Pervasive Propaganda

“Propaganda is amazing. People can be led to believe anything.”
~ Alice Walker


Propaganda is powerful.

Just look at what it is doing to the Presbyterian Church (USA).

More personally look at what it may have already done to your own congregation.

In 2013 when I first heard the Presbyterian Church (USA) no longer upheld the Lordship of Jesus Christ or the authority of scripture my heart was turned.

I would understand if your heart has been turned too.

But I couldn’t let it go.  What I was hearing just didn’t resonate with any of my experiences or relationships in the denomination so I began to get curious and do my own research.  Eventually I discovered nearly everything I was being told was a distortion of the truth; it was propaganda.

Propaganda
Propaganda is information that is not impartial and used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively (perhaps lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or using loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information presented.
~ Wikipedia

Once I recognized what was happening I could see how pervasively it was being used by the people stirring up support to leave the denomination.

I’ve written about some of the ways I’ve seen propaganda used against the denomination in Jesus, The Bible, and Essential Tenets in the Presbyterian Church (USA).

And just this week I came across propaganda used in a document titled “Selected Points of Comparison in Theology and Practice Among the PC(USA), ECO, EPC” that compares twelve theological and practical positions between the three denominations.  It appears to have been created by ECO several years ago, but that is not clear.

The first position compared in this document is The Nature and Understanding of Scripture in each of the three denominations.

The document describes the Presbyterian Church (USA)’s position regarding the nature and understanding of scripture by saying…

“The booklet ‘Presbyterian Understanding and Use of Holy Scripture’ (1983) underscores that there are at least five different perspectives in the PC(USA) on the nature of divine inspiration ranging from “‘inerrancy”’ to ‘the Bible is merely a record of the moral and religious experiences of Hebrews and Christians.’ No preference is expressed for any of the five positions.”

This makes it sound like the Presbyterian Church (USA)’s position approves of any and all perspectives of scripture without preference.  That would be horrible if it was true, but it isn’t.  What is true and horrible is that it appears someone choose this statement to intentionally misrepresent the position of our denomination.

Even a quick search through The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA) easily reveals more accurate and responsible positions that could have been chosen.  Several of these include…

“The church confesses the Scriptures to be the Word of God written, witnessing to God’s self-revelation. Where that Word is read and proclaimed, Jesus Christ the Living Word is present by the inward witness of the Holy Spirit.”
~ Book of Order W-2.2001

or

“We believe and confess the canonical Scriptures of the holy prophets and apostles of both Testaments to be the true Word of God, and to have sufficient authority of themselves, not of men. For God himself spoke to the fathers, prophets, apostles, and still speaks to us through the Holy Scriptures.”
~ The Second Helvetic Confession, Book of Confessions 5.001

or

“Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testaments…All which are given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life.”
~ The Westminster Confession, Book of Confessions 6.002

You get the point.  Much better position statements could’ve easily been found and used but instead someone made a choice to use a statement that reinforced the narrative that the Presbyterian Church (USA) no longer upholds the authority of scripture.

Not only that but the statement representing the Presbyterian Church (USA) is not a position of the church at all.  It is a statement describing the results of a member survey taken in the United Presbyterian Church of the Untied States of America more than 35 years ago in 1979, four years before reunification of the denomination in 1983.

So on the one hand you are comparing the beliefs of members in one denomination and on the other hand you are comparing the official church positions in the other two denominations.  The comparison chart isn’t even comparing apples to apples.

But then notice the last sentence of the position ascribed to the Presbyterian Church (USA).

“No preference is expressed for any of the five positions.”

That’s not true at all.

The same Presbyterian Church (USA) document referenced in the comparison chart itself says,

“The confessions establish limits within which they may be invoked as guide and outside of which one may no longer be operating within the Reformed tradition. For example, we may not claim as confessional the position that the Bible is an inerrant account of technical information on matters of science. Nor, on the other hand, may we claim confessional support if we treat Scripture only as an account of ancient religious history.”

More than that though the survey results themselves showed that only 4% of the members surveyed believe “The Bible is merely a record of the moral and religious experiences of Hebrews and Christians.”

And actually the most recent Presbyterian Panel Survey with results from 2012-2014 shows only 2% of members surveyed believe “the Bible is not the Word of God.”

Having said all of that I know there are people reading this who will still believe the position printed on the denominational comparison chart is the position of the Presbyterian Church (USA).

Propaganda is powerful.

It grabs hold of even the brightest and most thoughtful people and wins them over.  Very few people are immune to it and facts don’t seem to be a very effective antidote.

Thomas Sowell, a conservative thinker and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, published an article online titled News Verses Propaganda in which he describes how ineffective facts are at changing strongly held beliefs.  He illustrates his point using gun control advocates but in my experience the very same things could be said about many of those who advocate leaving the Presbyterian Church (USA).

Here is what he wrote with his words stuck through and mine (added in parenthesis).

“As for gun control advocates (many of those who advocate leaving the denomination), I have no hope whatever that any facts whatever will make the slightest dent in their thinking — or lack of thinking….The real problem, both in discussions of mass shootings (the Lordship of Jesus Christ) and in discussions of gun control (the authority of scripture), is that too many people are too committed to a vision to allow mere facts to interfere with their beliefs, and the sense of superiority that those beliefs give them.  Any discussion of facts is futile when directed at such people. All anyone can do is warn others about the propaganda.”

I know this is true.  I’ve been uncovering and exposing the propaganda people are spreading about our denomination for the last two years in an effort to pursue, defend, and preserve the truth about the Presbyterian Church (USA).  And in all that time, to my knowledge, it has not made the slightest dent in the thinking of those who were already bent on leaving.

Propaganda is powerful.

I wish it was otherwise because the propaganda is not only tearing the church apart and leaving a trail of bitterness, anger and resentment but it’s dividing relationships between friends and families within our congregations.

I am convinced this can’t be from God.

An historic principle of church order in the Presbyterian Church (USA) is that truth is in order to goodness.

And an essential tenet of ECO, where many of those who are leaving end up going, is pursuing the truth, even when such pursuit is costly, and defending truth when it is challenged, recognizing that truth is in order to goodness and that its preservation matters.

To be sure, there are theological differences among us, and for some those differences are best held in separate denominations so I’m grateful ECO is there to receive these members.

But if we could have truthful discussions about our differences without the propaganda I believe most people would see our differences really aren’t all that great and find that by staying together we can learn from each other and more fully, and authentically, be the body of Christ in the world.

And hopefully, in those situations where separation did still happen, it would help us leave each other on better – not bitter – terms.


If you’re interested in improving your propaganda senses this short video explains propaganda techniques and how they are used against us.  I thought it was really helpful to watch, I hope you will too.

Let’s #StayPCUSA together.

Advertisements

Putting The Cart Before the Horse

Cart Before the HorseI’ve never had any doubt First and Calvary’s Cherry Street leaders wanted to affiliate with ECO.  

Of the two alternatives First and Calvary is considering, ECO and EPC, ECO’s positions on several issues, including the ordination of women, seem like a better fit for First and Calvary.  

Nevertheless First and Calvary is going through the motion of doing their due diligence by meeting with representatives from ECO and EPC this week.  

  • September 13: ECO representative to preach and meet with session after church
  • September 16: ECO/EPC congregational forum
  • September 20: EPC representative to preach and meet with session after church
  • September 22: Denomination committee to make recommendation to session
  • September 23: Congregational forum presenting new denomination with Q&A session
  • September 27: Congregational meeting after worship to ratify new denomination

Even though I fully expect the end result to be that First and Calvary will affiliate with ECO I was still surprised to find First and Calvary’s pastor, Andrew Chaney, listed as an ECO minister on the ECO website today – September 14 – a full week before the denomination committee intends to make its “recommendation” to the session. 

ECO Minister Members

I imagine there is a good explanation for why Andrew’s name is listed as an ECO minister two weeks before the congregation votes to ratify their new denomination, but if nothing else I’d say it’s a pretty good indication of where First and Calvary’s Cherry Street leaders are heading on September 27.  

Of course if I was the EPC representative I’d be wondering what I was doing in Springfield this week.  So just in case he’s reading this here is my advice to him…Get out and enjoy Springfield.  It’s a great city!  And try Metropolitan Farmer while you are there, it’s one of my favorite places to eat.  

Why So Fast? Was it Really The “Louisville Papers”?

The session at First and Calvary Presbyterian Church unexpectedly called a rushed meeting of the congregation with the minimum two weeks notice at the end of summer to vote on the congregation’s continuing affiliation with the Presbyterian Church (USA).  At the same time they sought and received court protection of the church property.  When asked why they moved so fast they answered, the “Louisville Papers.”

That answer says a lot about First and Calvary’s current leadership.

If you are not familiar with the “Louisville Papers” they are actually two documents that were prepared in the denomination’s Louisville headquarters more than a decade ago to guide and advise presbyteries regarding property issues during a congregational schism or request for dismissal.

They are based, through and through, on our denomination’s constitution.  Nothing in the documents should come as a surprise to any elder in the Presbyterian Church (USA) who has studied our Book of Order and understands our polity.  And despite beliefs to the contrary they do not represent a secret nefarious plan of attack.  In fact they not only encourage a fair process but a process that also “must feel fair to those affected.”  They seek reconciliation and a win-win whenever possible and they allow for the release of the congregation with the church property.   

Of course I wish these documents were not necessary but there are factions within some congregations (it’s rarely the whole congregation) who are choosing to leave the denomination and the issue of what to do with the church property has to be decided. These documents help explain our constitution’s requirements.    

The first document is…

“Processes for use by presbyteries in responding to congregations seeking to withdraw,” it was prepared by the Office of the General Assembly’s Department of Constitutional Services in 2005.  This document discusses factors and strategies presbyteries should consider as church property matters arise within the governing bodies of the church and is sometimes referred to as the polity memorandum.  

The second document is…

“Church Property Disputes:  A Resource for Those Representing Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Presbyteries and True Churches in the Civil Courts,” it was prepared by the General Assembly Council’s Office of Legal Services, first published in 2001 with a final revision in 2005.  This document focuses on church property disputes within the civil courts and is sometimes referred to as the legal memorandum.

Mark Tammen, author of the polity memorandum and Eric Graninger, author of the legal memorandum, released a statement about these two documents that was published in The Presbyterian Outlook in 2007.  In that statement they wrote,

“The Polity Memorandum and the Legal Memorandum were created as resources enabling presbyteries to better understand and work with these processes. Presbyteries are in no manner compelled to use these documents. They are simply advisory and, hopefully, helpful.  While some may believe that the Legal Memo presents matters in rather stark terms, this simply reflects the legal process and terminology of secular litigation, where decisions are made by attorneys and judges (for whom Presbyterianism may be wholly foreign) under strict rules of evidence and procedure. The Legal Memo is a practical introduction to civil litigation, to assist presbyteries when they find themselves in such circumstances, but is by no means intended to encourage recourse to that forum.

You can read a copy of their full statement here.

In 2007 The Presbyterian Outlook published an article titled “20 minutes with Cliff Kirkpatrick.”  In that article Clifton Kirkpatrick, who was the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly and Chief Executive of the Office of the General Assembly at the time the “Louisville Papers” were published said,

“… we produce manuals for committees on ministry, manuals for everybody else, and that is a manual of how the legal issues play out in the life of the church, but the advice we give to presbyteries consistently is, again, pastorally to share accurate information with people, to seek to find wherever possible win-win solutions, to consider seriously whether or not a petition to withdraw with property is the correct one, to try to work on mutually agreed positions that will uphold that constitutional position, and only if those are violated, to look at the legal process. But we’ve got a process–which is part of why we have this thick Book of Order–with rules for discipline, administrative commissions, and the like–we do have a way to work that out in the church, and I think that’s the biblical way to approach this.”

In the same article Clifton Kirkpatrick specifically said,

… they (the “Louisville Papers”) are not fundamentally what we are advising the church [to do]. Part of it is our dilemma on how do we communicate effectively the advice we have sent to the church? Very directly from our office is this piece called, ‘Responding Pastorally to Troubled Churches’.  It is urging people to start at a very different place.”

You can read a copy of “Responding Pastorally to Troubled Churches” here.

The two documents are clear that…

  1. The first step is to see if there are simply misunderstandings about the denomination that can be cleared up.  
  2. The second step, if there are genuine irreconcilable differences between the congregation and the denomination, is for the presbytery to determine what will best advance the witness of the Presbyterian Church in that region – which may include dismissing the congregation.  
  3. The legal process is only recommended if all else fails and there is no other way to go. “But,” Clifton says, “we ought not to be, as Christians, bringing lawsuits against one another to solve problems in the church.”

Despite all of this there has been a successful pejorative campaign to frame the documents as a preemptive hardline, even draconian legal strategy prescribed by the headquarters in Louisville for presbyteries to follow when a congregation indicates they are interested in seeking dismissal from the denomination.   

For example one headline in The Layman about the “Louisville Papers” read, “PCUSA Lawyers Advise Hardline Tactics in Church Property Disputes.”

In another article, also published in The Laymen, it said, “Taken together, the two documents represent a punitive legal game plan to be followed by lawyers representing the PCUSA in the event that one or more churches seek to disaffiliate from the denomination. The content of The Louisville Papers demonstrate that a church that does not have a lawyer of its own is going into a knife fight unarmed.”  

While there have been a few cases that did end up in court – often initiated by the congregation like in First and Calvary’s case – hundreds of Presbyterian Church (USA) congregations have been released with the church property since the “Louisville Papers” were published without any legal action.  

It is The Laymen, not the “Louisville Papers,” that suggest the Presbyterian Church (USA) is coming at congregations with lawyers and knifes.  

In fact John Calvin Presbytery sent a letter to the congregation at First and Calvary dated August 11, 2015 that specifically said, “The presbytery has not ever threatened to remove a congregation from its building or to tamper with its ministry, and never will do so.”  John Calvin Presbytery is currently working with several of its other congregations who are seeking dismissal without any threat of legal action.  

You can read a copy of John Calvin Presbytery’s letter to the congregation at First and Calvary here.

Nevertheless enough of the leadership at First and Calvary apparently believed they were going to be attacked by lawyers in a knife fight and decided to bypass the presbytery’s established discernment and dismissal procedure and to exit the denomination with the church property as fast as they could.  

Rather than go through the presbytery’s process which may have meant negotiating a modest financial settlement for the church property the majority of First and Calvary’s leadership decided that was not a price they were willing to pay.  However the cost of hiring attorneys, hurting many members, breaking the congregation’s long standing relationship with John Calvin Presbytery, and reneging on the ordination vows they had taken to uphold our denomination’s constitution apparently was a price they were willing to pay.  

And so with the decision made to pay that heavy price First and Calvary’s leadership hired an out of state attorney closely associated with The Layman to advise them and then quickly called for a vote of the congregation; a vote not recognized by the presbytery or our constitution and a vote at which no discussion from the floor was allowed.  

When the votes were counted fear and misunderstanding had won.

A perfect example of this can be found in the comment section of an article published in The Laymen following the vote by a member of First and Calvary who wrote that learning about the “Louisville Papers” was the final straw for him and “many other members” in the congregation in their decision to leave the Presbyterian Church (USA).  This member went on to say  “If you should read them (referring to the “Louisville Papers”), you might get an idea of the extent of my outrage…The first notation is ‘#1 Anyone who might consider leaving the PC(USA) is a sinner.’ Wow, pretty strong words!

I would agree those are pretty strong words but contrary to what this member said you won’t actually find them anywhere in the “Louisville Papers.”  You will find them however – word for word –  in a very misleading article published by The Layman in 2007.  

What the “Louisville Papers” do say however is that the way some people are choosing to leave the PC(USA) is sinful, specifically those who “sinfully threaten the peace and unity of Christ’s Church.”  

I would say the answer to why First and Calvary’s leadership acted so fast this summer has much more to do with them than it does the with the “Louisville Papers.”  The kind of emotional, reactionary decision making First and Calvary’s leadership demonstrated in response to the “Louisville Papers” is a far cry from the steady, disciplined leadership First and Calvary has historically known and enjoyed.

Moreover, if First and Calvary’s leadership had done their due diligence they would have seen these papers a long time ago during their discernment process.  The “Louisville Papers” were referenced in the material the discernment committee said they studied last fall and posted online for the congregation to read earlier this year.  There is no reason why the papers should have come as a surprise to First and Calvary’s leadership late this summer.

If First and Calvary’s leadership really believes that the “Louisville Papers” were the reason they needed to act so fast this summer they are blind to their own crisis and ironically need the help John Calvin Presbytery could offer them now more than ever.

Assembaptistarian: To Vote or Not to Vote?

voteJust about every Protestant congregation is filled with members who have belonged to another denomination at one time or another.  Many people join a congregation more for the pastoral leadership and programs than the denominational title over the front door. And that’s ok.

But denominations are distinct and problems arise when those distinctions are blurred and members expect one denomination to function like another.

For example, the notion that members of a congregation would vote to determine their congregation’s relationship with the denomination is a more Baptist or Assemblies of God way of thinking than it is Presbyterian.

The Presbyterian Church (USA) is a connectional denomination, congregations are not autonomous, and individual members do not make decisions for the congregation.  We have successive higher bodies of church government (sessions, presbyteries, synods, and the General Assembly) that have authority over the lower bodies.  Each of these bodies are comprised of elders who are chosen by God and elected by the members of the lower bodies to make decisions for the entire church.

Baptists on the other hand prize the autonomy of the local church, so much so that every local church is understood and affirmed to be complete in its ministry and free to determine its own membership, convictions, and principles.  No person or group outside of a Baptist congregation is to have any authority over the congregation in regard to beliefs and religious practices. Furthermore, all of the members within the church fellowship are to have equal voice in the governance of the church.  No individual or group of persons is in control.

General Council Assemblies of God congregations, similar to the Baptists, also enjoy full autonomy and self government.  The Assemblies of God in fact is not a denomination but a cooperative fellowship.

These summaries may be a bit of an over simplification but they help illustrate the differences.

Presbyterians: elect elders to governing bodies that make decisions for the church and the successively higher governing bodies have authority over the lower governing bodies.

Baptist: all members of the congregation have equal voice in decisions for the church and each congregation is autonomous of a higher governing body.

Assemblies of God: a cooperative fellowship of self governing, autonomous congregations.

Members in the Presbyterian Church (USA) who come from Baptists, Assemblies of God, or other similar backgrounds probably have a very hard time understanding how the denomination can make decisions regarding ordination standards and same-sex marriage that apply to the local congregation.

And so the question for these members whose conscience does not allow them to remain a part of the denomination now that these decisions have been made is how do they respond?

Asking the congregation to vote whether to remain a part of the Presbyterian Church (USA) is not the Presbyterian answer.  It may be the Baptist answer, it may be the Assemblies of God answer, but it is not the Presbyterian answer.

In the Presbyterian Church (USA) the relationship of a congregation can only be severed by constitutional action on the part of the presbytery, an action that can come only after following a joint period of discernment according to the presbytery’s discernment and dismissal policy.

Leaders in Presbyterians congregations, particularly those who come from other denominational backgrounds, need to be very mindful of where they are today and not confuse the polity they want from their past with the polity their ordination vows require them to uphold in the present.

And members of Presbyterian congregations should resist any vote that would determine their congregation’s relationship with the denomination; not because they agree or disagree with the decisions of the denomination, but because it is not who we are Presbyterians.

Let’s #StayPCUSA together.

To Have Lawsuits With One Another is Already a Defeat for You

courtroom

The relationship to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) of a congregation can be severed only by constitutional action on the part of the presbytery (G-3.0303b). If there is a schism within the membership of a congregation and the presbytery is unable to effect a reconciliation or a division into separate congregations within the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the presbytery shall determine if one of the factions is entitled to the property because it is identified by the presbytery as the true church within the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). This determination does not depend upon which faction received the majority vote within the congregation at the time of the schism. ~ PC(USA) Book of Order, Section G-4.0207


Presbyterians understand there may be times when decisions have been made in the church and our conscience no longer allows us to remain a part of the body.  But we have shared an understanding since the 18th century that when we cannot either actively concur with or passively submit to a decision of the church we will peaceably withdraw without attempting to make any schism.

First and foremost that is how Presbyterians handle unconscionable objections to decisions that have been made – we peaceably withdraw without attempting to make any schism.

However, in an attempt to find a gracious alternative, many, if not all presbyteries have written and voted into practice dismissal policies that outline the process a congregation and presbytery will go through when discerning their ongoing relationship when they reach one of these unconscionable thresholds.

But when a congregation’s leaders who wish to leave the denomination decide to disregard these two options and instead make an end run through the civil court system to secure the church property they are flat out breaking their ordination vows to be governed by our church’s polity (Book of Order, section W-4.4003).

Moreover, they are also violating our trust clause which says,

“all property held by or for a congregation, a presbytery, a synod, the General Assembly, or the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), whether legal title is lodged in a corporation, a trustee or trustees, or an unincorporated association, and whether the property is used in programs of a congregation or of a higher council or retained for the production of income, is held in trust nevertheless for the use and benefit of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).” ~Book of Order, section G-4.0203

When the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission made its ruling on the Tom Case in October 2012 it stated that our trust clause,

“reflects our understanding of the church as a communion of saints across time, with responsibilities both to those who came before and those who will follow. When a congregation seeks to leave the PC(USA), it is breaking what is often a significant historic relationship; it is also departing from a fellowship in which its officers have participated, by whose polity they have pledged to be governed, and with which many members may feel bonds of affection.”

But ordination vows and trust clauses are still not the only reasons a congregation’s leadership should keep the issue out of the civil court.  Taking church disputes to the state is not biblical, which is ironic considering those who want to leave the denomination say they are leaving because the denomination no longer upholds biblical standards.

Conservative, evangelical members of the denomination will likely be familiar with the teaching of R.C. Sproul, founder of Ligonier Ministries.  R.C. Sproul stated in his July 1, 2015 broadcast titled The Sword and The Keys, when the church and state meddle in each other’s affairs, they usurp the authority God has delegated to each body and the church errs when it looks to the state to settle its disputes.

The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXIII, Section 3 teaches,

“Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and Sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith.”

And in 1 Corinthians, one of Paul’s most important letters Paul writes in chapter 6:1-8,

“When any of you has a grievance against another, do you dare to take it to court before the unrighteous, instead of taking it before the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels—to say nothing of ordinary matters? If you have ordinary cases, then, do you appoint as judges those who have no standing in the church? I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to decide between one believer and another, but a believer goes to court against a believer—and before unbelievers at that? In fact, to have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded? But you yourselves wrong and defraud—and believers at that.”

R.C. Sproul, The Westminster Confession of Faith, and the word of God all agree; the church is not to go to the state to settle its disputes.  Going to the state to settle disputes is a reflection of the culture we live in, not the Christ we follow.

Members of a congregation where ordination vows are broken, trust is violated, and where church disputes are taken to the state to be settled, regardless of their position on dismissal, should not sit by idly and give into this leadership.

Barbara Kellerman, the James MacGregor Burns Lecturer in Public Leadership at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government reminds us that,

“Followers are more important to leaders than leaders are to followers.”

Leaders can’t lead if their followers don’t follow.

The key to successful leadership is influence, not authority, and there is always plenty of influence in a congregation outside of the titled leadership.  If the titled leadership in a congregation won’t guide the process of discernment through the polity set forth by the church government then the congregation itself can and should take it upon themselves to see that it happens.

Let’s #StayPCUSA together.

Jesus, The Bible, and Essential Tenets in the Presbyterian Church (USA)

I spoke as part of a presentation John Calvin Presbytery was invited to give to First and Calvary Presbyterian Church in Springfield, MO on Wednesday night, May 13, 2015, about the PC(USA)’s beliefs regarding Jesus Christ, the authority of scripture, and essential tenets.  As you will read in my transcript below, I grew up at First and Calvary and have them to thank for teaching me who Jesus is and what the body of Christ looks like.  Here is what I said to them about what the PC(USA) I know and love believes.

Introduction


My faith was formed here at First and Calvary with you.

I was baptized here as an infant and from that day you took your promise to that baptismal covenant seriously.  You nurtured my faith through worship, Sunday School classes, choirs, youth groups, confirmation, high school mission trips, and you connected me with our larger denomination through presbytery camps and conferences and Montreat summer camp.

In college, you provided me with opportunities to serve our community and presbytery as a member of the SUMMIT team, one summer you sent me to work at Ghost Ranch, another summer to Cameron House, a Presbyterian community center in San Francisco’s China Town.

After college you gave me the opportunity work with the youth and college students, you supported me in a number of ways through seminary and, in 1996, you were here with me for my ordination to the ministry of Word and Sacrament.

And you haven’t just done this for me.  You’ve done it for countless numbers of us who have grown up here and been loved so well by you.

It is only by the grace of God that any of us have faith in Jesus Christ but it is because of you that I know who Jesus Christ is and what the body of Christ looks like.  Much of who I am today, including my faith in Jesus Christ, was formed here in relationship with you.  And so I am very grateful to be here with you tonight.

I remember sitting in the sanctuary here at First and Calvary in 1983 when the reunification of the northern and southern branches of the denomination was announced in worship.  I was a young teenage boy with many other cares in the world but even then I knew something incredibly special had just happened.  That announcement preached to me as powerfully as any sermon I have ever heard.  It was one of those powerful revelatory moments when the living Word of God moves before your own eyes.  On that day, in that moment, I witnessed the reconciling love of Jesus Christ.  I’ve never forgotten that day.

And so now when some people are talking about splitting from our denomination I’m pouring myself into keeping us together.

The first I knew anyone was thinking about leaving was in early 2013 when the PC(USA) congregation my family and I belonged to in Orange County started the process of discernment that eventually led to their dismissal to ECO last summer.

I thought I knew our denomination pretty well, but when I started hearing the reasons why some people wanted to leave the denomination it really caught me off guard.  I remember being in a congregational forum when an elder who was on our congregation’s denomination committee stood up and said the PC(USA) General Assembly, our highest governing body made up of elected elders, had defeated a motion that would have declared Jesus Christ as the “singular, saving Lord.”

My heart was turned and I began to believe my relationship with the PC(USA) was coming to an end.

I would understand if you have heard things that have turned your heart too.

But I couldn’t let it go.  I questioned myself, wondering how I had become so out of touch with the PC(USA).  The facts and information I heard from our denomination committee just didn’t resonate with my experiences or relationships in the PC(USA).  And so I started doing my own research.

I learned it was a fact that 45% of PC(USA) clergy surveyed do not agree that “only followers of Jesus Christ can be saved.”

I learned it was a fact that the PC(USA) Book of Order had changed its language from being “obedient” to being “guided” by scripture.

But I also learned that facts don’t always mean what we think they mean or point us to the right conclusion.

I’ve been a part of our denomination my whole life, both as a member and ordained minister, and I’ve been in different congregations and presbyteries across the country: liberal, moderate, and conservative.  I know the PCUSA is not a perfect church.  We have major disagreements. We read the Bible through different eyes and grids. We have our heretics.  We have our noted sinners on the left and the right.  But on the whole the PC(USA) I know is a denomination filled with a large core of faithful members who believe Jesus Christ is the Word of God incarnate, the only Lord and Savior, the only way to God; and that holy scripture is the inspired and infallible written word of God.

Tonight I want to tell you about this PC(USA) I know and love; specifically our theological understanding of Jesus Christ and the authority of scripture.

And hopefully, if your heart has been turned against the denomination the way mine once was, we’ll begin to get it turned back around.

Christology


First, Jesus Christ.  There is this idea floating around out there that the PC(USA) is questioning whether Jesus is God.

We are not questioning that.  We know Jesus is God. But the idea that we are questioning whether Jesus is God got started back in July 2000 when The Reverend Dirk Ficca, a PC(USA) pastor and Executive Director of the Council for a Parliament of the World’s Religions, made a speech at a Peacemaking conference held at Chapman University where he asked the rhetorical question, “what’s the big deal about Jesus?”

That question was then lifted out of context by publications and became an inflammatory headline causing an outcry in the denomination.

The General Assembly (GA) in 2001 wrestled with this outcry.  Commissioners attending that GA were really upset and wanted to press the PC(USA) to make a declaration that Jesus is the only savior.  So a committee worked on this issue and they brought an action to the GA which the GA adopted.  This action affirmed Jesus Christ is the unique authority as Lord, also that he is uniquely Savior of the world.

In the process of doing this however, one commissioner who was on that committee, brought a statement and wanted to use language that said Jesus is “singular, saving Lord.”  The committee felt like that was not traditional language.  Historically the church has never used this phrase “singular, saving Lord,” so the committee, and then the General Assembly, rejected that language in order to affirm the unique authority of Jesus Christ as Lord and that Jesus Christ is also uniquely Savior of the world.  Language we get from The Second Helvetic Confession.

However the headlines read the PC(USA) General Assembly refuses to affirm Jesus is “singular, saving Lord.”

Furthermore, the same General Assembly in 2001 directed the denomination’s Office of Theology and Worship to create a study for the whole church, so as a whole denomination we would have a resource to study what the scriptures say about Jesus as Savior and Lord.  In 2002 this study process brought back a report to the GA titled “Hope in the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Statements in the document “Hope in the Lord Jesus Christ” include this, and others like it,

“Jesus Christ is the only Savior and Lord, and all people everywhere are called to place their faith, hope, and love in him. No one is saved by virtue of inherent goodness or admirable living, for ‘by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God” [Ephesians 2.8].  No one is saved apart from God’s gracious redemption in Jesus Christ.’”

The General Assembly in 2002 who received that document overwhelmingly approved “Hope in the Lord Jesus Christ” by a vote of 497 yes, 11 no, 5 abstentions.

Then in a very unusual move the following General Assembly voted to reaffirm “Hope in the Lord Jesus Christ,” which they didn’t have to, and this time there were even more votes in support.

Never the less people continue to claim the PC(USA) has abandoned the Lordship of Jesus Christ because the General Assembly rejected the language of “singular, saving Lord.”

We have our individual heretics who would probably deny the “singular, saving” Lordship of Christ.  I suspect The Reverend John Shuck who is referenced as one of our heretics in you Q&A booklet is one of them.  John is a beloved child of God and I try to always keep that in mind when I think about him, but his blog and podcasts are far beyond the pale of our orthodox beliefs, and as someone working to uphold what the PC(USA) believes he drives me crazy.

The PC(USA) believes “That truth is in order to goodness…And that no opinion can either be more pernicious or more absurd than that which brings truth and falsehood upon a level, and represents it as of no consequence what a man’s opinions are. On the contrary, we are persuaded that there is an inseparable connection between faith and practice, truth and duty. Otherwise it would be of no consequence either to discover truth or to embrace it.” (Book of Order F-3.0104)

Based on this foundational belief of ours it’s not only fair but right to criticize John’s theology.  And our denomination is not always as quick to refute or discipline our heretics as we should be.  That’s a criticism I can accept.

But what I don’t accept is that because a few people like Dick Ficca and John Shuck have PC(USA) next to their name that you or I or the rest of the denomination share the same false beliefs.

The PC(USA) I know and love believes we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone.

So then you might ask why would 45% of PC(USA) clergy responding to a survey say that Jesus is not the only way to salvation?  The short answer is they didn’t.

Many of you have probably heard about the survey recently conducted by the PC(USA) where survey participants were asked to agree or disagree to the following statement, “Only followers of Jesus Christ can be saved.”

45% of the pastors responding did not agree that “only followers of Jesus Christ can be saved.”

And so people are looking at these results and saying PC(USA) pastors, in large measure, do not believe Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation.  But that is not what the survey said.

Both the survey and its results are misleading.

The survey statement was not “Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation,” the survey statement was “only followers of Jesus Christ can be saved.”

At first it sounds like those two statements are saying the same thing which is why there is so much misunderstanding and why I want to repeat them.

The survey statement was not “Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation,” the survey statement was “only followers of Jesus Christ can be saved.”

Or to put it another way the survey asked can children who die as infants, can the mentally impaired, can people-groups and individuals who never had exposure to the gospel, and can even people who through no fault of their own had a bad experience with falsified Christianity, can these people who never followed Jesus, can they be saved?

You see that is a very different question than is Jesus Christ the only way of salvation?

There is a video on the denominational issues page of your website where you can see a panel discussion that took place in 2013 about this survey.  Jack Haberer, one of the panelist and then Editor of The Presbyterian Outlook, referenced infants who die and those in the Old Testament who are now credited with their faith and said,

“So I’m one of those who votes that other people can be saved, other than those who believe in Jesus.  I think the bible tells us so. And so to say we have this broad number of ministers who think Jesus is just one way among others, that’s not what the survey asked them.  That’s what some publications have interpreted that survey to say.  It’s not true.  Many of us believe that some will be saved that do not believe in Jesus because the salvation accomplished by Jesus, God has the right to spread to others.”

Dana Allin, another panelist and the synod executive of the ECO Presbyterian Church agreed that the survey could have led to results that were skewed.  Even Dana said,

“I do agree that I think the survey was maybe not articulated in the way that it should have been and led to results that could be skewed.  For example as Jack said about children dying in infancy.”

And here is what our doctrine in the Westminster Confession says “Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.” (Section 6.066)

Our doctrine in the PC(USA) clearly provides salvation to the elect, including infants and others who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word – and these are not followers of Jesus Christ yet our doctrine in the Westminster Confession, the confession some consider our gold standard, provides them a means of salvation.

Chapter 16 of The Second Helvetic Confession also teaches there is salvation to the children of believing parents.

Knowing that, and believing that, how would you have responded to the survey’s claim that “only followers of Jesus Christ can be saved?”

Look, I think the way we respond to this survey and the way we respond to the results depends on if we put the emphasis on the word “followers” or the words “Jesus Christ.”  If the emphasis is on the word “follower” then the PC(USA) does not and should not agree with the statement.  Because we do not believe that only “followers” of Jesus Christ can be saved.  But if the emphasis is on the words “Jesus Christ” then the PC(USA) I know and love should and does agree with the statement.  Because we do believe that salvation is through Christ alone.

Which probably explains the 41% of clergy who agreed with the statement.  So 45% didn’t agree, 41% did agree and I think both could be right.

This is why Dana Allin said the survey may not have been articulated well and led to results that could be skewed.

And yet the survey continues be shared as an example of how little the PC(USA) thinks about Jesus.  And that misunderstanding is tearing us apart and destroying the “peace, unity, and purity” of the church, the very body of Jesus Christ.

The PC(USA) is not questioning whether Jesus is God.  We believe in one God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  And we believe nothing less than Jesus Christ alone is head of the Church and Lord and Savior.  There is no equal, he has no competitors.

But if you have any doubts about what the PC(USA) believes about Jesus let me suggest three things.

One, read “Hope in the Lord Jesus Christ.”  You can find it on it on my website StayPCUSA.info under the Stay Resources tab.

Two, read chapter one of our Foundations of Presbyterian Polity in the Book of Order which you can also find on my website.  They are seven short but powerful pages that declare our foundational beliefs about who Jesus is.

And three, actually spend time with other members in the PC(USA) outside of First and Calvary and find out what they believe about Jesus.

Don’t let your understanding of what the PC(USA) believes about who Jesus is be formed by what you see in surveys, or by what you read online or in publications, or by what you hear from those who are leaving or want to leave the denomination.  Let it be formed by those of us who are in the PC(USA), and who are staying PC(USA), and are hoping you will stay too.

The PC(USA) I know and love believes unity is God’s gift to the Church.  To be one with Christ is to be joined with everyone Christ calls.  And because in Christ the Church is one, we strive to be one.

John Calvin, this presbytery’s name sake, said he would “cross ten oceans in order to keep the body of the Church from being dismembered.”

Everyone of us should be doing everything we can to stay together.  Maybe you won’t cross ten oceans but you can worship with ten other PC(USA) congregations in the presbytery or as you travel around the country this summer.

We should be doing this not because John Calvin would be, although that is a good reason, no, we should be doing this because I believe it is what Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior, the Word made flesh, is calling us to do.

Authority of Scripture


Ok, now on to the authority of scripture.

The PC(USA) I know and love believes scripture is the inspired and infallible Word of God.  Meaning it was God breathed and will not fail to accomplish it’s purpose.  And that through the scriptures the Holy Spirit bears unique and authoritative witness to Jesus Christ.  Scripture is not a witness among others, but the witness without parallel whose authority comes from God.

We hold a high view of scripture in the PC(USA) but we have always been careful not to hold it quite so high that we idolize it.

In part be because we take seriously 1 Corinthians 13:12 which says “For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known.”

But the other reason is because we know the written word of God is a witness to the living Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who alone is worthy of our worship and praise.

As Reformed Christians we believe more strongly than others that we may not have a complete or correct understanding of the scriptures.  There is a tendency outside of the Reformed tradition to lock up a scripture’s meaning and teach it forever as an unchangeable truth.  But that is not who we have been and it’s not who we are.

We have, on the other hand, continually asked in every new time, place, and situation, “What is the living Lord of Scripture saying and doing here and now, and what do we have to say and do to be faithful and obedient in our time?”

The Barmen Declaration speaks for the best intentions of the whole Reformed tradition when it says, “Jesus Christ, as he is attested for in Scripture, is the one Word of God which we have to hear and which we have to trust and obey in life and in death.”

With the passage of 10A in 2011 that removed the fidelity and chastity amendment from our Book of Order, and most recently the passage of 14F that allows our clergy to perform same-sex marriages in states where it is legal and where their sessions have permitted, some people believe the PC(USA) has elevated cultural standards above scripture.

But the fact that our denomination has a new understanding about a long and widely held traditional belief like same-sex relationships does not necessarily mean we have had to diminish the authority of scripture, to come to this understanding.  It means we have a new understanding of what the living Lord of scripture is saying and doing here and now.

Obviously this is a new understanding many people in the denomination are having a hard time getting behind.  I get that.  Even though my own position has moved from non-affirming to affirming over the years I wouldn’t firmly plant myself in that camp yet.

But, as a Presbyterian I believe my own understanding of scripture is more limited than the understanding of the larger councils of the church, which have, in this matter, discerned God is leading the church in this new direction.

Now, councils not only can err, councils do err, in fact I’m going to say something about that in just a little bit, but this is where the rubber really meets the road for Presbyterians.  This is where each one of us has to decide for ourselves, are we really a Presbyterian in practice or only in name.  Do we accept the judgment of the larger council even when we disagree or do we only accept their judgement as long as it matches our own and when it doesn’t we break away?

Breaking away is always an option for a Presbyterian, but it should be our last option.

As Presbyterians we know we know we won’t always see eye to eye on every issue.  That’s been true for generations of Presbyterians, and so we have an understanding, a corollary to our Historic Principals of Church Order, for how we handle those situations when a person’s conscious simply will not allow them to remain in the denomination.  And that understanding is we will peaceably withdraw without attempting to make any schism.  That is how Presbyterians dismiss ourselves when the larger councils have settled a matter by vote and our conscious no longer permits us to remain a part of the body.

But of course, I hope you don’t leave.

I’m choosing to go with the wisdom of the larger council on this and at the same time am continuing to work on my own understanding of how the Holy Spirit is leading me through scripture.  And unless your conscious won’t permit it I’d like for you to do the same.

If you want help understanding how an evangelical Christian could support same-sex relationships and uphold the authority of scripture read Matthew Vines’ book God and the Gay Christian.

Matthew grew up in Eastminster Presbyterian Church in Wichita, which at the time when he was growing up there was one of our denomination’s flagship evangelical congregations.  Matthew’s parents were active leaders in the congregation and held a traditional view of same-sex relationships.  His dad, who is a litigation attorney and was an elder in the congregation, described the day Matthew came out to him as the worst day of his life. He suggested they do a Bible study together and assumed that once they did, Matthew would see his error.

Eastminster Presbyterian Church in Wichita has since left the PC(USA) for the Evangelical Presbyterian Church.   And after their six month bible study it was Matthew’s dad who came to understand scripture differently than he had before.

In the introduction to his book Matthew writes, “…many Christians now support same-sex relationships.  But those who do tend to see Scripture as a helpful but dated guidebook, not as the final authority on questions of morality and doctrine.  That is not my view of scripture.  Like most theologically conservative Christians, I hold what is often called a “high view” of the Bible.  That means I believe all of Scripture is inspired by God and authoritative for my life.”

Other Presbyterians in the PC(USA) who hold a “high view” of the Bible, just like Matthew, are finding this new understanding in scripture.  William Stacy Johnson, professor of systematic theology at Princeton Theological Seminary, is member of our denomination who has also written a book about this new understanding that people are finding helpful called, A Time To Embrace.

And of course this is not the first time a new understanding of scripture has changed a once long and widely held traditional belief.  Or the first time a new understanding has rocked the Church.  Starting with gospel being opened to the Gentiles in Acts, which by the way is good news for all of us.  To the freedom of slaves, issues of divorce and remarriage, and the ordination of women.

The PC(USA) I know and love values tradition – we hold on to our Reformed tradition and submit ourselves to the authority and guidance of our confessional standards, but at the same time those same confessional standards require us to be open to hearing a new and perhaps different word from the living Lord – and this is the church being reformed.

The PC(USA) is a community of believers who are “Reformed and always being reformed.”

Shirley Guthrie wrote in his classic book Christian Doctrine, our task is not to try “to master an already fixed system of theology that Reformed Christians believe has once and for all captured the truth about God, human beings, and the world.  According to the Reformed faith, no system of theology can ever do that…All theology, whether that of an individual or of the whole church, is at best inadequate, fallible, human attempt to understand that truth.  According to the Reformed churches, therefore, there has always been and always will be the right and responsibility to question any individual’s, any denomination’s, any creedal document’s grasp of the truth – not for the sake of our freedom to think anything we please, but for the sake of the freedom of biblical truth from every human attempt to capture and tame it.”

All of this brings me to the change we made to our Book of Order in 2011 that removed the “fidelity and chastity amendment” which included the requirement for those who are ordained to obey the Word of God.

Let me read that section we removed to you,“Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness.”

Never mind that among those same standards women would not be allowed to perform the sacrament baptism as there is both biblical and confessional language prohibiting it.

If you don’t understand our Presbyterian and Reformed suspicion about obeying scripture then the removal of the fidelity and chastity amendment, section G-6.0106b would seem troubling.

But when you understand that we believe we are to obey Christ alone as he is illumined in the scriptures by the Holy Spirit, then the removal of the fidelity and chastity amendment can start to make more sense.

Jack Haberer, who I mentioned earlier, was working with the Presbyterian Coalition to bring fidelity and chastity language to the Church in 1996 when the “Fidelity and Chastity” amendment was approved by the General Assembly.  But he and others who had worked to bring this language to the Church were surprised that “obedience to” scripture had been included with the amendment when it came out of the subcommittee of the committee at General Assembly who was working on it.

Jack and others knew that language of “obedience to” scripture was going to be a problem because it was not in the Book of Order at the time, or at any other time that he knew of.  Previously the Book of Order had said we were to be “guided” by scripture.

“Obedience to” scripture has also not been our confessional language, either.

So “obedience” went in the Book of Order in 1996 and came out 2011, a relatively brief and recent 15 years.

But from the backlash this change created you would think we just completely undid a bedrock foundation of our denomination, but in fact by removing language of obedience we have actually restored a bedrock foundation.

Jack believes one of the reasons we have traditionally used language of being “guided” by scripture is because, “the Bible has too often been used as a hammer, taking one text out of context, to say you have to obey that, and you have to obey that, and most especially by men toward women.”

Like the Barmen Declaration tells us, our obedience is to God, who has inspired the scriptures, and we are to totally obey God, understanding God’s will as the scriptures guide.

To criticize the PC(USA) for removing language of being obedient to scripture, language that had only recently been inserted, is to not understand our history, our Reformed tradition, or who we are as a Presbyterian denomination.

Please don’t suggest this is symptomatic of a shift to diminish the authority of scripture in the PC(USA).  It isn’t.

Essential Tenets


And the same reason why the PC(USA) does not use language of being obedient to scripture is related to why we don’t specifically name our essential tenets.

Because we take authority of scripture so seriously we dare not put any human words between us and the word of God.  We believe we are limited, fallible, sinful people and any words or essential tenets we try to name are at best provisional and subject to revision and correction.

So instead of specifically listing our essential tenets we require our church officers to receive and adopt our understanding of the Reformed faith as it is expressed in the broader confessions of our church.

The alternative, which ECO has incorporated into their constitution, is to bind its church officers to list of essential tenets.  In ECO the Book of Confessions is not part of their constitution like it is in ours.  Their essential tenets however are.

Where the PC(USA) requires its officers to receive and adopt our essential tenets of the Reformed faith as they are expressed in the confessions, ECO requires its officers to receive, adopt, and be bound by their list of Essential Tenets.

The PC(USA) I know and love does not bind the conscious of it’s officers to any human words – not for the sake of our freedom to think anything we please, as Shirley Guthrie said, but for the sake of the freedom of biblical truth from every human attempt to capture and tame it.

We know that no statement developed by any body of believers can ever quite do justice to the faith revealed in God’s Word.

The Westminster Confession of Faith states, “All synods or councils since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as a help in both.”

It’s not that we lack core theological beliefs, it’s that we refuse to make an idol out of our theology.

It’s interesting, to me at least, that two of the three primary writers of ECO’s essential tenets, The Reverend Doctors Jerry Andrews and Joe Small are staying in the PC(USA).

Joe Small has said,

“For my part, I will surely remain a part of the church that brought me to faith. Long ago I learned from John Calvin that the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is my mother in the Faith, and that I must remain under her care and guidance. As a child of the church I do not always agree with my parent; I am embarrassed from time to time, and occasionally angry. But the church remains my nurturing parent and I remain its thankful child. I grieve estrangement from any of my sisters and brothers. I will try to remain as close to all of them as possible, and I will hope for the day of family reunion.”

And Jerry Andrews has talked openly about his own experience of having gone through a church split in the church he grew up in.  He talks about the pain it caused and the separation it created between him and his father.

Voices Staying


There are many influential voices in our denomination besides Jerry and Joe who are staying in the PC(USA) but there are two more in particular I want you to hear.

One is The Reverend Dr. Richard Mouw, retired president of Fuller Theological Seminary, and the other is The Reverend Dr. Barbara Wheeler, retired president of Auburn Seminary.  Neither are PC(USA) seminaries but both Richard and Barbara are members of the PC(USA) and prominent leaders in our denomination.

Even though Richard and Barbara come from very different places theologically and “have serious differences about serious matters, they count themselves blessed by the collegiality and mutual respect through which the Holy Spirit moves, enabling them to become better people and better Christians because of what each has learned from the other.”

They each wrote an article about why the Evangelical and Liberal parts of the church need each other that was published in Sojourner’s magazine in February 2004.  Barbara’s article was titled “Why the Liberal Church Needs the Evangelical Church.”  And Richard’s was titled, “Why the Evangelical Church Needs the Liberal Church.”

Barbara, the liberal, wrote,

“We could skip the split. We Presbyterians, who share so much—a confession of faith, a rich theological heritage, the advantages and the burdens of wealth and social power—could covenant to stay together in our reformed relations, to labor with each other, in love, for justice and truth. It would be very arduous and painful, much more so than splitting or drifting apart. It would be worth it. The world would take note of what the gospel makes possible for those who confess their dis-ease with each other and their displacement by each other but still keep on going, strangers locked in covenant, toward the better country of diversity and harmony, liberty and love.”

And Richard, the evangelical, wrote,

“I genuinely believe that a Presbyterian split would be a serious setback for the cause that I care deeply about, namely, the cause of Reformed orthodoxy. I spend a lot of time thinking about how people with my kind of theology have acted in the past, and I am convinced that splits inevitably diminish the influence of the kind of orthodoxy that I cherish, for at least two reasons.

First, the denomination from which the dissidents depart is typically left without strong voices who are defending their understanding of orthodoxy…

The second way in which the cause of Reformed orthodoxy was diminished has to do with what happened to the conservatives themselves after they left the mainline denomination. They quickly began to argue among themselves, and it was not long before new splits occurred in their ranks. The result was that conservative Calvinism itself increasingly became a fractured movement.

I worry much about what would happen to Presbyterian evangelicals ourselves if we were to leave the PC(USA). When we evangelical types don’t have more liberal people to argue with, we tend to start arguing with each other. I would much rather see us continue to focus on the major issues of Reformed thought in an admittedly pluralistic denomination than to deal with the tensions that often arise among ourselves when evangelicals get into the debates that seem inevitably to arise when we have established our own “pure” denominations.”

I love the PC(USA) in large measure because you taught me to love it.  Not because we are a pure denomination but because I find Jesus here, and it is my home.  And if you go I’m confident you will find Jesus wherever you end up, because Jesus will never leave us or forsake us where ever we go; even if we choose to leave and forsake each other.  But it will be harder for both of us to find Jesus in the church if you leave, because the more we split into like-minded groups the more the church will begin to look like us and less like Jesus.

When it comes to being like-minded I think scripture is clear that means one thing – not that we agree on every position but that we have the same mind that was in Christ Jesus, “who though he was God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness.  And being found in human form, he humbled himself, and became obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.” ~ Philippians 2:5-8

Know that there are many of us hoping and praying you will stay but that if you must go, may the peace of Christ will go with you.

Not That Many Members Really Want to Leave

If you are in a congregation who is considering its relationship with our denomination chances are only 15-20% of the members really want to leave the PC(USA).  The other 80-85% either don’t mind staying or really want to stay PC(USA).

I used to think this was just my own observation from having gone through the discernment and dismissal process with my own congregation last year but then I heard The Reverend Dr. Jim Singleton, one of the leaders who helped establish ECO and the Fellowship of Presbyterians, say the very same thing to the 2014 National Gathering of ECO/Fellowship.  You can listen to Jim describe his observation from working with concerned congregations during the last two years here…

“I’ve been working with a lot of churches in the last two years and what it looks to me like in most churches is that you’ve got what I call a 20-65-15 kind of split.  In a lot of churches about 20% vitally want to stay, about 15% vitally want to leave, and about 65% really don’t care.  They’re ok whatever name is on the door.  And sometimes that 20 and that 15 are flipped in reverse numbers.” ~ The Reverend Dr. Jim Singleton, 2014 National Gathering of ECO/Fellowship

So how is such a small group of members able to persuade whole congregations to move from one denomination to another?

Here is the four step process I see happening again and again in leaving congregations.

Step 1: Establish a Grassroots Denomination Study Committee from Members of the Congregation


Several influential leaders in a congregation who are passionate about taking the congregation to a new denomination, work with session and form a denomination study committee.  The committee members themselves may or may not necessarily all be passionate about leaving when they join the committee but the leader of the committee, who is passionate about leaving, only provides them material to study that is strongly biased against the PC(USA).  The Layman and it’s publication “How We Got Here” is a primary example.  After studying these biased materials over a number of weeks, the committee then comes to the congregation with their findings, which, not surprisingly, support the idea that the denomination is  “deathly ill”.

It is interesting that of all the decisions a session will ever make, few decisions will ever be as consequential as this one and yet they always form a committee that includes members of the congregation that are not on the session to study the issue.  I think this very intentional.  When the committee presents their findings to the congregation, the leaving leaders want it to look like the process is a grassroots effort coming up from the pews rather than from the pulpit or session.

The 65% of members in the middle, who are part of the grassroots, see the conclusion of the grassroots committee and can identify with them.  Very few people will have the time it takes to study the issues in depth so the finding of this group is very influential.

Step 2: Promote the Unity of the Congregation 


The next phase of the process involves a campaign to promote unity within the congregation.  It may take different shapes in different congregations but the message is always the same, “regardless of the outcome we need to stay united as a congregation”.

The message may be “regardless of the outcome” but in fact anyone from this point on who expresses doubts about leaving is cast by the leaving leaders as being divisive to the unity of the congregation.

Even if an alternative group rises up with a positive message about the PC(USA), they are never given the same status or access to the congregation as the denomination study committee.  The committee becomes the official voice and their findings become the official message.  Any other message is seen as subversive and divisive.

Step 3: Take a Straw Poll


The third step in the process is a straw poll taken of the members.  In my opinion this is the single most divisive and destructive tool used by the leaving leaders.

By the time the straw poll is taken, grassroot members, the 65% in the middle, may or may not be convinced the PC(USA) is “deathly ill” but they are convinced that maintaining the unity of the congregation is important.  More importantly, they often believe the majority of the members want to leave.  And since few people want to be known as the divisive person who split the congregation, they cast their straw poll vote to leave the denomination, not because they want to leave, but because they want to maintain the unity of the congregation.

At this point the leaving leaders have the perceived momentum they need.  Rather than the true 15-20% who want to leave the congregation the straw poll indicates 80-85% who want to leave.  Only the 15-20% who strongly want to remain in the PC(USA) vote to stay.

The results of the straw poll instantly split the congregation and allow the leaving leaders to give the perception that a majority of the congregation is in favor of leaving.  This perception is important for quelling the 15-20% who are strongly in favor of staying as well as for persuading the presbytery that the congregation wants to be dismissed.

Step 4: The Pastor and Session Step Out from Behind the Scenes


Up until this point the senior pastor and session have been working behind the scenes but once momentum has safely been established the pastor and session come forward and put their foot on the gas.

At this point there is no turning back.

A Better Way

Since the 18th century, a corollary to our Presbyterian Historic Principles of Church Order has been,

“That when any matter is determined by a major vote, every member shall either actively concur with or passively submit to such determination; or if his conscience permit him to do neither, he shall, after sufficient liberty modestly to reason and remonstrate, peaceably withdraw from our communion without attempting to make any schism. Provided always that this shall be understood to extend only to such determination as the body shall judge indispensable in doctrine or Presbyterian government.”

“ … peaceably withdraw … without attempting to make any schism” is deeply etched in our Presbyterian history.  This is how Presbyterians settle irreconcilable differences.

The leaving leaders who are actively promoting secession from the denomination because the votes did not go their way are violating this historic principle. They are also violating their ordination vow to “further the peace, unity, and purity of the church”.

The better way would be for these leaving leaders and the 15-20% of the members whose conscious does not allow them to stay to peacefully withdraw and form a new ECO congregation.  But I’m guessing, that like Jim Singleton, the leaving leaders know better than anyone how small their numbers really are and that starting a new congregation isn’t a viable option for them.

I’m confident that if a congregation who enters this discernment process stays PC(USA) they will find many more members stay with them than they ever imagined.

Let’s #StayPC(USA) together.