« Some Strange Texas Sights | Home | What Did the General Assembly Do to Endanger the Existence of the PCUSA? »
The End of the PCUSA? Revisited
By Mark D. Roberts | Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Part 1 of series: The End of the Presbyterian Church USA? Revisited
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
Two years ago I wrote a blog series in which I asked: Has the Presbyterian Church USA (my own denomination) come to an end? My answer was: “Well, maybe. It doesn’t look good.”
Today I want to begin to revisit the question of whether the PCUSA is in its own end times, so to speak. Let me explain why I’m raising this tired topic yet again.
2006: The End of the PCUSA?
In 2006, following the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA, I wrote a blog series entitled The End of the Presbyterian Church USA? In that series, I described recent actions of that General Assembly with respect to the issue that Presbyterians have debated for over thirty years . . . human sexuality. That Assembly reaffirmed the section of the Book of Order (the PCUSA guidebook for the church) that requires candidates for ordination to practice “fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness” (G-6.0106b). But then, in a move that perplexed and distressed many Presbyterians, including me, the Assembly approved a report (the so-called PUP Report, for “Peace, Unity, and Purity”), that allowed the governing bodies that ordain church officers to decide for themselves whether a candidate for ordination needed to obey the stated rule or not. No longer would a candidate be required, according to this new guidance, to practice fidelity in marriage or chastity in singleness. Any governing body was free to determine its own conclusion in the matter, thus opening up the door to the ordination of people who were sexually active outside of marriage, whether in straight or gay relationships.
In my 2006 blog series, I spoke of how the action of the Assembly broke trust with those of us who have been committed to the PCUSA. I considered whether or not this was adequate reason to leave the PCUSA, given biblical teaching on the nature of Christian community. My conclusion was tentative. I was not prepared to leave the PCUSA, but was not ruling out the possibility. It did seem to me that the actions of the 2006 General Assembly hastened the end of the PCUSA as we knew it.
Today: The End of the PCUSA? Revisited
The 2008 General Assembly, held in San Jose, California, recently wrapped up. Much of what happened at the Assembly and many of the votes taken were find and dandy. But several actions of the 2008 Assembly make what happened in 2006 look like the minor leagues. We PCUSA types are now in the big leagues of church crises. (Photo: San Jose, California)
This would be true even if the General Assembly had done nothing controversial, by the way. Shortly before the Assembly convened, the denomination released its statistics for 2007. Overall, the PCUSA lost 57,572 members, or 2.6% of its total membership. At this rate, the membership of the PCUSA will hit zero in less than forty years. I suppose the issue of gay ordination will be finally and definitively settled by the last person standing in 2046.
But I doubt the PCUSA will make it to 2046 intact. What happened in the last General Assembly has caused an unprecedented crisis in the denomination. I knew we were in trouble when, during my recent trip to San Jose to speak at a breakfast associated with the Assembly, I ran into a good friend who has been for many years one of the most enthusiastic supporters of the PCUSA, even though he has solid evangelical credentials. Even before the Assembly convened, my friend was deeply concerned. He spoke more negatively about the denomination than I had ever heard before. Something monumentally bad was about to happen, or so it seemed as I listened to him.
In the aftermath of the General Assembly, the comments of dyed-in-the-wool Presbyterians confirmed my friend’s prediction of doom and gloom. Here is an assortment of comments by biblically-committed and highly-respected leaders in the PCUSA:
The actions of the 218th General Assembly have made it clear that the PC(USA)’s compromise of the Gospel of Jesus Christ has reached an unprecedented level. It is clear that the PC(USA)’s confession of the Lordship of Jesus Christ and commitment to our Reformed confessions has weakened to the point that we can no longer assume a common framework of conversation.
I am shocked and dismayed. . . . [T]he General Assembly of the PCUSA has taken a number of actions which are at odds with Scripture and threaten to unravel any vestige of purity, peace, and unity that may still exist within the denomination. . . . [T]he PCUSA is clearly on a path of self-destruction in cutting herself off from the larger, global church. These actions are the product of bad theology. Bad theology always hurts people. The word “heresy” means “to choose.” With the actions of this General Assembly, the PCUSA has chosen to walk a different path than the path God has revealed to the Church in His Word.
- Ronald W. Scates, pastor of Highland Park Presbyterian Church, one of the largest and most influential churches in the PCUSA
With the most recent General Assembly in San Jose, the smoke seems at last to have cleared, and the steaming debris of the PC(USA) has settled into place. It’s not a pretty sight. One thing for sure: this Humpty won’t be getting back together again for a long time, if ever.
- Vic Pentz, pastor of Peachtree Presbyterian Church, the largest church in the PCUSA
Today the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) lies gravely wounded, by the hand of its own General Assembly. This Assembly has struck multiple blows, threatening to sever the sinews that hold us together as a Christian body and as a part of the larger body of Christ. This is a day for grieving. . . . We grieve for the Assembly’s terrible loss of faith. We grieve for the thousands of churches in our denomination who receive this news with shock and dismay. And we grieve for all those who are encouraged by this action to engage in sinful behaviors that God does not bless.
- Presbyterian Renewal Network, a group of biblically-committed PCUSA organizations
Of course not all Presbyterians were upset by the actions of the Assembly. Consider, for example, the following comments:
This is an amazing moment in history. I give thanks to God for all of you who have been praying, believing and working for the Presbyterian Church (USA) to end discrimination against its own lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender daughters and sons, sisters and brothers in Christ. . . . There is clearly a sea-change in our Church, society and world as more people are letting go of the old beliefs and prejudice about homosexuality, same-gender loving persons and embracing what it means to recognize Christ and the divine image within all of God children. . . . For this moment, on this day, we rejoice in the fact that this Assembly has provided a way forward for our beloved Church. Together we are building a Church for all God’s people!
- Michael Adee, Executive Director of More Light Presbyterians
We give thanks for the decision of the 218th General Assembly to send to the presbyteries a thoughtful revision of the standards for ordination. The Authoritative Interpretation that was also approved immediately removes the specific references that have proved most hurtful to GLBT persons who are otherwise called and prepared to serve the church. This is a day that has been thirty years in coming and we give thanks for the hope that it offers to so many in the church who have been and still are excluded from ordained office. . . .
With gratitude to God, the board, staff, and community of That All May Freely Serve rejoice in the vote by the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) to open the door to the gifts and callings of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer members by removing its institutional barriers to ordination.
What an astounding diversity of responses to the General Assembly actions! If nothing else, these various statements illustrate the extraordinary lack of visionary and theological unity in the PCUSA. What some people folks see as heresy and tragedy, others receive as liberation and hope. What some see as cause for grief and repentance, others experience as a reason for thanks and celebration. It’s hard to imagine a Christian group less unified than the PCUSA at this time. We’re pretty much tied with the Anglicans, as far as I can tell.
If you haven’t been following this story closely, you may wonder what the General Assembly did to elicit such passionate and contradictory responses from its leaders. I’ll explain the Assembly’s actions in my next post.
Topics: PCUSA: End of? |
19 Responses to “The End of the PCUSA? Revisited”
Comments
Thanks for your willingness to make a comment. Note: I do not moderate comments before they are posted, though they are automatically screened for profanities, spam, etc., and sometimes the screening program holds comments for moderation even though they're not offensive. I encourage open dialogue and serious disagreement, and am always willing to learn from my mistakes. I will not delete comments unless they are extraordinarily rude or irrelevant to the topic at hand. You do need to login in order to make a comment, because this cuts down on spam. You are free to use a nickname if you wish. Finally, I will eventually read all comments, but I don't have the time to respond to them on a consistent basis because I've got a few other demands on my time, like my "day job," my family, sleep, etc.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
July 8th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Mark - Thanks for a helpful first in the series. This is actually one of the few recaps that I have seen where both vocal “sides” of the issues - and I think there is a silent third/fourth/fifth group - have been lifted up. If nothing else, the question of “What does denominational unity look like?” have been pushed to the forefront. I look forward to the rest of the series. - Bruce
July 8th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Bruce: Thanks. And thanks for your leadership. Though we disagree on quite a few things, I’m grateful for your honesty and openness to others.
July 8th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
What struck me as I read this entry is that all those who lamented the General Assembly’s most recent decision regarding human sexuality spoke in generalities and all those who praised the action spoke in specifics regarding what this means for homosexual and lesbian members of the church.
My suggestion for a resolution for the PCUSA is this: require fidelity in marriage or chastity in singleness for all persons seeking ordination, but broaden marriage to include same sex couples.
July 8th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Bill: Thanks for the input. Yes, that is ironic and sad. Your suggestion is, in my opinion, the only one that could claim somehow to be consistent with Scripture. (I’ll mention that tomorrow, actually.) Now, you now that I don’t find biblical warrant for same-sex marriage, so I can’t go with you. But what you’re saying has lots of integrity. It’s ironic and sad that almost nobody on the gay-inclusive side of the debate makes your argument.
July 8th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
I am looking forward to the rest of the series, Mark. I am deeply concerned, but not alarmed. No matter what happens in the denomination officially, kingdom work continues. I have been greatly comforted, and challenged by Jesus’ parable of the wheat and the tares in this regard. While I have no hope for denominational purity (only people can aspire to purity), the standards we hold to matter. I commend you, as Bruce wrote, for your even-handedness in citing opposite sides of the debate. Thanks for writing, and adding your voice to the discussion in the blogosphere.
July 8th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Bill: Conservatives are regularly accused of singling out homosexuality as a sin specially worthy of condemnation. Please don’t complain when they avoid that mistake by speaking in generalities.
July 8th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Are those on the gay inclusive side of the debate really advocating or arguing for infidelity in marriage and unchastity in singleness? I have been impressed with the large number of gay people seeking marriage in California in the last month. It appears they were seeking monogomous relations sanctioned by the state. I can only assume they are proponents of fidelity in marriage.
Furtermore I do not think the crucial issue revolves around the authority of Scripture, but its interpretation.
From what I know of history, Christian leaders who held a high view of Scripture once believed that the earth was the center of the universe, that there was a divine right of kings, that slavery was OK (the Presbyterian Church once split on that issue), that women should not be ordained. Our interpretation of Scripture has changed our views of these issues. I am confident that our interpretation of Scripture will also change regarding gay people. Then we will judge people not based on their sexual orientation (or skin color or gender), but on their character and behavior.
July 8th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Mark,
Thanks so much for weighing in on this issue. I have been eagerly waiting for your repsonse. I will continue to read and point others to your blog for a better understanding. I am always vexed by the fact that a Church so strong on tradition can be so liberal about biblical integrity at the same time.
July 8th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Bill: I have been talking with gay Presbyterians and those who support them for 30 years. Only once in all of my conversations did I hear someone (a gay man) argue that sex between same-sex partners was only right in the context of a lifelong, monogamous partnership, something akin to a marriage. Now I’m sure others have made this case, as you have. But, in fact, the vast majority of proponents of gay ordination, in my experience, are also willing to allow for sex outside of marriage in other conditions. I’ve heard arguments to allow for premarital sex between loving partners, sex outside of marriage for someone with a spouse who is incapable of sex, etc. The bottom line always seems to be something about a loving, committed relationship. But I just haven’t heard anything about a single partner in a lifelong committed relationship. (I wish I did hear more about this. It would raise my level of respect for those arguing on the other side from me.)
People should never be judged on the basis of their sexual orientation. That can and should be judged on the basis of their behavior, and whether it is in accord with biblical teaching.
Bill, can you point to one passage in the whole Bible that suggests that gay sex is okay? Can you point to one passage in the whole Bible that indicates that an actively gay person should be in church leadership? Can you point to one passage in the whole Bible that suggests that marriage could be between two people of the same sex? If so, I’d be glad to consider them. But I haven’t found them, and I don’t think you will either. There simply isn’t a case from Scripture for gay sex. Everything points in the other direction. That’s why I can’t go where you are going. The case of gay ordination is, from a biblical point of view, radically different from the case of women’s ordination. For one there is no positive evidence and ample negative evidence. For the other there is lots of positive evidence and a few verses in the negative.
Of course none of this defends the way in which many Christians have demonized homosexual people. Nor does it support an unloving attitude toward gay and lesbian people. But true love isn’t approving of that which Scripture disapproves of. We are called to speak the truth in love, even when that truth is hard to hear. And I just can’t find biblical evidence for the truth that sex between two men or two men is okay.
July 8th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
What other biblical teachings are subject to voting? When moral truth can be changed by representative vote then there is no moral truth. Is this what God had in mind for church governance?
July 8th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Mark, I can’t point to a single Bible verse that blesses “gay sex” although the Song of Solomon says lots of good things about jolly good sex. I can, however, point to lots of biblical texts that endorse polygamy. I think it is very hard to formulate a biblical ethic of sex - what sexual behavior is OK or not OK. The evidence is just to varied and culturally conditioned. But it is easy to formulate an ethic of love. (I do find Acts 9:26 - 40 worth mulling over. The Ethopian eunuch would not be allowed to enter certain of the courts of the temple because he was sexually abnormal. But guided by the Holy Spirit and Scripture Philip shared the Good News of Jesus with the eunuch and baptized him. So Philip was willing to disregard biblical and rabbinic strictures against sexually different people.) My rule of thumb for interpretation is that when there is lack of specific guidance from Scripture on a particular issue, the clear general teaching should apply.
I read in the Hebrew Scriptures (I think in Deuteronomy) that a teenager who talks back to his parents should be stoned to death. Yet I am part an overwhelming majority of God’s people who don’t follow that directive. Does that mean I have a low view of biblical authority? Does it mean I am a sniveling liberal? Or does it just mean that I try to make sense of Scripture by understanding particular passages in light of the cumulative thrust of the Bible?
Come to think of it, I can’t think of any specific verses that say slaves should be freed or women ordained, but we have somehow come to believe these things by putting all the evidence together.
July 8th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Looks like my last comment didn’t make it past the moderator. Too bad. It was the definitive biblical, theological, ethical and ecclesiological statement. And brief too
July 8th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Bill: Oops. The “moderator” is a computer program. Let me see if I can get your comment “up.” Your input if very valuable, and I appreciate your willingness to keep on posting here.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Bill: I got your comment through the moderator. You raise many good points. Let me address one now. You say you can’t think of any biblical passages that say women should be ordained. That’s true, in part because there aren’t any biblical passages that say anybody should be ordained, per se. Ordination is a post-biblical development. But there are many passages that speak of women serving in places of recognized authority, for example: Deborah the judge and prophet of Israel (Judges 4-5); Huldah the prophet consulted by the king (2 Kings 22); Mary the first to bear witness to the resurrection (Gospels); women prophesy (Acts 2; 1 Cor 11); women as teachers (Acts 18; Titus 2) woman as a leader or an apostle (Rom 16). Theologically, one can point to a rationale for women in leadership on the basis of many texts (Gen 1-2; Acts 2; Gal 3; 1 Cor 7, 11-14). So, if ordination is a way the church recognizes those God has raised up for leadership, then there is a solid biblical case for the ordination of women.
This is the kind of evidence that is completely lacking in the case of people who engage in gay sex. The strongest biblical case for the ordination of sexually-active homosexuals is an argument from silence. That’s what you’ll hear said time and again: Jesus never mentioned it. Of course Jesus didn’t mention child molestation or rape either. At best, an argument from silence is a very weak argument, especially when everything Scripture has to say about homosexual activity is negative, both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament.
Bill, I truly appreciate your effort to hang in there with Scripture in this issue. Though we disagree about how best to interpret Scripture, at least we’re working from the same foundation. That’s keeps us in conversation, a kind of conversation that has virtually stopped in the PCUSA, I’m sad to say.
Keep your comments coming, if you wish. My “moderator” may catch them, but I’ll keep setting them free as I am able.
July 9th, 2008 at 12:07 am
I’m interested in this issue from a slightly different angle…I’m curious what situations may be grounds for separating from other professing Christians. 1 John 1:7 seems to indicate that “fellowship with one another” goes along with “walking in the light” and being “purified of all sin”. Is that it? As long as we’re forgiven sons and daughters of Christ, then are we required to “put up with each other” no matter what?
A lot of ink is spilled in the pages of Scripture in clarifying things that are adiaphora (e.g. eating meat), as well as things that are absolutely essential to be a part of the Body of Christ (e.g. belief in the resurrection). But while there are plenty of things that are clearly taught in Scripture (e.g. sexual morality), what we as Christians ought to do in cases of disagreement over such issues that are clearly-addressed-but-not-of-salvific-importance is not addressed very often (if at all). This issue has often been handled as a practical matter–for example, if some Christians recognize the authority of the Pope, and others don’t, then on an organizational level at the very least it would be hard to remain united. But that is my own (and others’) application of common sense, and not a directive from God.
July 9th, 2008 at 12:19 am
KWK: Great question. I dealt with it a bit in my last series on the end of the PCUSA. But much more is needed.
July 14th, 2008 at 10:52 am
So, if you belive this, what are you prepared to do about it?
Are you finally willing to urge churches, starting with your own, to withhold ALL per capita?
Are you willing to denounce the so-called evangelicals on the PuP Task Force that sold us down the river?
Are you willing to donate to defray the legal costs of PCUSA congregations fighting the deonominational apostasy in court, particularly in light of the $2 million warchest approved by the GA?
Or are you just going to bloviate?
James 2:20
July 14th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
intersting blog.
Do you have the sources of your quote? As for this new PCUSA, can I find it on their website? do they have an open annoucement to the general public themselves in regard of this matter?
July 14th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
sorry, i kept commenting. NVM, i found the information you blogged in PCUSA’w new page…
then,all i can say is that this is such a sad founding about my spritrual craddle. I received so much blessings from my beloved church.
When can the church leader be like Jesus? to me, Jesus never cares about the number of His disciples…To me, He goes for the qualify ….as He constantly thins down the crowd …..
God bless all who are in this matter; well, that’s all i can say.. but certainly, such finding is very sad….