation of local option and the PPC's publication of David Griffin's trashy book isn't going away. The truth isn't going away.

If the PCUSA wants to "make sure the news is positive", it should make positive news.

------------------------------

* For example, the PNS story on the "Hope of the Church" conference in July simply gushed with enthusiasm and good vibes over the optimistic assessment by "this unprecedented body of PC(USA) heavyweights, including 16 general assembly (GA) moderators and nearly all of the 11 PC(USA) seminary presidents." Curiously absent was any mention of former moderator David Dobler's sober assessment that the PCUSA was already in schism.

PCUSA: Is it time for Davis Perkins to go?

Davis Perkins first came to my attention (and many others') as the result of his scathing attack on the Confessing Church movement. This entirely gratuitous assault appeared in his introduction to a pamphlet about contradictory statements in some of the confessions the PCUSA purports to embrace. He wrote:

The term "confessing church" has come to mean something altogether different in the current Presbyterian context … as right-wing organizations seek to use confessional statements as theological sledgehammers to bludgeon Presbyterians into a rigid orthodoxy ....

Give Perkins credit for one thing (and only one thing); he came out of relative obscurity wearing his colors for all to see. His terminology identified him as a left-wing ideologue. Centrists seldom use the term "right-wing" while radicals always use it to describe centrists.

This terminology usually signals that the writer views theological differences primarily as political disputes - the term "right-wing" is, after all, a term from politics. People who see the Christian faith primarily as a political tool usually believe that "everything is politics" and tend to express themselves accordingly. There are many of this sort in the PCUSA; former moderator Rick Ufford-Chase is a high-profile example.

"Progressives" like Perkins have no use for orthodoxy. As he noted correctly in his mean little diatribe, orthodoxy is somewhat rigid, not pliant and accommodating like these folks want the PCUSA to be. And like many in PCUSA leadership positions (Clifton Kirkpatrick, Elenora Giddings Ivory, and Jack Rogers come easily to mind), he is not reluctant to use his bully pulpit to "bludgeon" those with whom he disagrees.

If I thought about Perkins at all after reading his cheap shot, I probably figured that he would just fade back into bureaucratic obscurity. It never occurred to me that, as a publisher, he would invest (misappropriate might be a better word) the resources at his disposal to promote the ultimate radical cause. But no; as president and publisher, Perkins decided to drag the Presbyterian Publishing Corporation (PPC) into the weird la-la land of David Griffin's silly fantasy, Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action.

I was shocked and angered by this dumb decision, not only because of the content of the book, but because of the sort of crackpots the author chooses to hang out in cyberspace with. But there was something more troubling than that, more troubling than the lame excuses PPC offered for this bonehead play, even more troubling than the denomination's rush to peddle this trash on the official PCUSA web site. I discovered that, like the PCUSA itself, Perkins was betraying the mission entrusted to him. According to the PCUSA, this mission is as follows:

Building on the Reformed tradition, the Presbyterian Publishing Corporation seeks to glorify God by contributing to the spiritual and intellectual vitality of Christ's church. To that end, PPC publishes resources that advance religious scholarship, stimulate conversation about moral values, and inspire faithful living.

Um, right. Let's see if stamping Griffin's goofball conspiracy theory with the PCUSA's imprimatur furthers this "mission":

• Does publishing Griffin's claim that Jesus was a political activist whose mission was to overturn the Roman Empire "glorify God"?
• Does publishing junk whose author regularly posts to a web site that specializes in crackpot theories contribute to "the spriritual and intellectual vitality of Christ's church"?
• Does publishing a book based entirely on partial or manufactured evidence "advance religious scholarship"?
• Does publishing a book so filled with lies "stimulate conversation about moral values"?
• Does a publishing decision that brings waves of well-deserved scorn and derision on the PCUSA and its members "inspire faithful living"?

I think not.

Perkins, however, must believe the answer to these questions is yes. That being the case, I suggest that he move with all possible haste to get the PPC into the highly profitable supermarket tabloid business. He would be comfortable with the product and would probably find the frantic pace of new "scholarship" quite stimulating. And I'm sure the PCUSA would be happy with the enhanced revenue stream.

Occasionally, the PCUSA recognizes a failure of judgment so monumental as to require action. On rare occasions, the PCUSA moves decisively when a staffer allows professional judgment to be overwhelmed by personal prejudice. After the notorious Re-Imagining God conference, Mary Ann Lundy, the staffer who secured the PCUSA's participation, was fired. After the world learned that the PCUSA was visiting Hezbollah terrorists and praising them, the responsible staffers - Kathy Leuckert and Peter Sulyok - were also fired.

With the PCUSA turned into a laughingstock, at a time when its reputation as a hotbed of anti-israel bigotry has been slightly diminished by backtracking on divestment, it's time for PCUSA leaders to take a moment to focus on something other than their cumbling empire.

Is it time for Davis Perkins to go? I think the answer is obviously yes. Sadly, the obvious is all too often an impenetrable mystery to PCUSA bureaucrats.

PCUSA: Is it worthy of our love?

In a word, no.

From the run-up to the 217th GA until now, there have been countless expressions of "love" for the PCUSA and endless concerns for "our beloved PCUSA". Many of these sentiments have been expressed by Task Force members, perhaps trying to justify their unity-at-all-costs recommendations. Many more have come from hand-wringing renewalists, perhaps trying to explain why they continue to cling to a failed "stay, fight, win" strategy.

But I can't find much to recommend this sentimental regard for the PCUSA simply because it is the PCUSA. As Christians, we know whom we are called to love. "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters - yes, even his own life - he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26) Jesus isn't telling his disciples that they can't love anyone but Jesus, only that they - and we - can't put anyone ahead of or even on a par with Jesus. Not even our church or our denomination.

So what else does the Bible tell us we should love? Here is a short list - God the Father (Matthew 22:37), neighbors (Matthew 22:39), enemies (Matthew 5:44), other Christians (John 13:34), spouses, children, and parents (Colossians 3:18-21). These are all persons. Truth - emobodied by Christ - also shows up on the list, but I find no mention of earthly organizations, no matter how noble their intent may be - or once was.

The Bible doesn't address denominations directly, but perhaps Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 1:10-15 are instructive:

I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into[b] the name of Paul? I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name.

Are we so different when we say "I follow John Knox"; "I follow Martin Luther"; "I follow John Wesley"? There is only one body. There is not a Presbyterian body, a Lutheran body, a Methodist body, or any other body. Just one.

(Among the PUP report's many errors was the implication that unity with the PCUSA somehow equates to unity with the body of Christ. I don't know why they made such an absurd claim. I get the impression from the report, their selling of it prior to the GA, and their defense of it afterwards that they were simply blinded by their love for the denomination. Maybe it was just hubris.)

And what are faithful Christians to do when our denomination turns into John's vision of the church at Ephsesus, when the denomination that once persevered and endured hardships for Jesus' name forsakes its first love and falls from its once-great height? (Revelation 2:3-5)

What are we to do when the PUP report tells to be like the church at Laodicea - neither hot nor cold but lukewarm - for the sake of superficial unity; when our money, property, influence, and prestige (all dwindling but still great) have blinded us the to the fact that the PCUSA is "wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked"? (Revelation 3:15-18) Should we love this human enterprise?

Again, in a word, no.

Perhaps those who believe that they can bring about renewal with their own efforts or who believe that God will yet do the job himself should persevere, but not for "love" of the PCUSA. To them I say, do it for love of the people who are being misled. Do it for love of the people who are being shown the wide way to destruction. Do it for the love of the one who is worthy of our love. These are persons worthy of love.

But here is the dilemma for the renewalists: Which is better? To try to protect the people from falling debris in case the building collapses? Or to get them to a safer place and just let the dilapidated old building go?

When I think about leaving and staying, my thoughts turn to a different metaphor. I imagine myself as a passenger on the Titanic. I imagine myself as part of a large family, scattered around in different cabins on different decks, some asleep, some running around looking after themselves, some paralyzed with fear.

I ask myself if this mighty ship has been irreparably damaged by its captain and crew. Is the damage so great that no human effort can save it? I imagine myself going below to examine the vast tear in the ship's hull and asking God if he will somehow close the wound.

If I believe that the damage is beyond repair, that pride, arrogance, sin, and love for the world have doomed this ship to its deserved fate, what should I do? Proudly stay and go down with the ship? Tell my family to do the same? Tell them do decide for themselves?

Or should I try to round up as many as I can, tell them of the dangers, point to an available lifeboat, and implore them to board it with me? As an elder in the PCUSA, these are questions I cannot ignore. They are questions I cannot answer without discerning God's will.

I can't let the Titanic metaphor go without making this observation: It seems that to our captain, Clifton Kirkpatrick*, the anguish of the passengers is of no concern. He seems to want to hide the lifeboats and tell the passengers to either jump in the water or go down with the ship. All that matters is that they leave their possessions on board.

* Yes, I've demoted him from emperor to captain in successive postings.

PCUSA: The return of the Jedi

After blowing up the planet Alderon with his secret weapon, the Death Star, Emperor Palpatine believed he had crushed the Rebel Alliance and imposed peace on the Galactic Empire. From his capital in Coruscant, Palpatine deployed his vast army of storm troppers to root out the remnant of the Alliance and consolidate his iron-fisted rule. But the Alliance came back even stronger as Jedi knights - long suppressed, persecuted and sometimes compromised by the Empire - came forth in the power of their ancient faith and defeated the Empire.

Now Jedi-like presbyteries are striking back against Emperor Clifton* and the empire wannabes in his capital of Louisville. After blowing up the constitution with their secret weapon, a phony Authoritative Interpretation of G-6.0108, the PUP task force and a compliant GA thought they had imposed peace too.

Their ploy of evading the process for altering the constitution seemed to have circumvented the presbyteries altogether. Armed with a pair of lawyers, Emperor Clifton has set out consolidate the PCUSA empire by acquiring either the loyalty or the property of every church and member. But he didn't count on Presbyterian knights of the ancient and orthodox faith to rise up to oppose him.

All along, there have been members, churches, and organizations that have resisted the worldly drift of the PCUSA. But for the first time that I know of, administrative bodies of the church itself are defying the denomination's imperial directives - Central Florida and Sacramento have done so. Others (Whitewater Valley, Pittsburgh, Mississippi, even San Francisco) are being asked to seriously consider defiance. Still others have taken different approaches to saying to the PCUSA "enough is enough!"

It's encouraging to see that the PCUSA empire has some cracks in its fortress. Blowing up the constitution was not the clean kill that blowing up Alderon seemed to be. Both empires were wrong about where the heart of their opponents lay and from where they drew their strength. But when we ponder the future of the PCUSA, does the Star Wars metaphore hold up?

A different end for this empire

I don't think so. Courageous presbyteries are to be admired and supported. They can slow the empire's onslaught and ease the pain for Presbyterians who stay, if only for a while. But even if Kirkpatrick were to be removed, the rot and corruption in Louisville are pervasive. The power and influence of the modernists and humanists are greater than even what Kirkpatrick imagines he can wield.

There is a fundamental structural flaw in the PCUSA, a flaw that seems to be common among all constitutional democracies of any size, of which the PCUSA and USA are both examples. These polities contain the seed of their own destruction - a complacent citizenry (whether members of the PCUSA or voters in the USA) that allows power to escape from its hands into the hands of politicians and bureaucrats at the highest level. With their own vested interests in mind and with the power to implement their personal ideals (which are often lofty in their own way), these powerful insiders lose sight of the original mission of the entity they lead.

When that happens, the constitution that was created to further the original mission becomes a hindrance to the current one and must be circumvented in any way possible. As constitutional democracies, the PCUSA and the USA provide eerily parallel examples of this flaw. The difference, of course, is that the mission of the USA was not given us by God and we are not accountable to him for its completion. (Interestingly, of all the PCUSA renewal organizations and denominational branches, the NWAC is the only group that has addressed this flaw.)

The PCUSA cannot be saved by human effort. It appears to me that God has turned his attention to faithful Presbyterian churches in Asia and the Global South. He seems to have given the job of renewing the American church to denominations and independent churches that remain faithful to him. Those are the places faithful Christians should be laboring. We should be following God, not imploring him to follow us.

The end of the PCUSA empire is not in defeat but in departure.

* Some commentators have likened the Stated Clerk to a pope, but I didn't want to risk offending our Catholic brothers and sisters. It's been a long time since a pope in Rome has behaved as reprehensibly as our emperor in Louisville.

PCUSA: "I am not ashamed of the gospel"

As a Christian, I am not ashamed of the gospel (Romans 1:16-17). Jesus taught his disciples to expect ridicule, even hatred because of him. I'm Ok with that. It's part of counting the cost of being identified with him.

But here's what I am ashamed of and what I'm not Ok with. I'm ashamed of my denomination. I'm not Ok with the cost of being identified with an organization that brings ridicule and condemnation on itself - not for Jesus' sake but for the sake of accommodating the culture and wallowing in political correctness.

• I'm not Ok with being "officially" neutral on abortion and aggressively promoting abortion.
  
  
• I'm not Ok with publishing books promoting crack-brained conspiracy theories that play to the "American Empire" fantasies of its publisher and its phony Christian author.
  
  
• I'm not Ok with substituting human imagery for God's imagery of the Trinity.
  
  
• I'm not Ok with anti-Semitism, especially when it excuses Islamic terror and blames Israel for all of the violence in the Middle East.
  
  
• I'm not Ok with anti-Semitism, especially when it attempts to punish companies who do business with Israel.
  
  
• I'm not Ok with anti-Semitism, especially when it means cozying up to Muslim terrorists and calling them humanitarians.
  
  
• I'm not Ok with a denomination that can only support one missionary for each 7,874 members while younger, more orthodox Presbyterian denominations support one for each 830 (Evangelical Presbyterian Church) or 437 (Presbyterian Church in America) members.
  
  
• I'm not Ok with "Re-Imagining God"; how the heck do you re-imagine something unless you honesly believe you imagined it in the first place?
  
  
• I'm not Ok with supposedly Christian attorneys who recommend lying to judges and writing if off as "just lawyers being lawyers".
  
  
• I'm not Ok with a Stated Clerk who is willing to declare a moratorium on constitutional actions he would like to avoid but claims that he can't declare a moratorium on constitutional actions he wants to pursue.
  
  
• I'm not Ok with a Stated Clerk who recommends punishing presbyteries that fail to extract the maximum value from fleeing churches.
  
  
• I'm not Ok with a Stated Clerk who routinely abuses his bully pulpit to promote his left-wing political causes. For example, as a member of the Central Committee, he approved a statement by the notoriously Marxist World Council of Churces that implies "U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair might appropriately be charged with war crimes for their 'illegal resort to war' on Iraq." (Source: Presbyterian News Service)
  
  
• I'm not Ok with a deceptive "theological" task force that substituted back-room political ploys for constitutional actions.
  
  
• I'm not Ok with denominational spin doctors who can't agree on whether or not the task force's actions modified the consititution.
  
  
• I'm not Ok with a former Moderator who claims to believe nothing more about Jesus than that he is "God's radical answer to the unbelievable suffering that exists all over the world".
  
  
• I'm not Ok with a church that admits atheists to membership.

I am not ashamed of the gospel. I am ashamed of the PCUSA.

PCUSA: Word games, part 3

Click here for Part 1, here for Part 2

In their thirst to conform to the culture, many in the PCUSA saw the campaign for acceptance and endorsement of homosexuality as a bandwagon worth jumping on. But there was the small matter of ordination standards, particularly G-6.0106b. Through the prescribed constitutional process, G-6.0106b had been approved by the presbyteries and added to the Book of Order, mandating that ordained officers live in monogamous heterosexual marriage or in chaste singleness. Two efforts to persuade the presbyteries to delete G-6.0106b had failed. Many attempts to amend it into meaningless babble had failed. It was obvious that a majority of presbyteries were satisfied to keep the standard in place and that by 2002, the General Assembly had no stomach to try again. Efforts to invalidate the Definitive Guidance of 1979 (establishing the theological foundation for G-6.0106b) had never even made it to the presbyteries for consideration. This was the situation into which the Theological Task Force stepped.

In their headlong pursuit of unity at any cost, the TTF realized that they had to find a way to accommodate incompatible world views. The progressive Covenant Network and their political allies had made it clear they would allow no peace in the PCUSA as long as ordination standards remained in place (even if enforcement was selective and largely ineffective). The renewal crowd, the "right" who held Scripture and the Confessions to be utterly authoritative in matters of faith and practice, made it equally clear they would not cave to political pressure and abandon orthodoxy for cultural accommodation. The TTF apparently made the "middle" (who seemed to support G-6.0106b, but might lack commitment to it) the target of what turned out to be a massively deceptive word game.

The be successful, the TTF had to find a way to

1. retain G-6.0106b to placate the right,
2. enable ordaining bodies to safely ignore G-6.0106b to mollify the left, and
   
3. bypass the constitutional process altogether lest those pesky presbyteries derail their scheme.
   

What to do? How to retain a standard and make conformance to it optional? Perhaps the TTF looked to the presbyteries, churches, and officers who were already claiming to honor their ordination vows while simultaneously ignoring constitutional provisions they had promised to bound by. In their defiance, they mostly sang the same tune - it was a matter of "conscience". Could it be that the Book of Order would actually allow candidates and governing bodies to ignore G-6.0106b? Well, no; it wouldn't, not as written. But maybe if we all pretended the words meant something other than what they say....

In their masterpiece of doublespeak and misdirection, the PUP report, the TTF found a way. They injected the necessary ambiguity into - not G-6.0106b (a tactic which had also been tried before without success) - but G-6.0108b. Huh? Yes, Alice, said the Caterpillar, they made compliance with ordination standards a matter of conscience. They applied the concept of "scruples" to the enforcement of standards. As detailed here, the TTF borrowed some convenient language from the Adopting Act of 1729 while leaving the substance (adherence to the Westminster Confessions) behind.

The concept of a "scruple" (i.e. a matter of conscience) is addressed in G-6.0108a which calls for adherence "to the essentials of the Reformed faith and polity as expressed in The Book of Confessions and the Form of Government" [emphasis added] and adds "So far as may be possible without serious departure from these standards, without infringing on the rights and views of others, and without obstructing the constitutional governance of the church, freedom of conscience with respect to the interpretation of Scripture is to be maintained." G-6.0108b goes on to establish the limits of freedom of conscience: the candidate's conscience "is captive to the Word of God as interpreted in the standards of the church so long as he or she continues to seek or hold office in that body." [emphasis added]

All those smart folks on the TTF understood the unbroken chain of orthodox doctrine that ran from Scripture analyzed and interpreted in the Definitive Guidance to limits on individual conscience defined in G-6.0108b to the Biblical standard embodied in G-6.0106b. There is nothing in that chain - including freedom of conscience - that can be said to grant a candidate or governing body the privilege to unilaterally decide whether or not a standard is applicable. The constitution is not ambiguous.

But the TTF's unscrupulous word game with "scruples" created the false impression that the constitution was ambiguous and then resolved the ambiguity in a way that accomplished their objectives. Specifically,

1. By attacking G-6.0108b, they left the words of G-6.0106b unchanged,
2. By altering the interpretation of G-6.0108b to mean something vastly different from what it says, they left everyone free to depart from G-6.0106b (or any other standard) by declaring it "non-essential."
3. By creating this Alice-in-Wonderland situation with an Authoritative Interpretation that required only a simple majority on the GA floor, they froze the presbyteries with their bothersome months of study, prayer, and deliberation out of the process completely.

As expected the TTF's illusion of peace and unity lasted about as long as their self-satisfied celebration at the GA. The TTF's word games sowed cynicism and deception. The PCUSA is already beginning to reap a rich harvest of division, distrust, and fear. Interestingly, it is obvious from the publication of the "Presbyterian Papers" that the denomination was also prepared months in advance to receive a harvest of church buildings or ransoms paid for them by departing congregations.

Indeed, the most disgusting aspect of the TTF, the PUP report, and the GA's embrace of it all is the fact that Clifton Kirkpatrick, Eric Graninger, Mark Tammen, and every synod and presbytery executive knew that no peace or unity would result from the TTF's deception. They knew that members, churches, and perhaps whole presbyteries would flee. They knew that the financial windfall would keep the PCUSA (and their jobs) afloat a while longer.

But as a dynamic witness to the power of the Gospel in the world, the PCUSA is dead, the victim of its own word games.

PCUSA: Word games, part 2

[This second part was delayed by the news that the PCUSA had gone into the conspiracy business and by my reading of the Schori interview in Time magazine. I hasten to add that I read the interview in the dentist's office. I do not subscribe to Time.]

Click here for Part 1.

So why did the 217th General Assembly ignore the constitutional process? First, we must look at the long-standing battle waged by homosexual activists for acceptance by society. There is no question that one objective of this fight was basic human rights - economic freedom, freedom from violence, and so on. The ultimate goal, however was - and is - much more than that. It was nothing less than to have their lifestyle and sexual practices considered normal, even noble or desirable.

The most rudimentary examination of human anatomy reveals that we are constructed for heterosexual relations. It is hard to make the case that homosexual relations are in any sense natural or likely to be considered the norm. The activists understood that when you want to impose a new social structure or attitude that is contrary to human nature, you have to capture key institutions. Since medicine considered homosexuality a disorder and a largely church-going culture considered it immoral, the targets were obvious - medicine, the church, and popular culture.

Medical societies and mainline Protestant denominations were particularly appealing because they are hierarchical in varying degrees and because they base their behaviors on established bodies of knowledge. (The assault on a pop culture lacking these characteristics is not relevant here.) Hierarchies were attractive because they provide a concentration of powerful and influential leaders to be lobbied. Reliance on an established body of knowledge is the perfect playground for - what else? - word games. If the literature can be made ambiguous, re-interpreted, or otherwise manipulated, new "knowledge" can be manufactured and used as a new foundation for a new structure or attitude.

Through a systematic campaign of lobbying members of the American Psychiatric Association and disrupting their meetings, homosexual activists conquered the medical establishment by winning a word game. In 1973, they convinced the APA's Committee on Nomenclature to abandon 70 years of science and declare a change of wording in the Diagnostic and Statistics Manual. With no new data, no new studies, no scientific basis at all, the committee caved in to purely political pressure and declared that homosexual behavior was not evidence of a psychiatric disorder. The members (the motivated one-third who voted) followed suit and two years later the American Psychological Association fell into line.

It is worth noting that four years after the activists' political victory, a survey revealed that fully 68 percent of psychiatrists still considered homosexuality a disorder. See Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth by Jeffrey Satinover, M.D. for a detailed history of these events.

In Part 3, we will examine the political forces that led the PCUSA to abandon its own constitution and theology in order to achieve the same political result within the church.

Click here for Part 3.