Can presbymergent Save the PC(USA)?

November 21, 2007

Presbymergent has continued to gain steam, and more and more people have begun to connect with it (we’re over 200 on our Facebook group and we have 199 contributors on the website). I’ve found it’s a very odd phenomenon to watch something that I helped to start grow bigger than I had initially expected. I imagine this is something that many people deal with who help create groups or organizations, and probably what some of the Emergent Village leadership still feels as more and more people align themselves with Emergent. Overall, I’m excited to hear about people wanting to be a part of the presbymergent conversation (yes, I think we’re a conversation too). At Pittsburgh, it was really wonderful to meet people who were passionate about the church, about bringing about God’s Kingdom and about how presbymergent might contribute to those things. But every now and then, I run into someone who wants to self-identify as “presbymergent” or who finds energy in the conversation, and I catch myself thinking — “really?” People who I may not agree with theologically, people who may have very different ideas about presbymergent than I do. But - like Emergent - it’s not my job to start drawing lines in the sand about who can or can’t be a part of presbymergent - that would totally go against our ethos.

But I do want to say one thing - and this is not an “official” statement about presbymergent, just my own thoughts about its purpose (I think Troy Bronsink shared some similar thoughts in his post, “Better Late Than…“). Presbymergent is not about saving the Presbyterian Church (USA). If you come to the conversation asking “What is presbymergent going to go do save the PC(USA)?” - I’ll say that it’s simply the wrong question. There are plenty of other “renewal” organizations who are speaking of the death of the PC(USA) and how we are going to only aid in the process if we continue to seek liberal theologies and agendas.

I am not interested in “saving” the Presbyterian Church (USA). What I am interested in is the kingdom of God - I am interested in helping others find ways in which they can live out their faith, and find the ways in which they can participate in the hopes and dreams of God. I think both Emergent and the Presbyterian Church can contribute to those goals. But am I concerned about the dying PC(USA)? Do I think that presbymergent will be the change agent necessary to save the denomination? No. Is it possible that presbymergence could bring some life into the Presbyterian Church? Certainly - and I am not against that. But my goal in working with people through presbymergent is not renewal. We are not the next PFR (Presbyterians For Renewal).

As presbymergent continues to grow, I’m sure there will be more and more people who have their own interests in it and ideas about how it can work with and for the Presbyterian Church (USA). I just want to say that for me, on this day, presbymergent is not about saving the denomination.

Tags: Emergent, Presbymergent, Renewal

Category Posted in Emergent, PC(USA), Presbymergent ShareThis

14 Responses to “Can presbymergent Save the PC(USA)?”

Steve Hayner said:

November 21st, 2007 at 9:36 am

This has also been our view at Presbyterian Global Fellowship, too. “By God’s grace and in the power of the Holy Spirit, our mission is to transform mainline congregations into missional communities following Jesus Christ.” We are committed to a vision for missional renewal, to connecting congregations and leaders with one another and with the global church, to sharing ideas and resources worldwide, and to stewarding our material gifts in service of Christ’s mission.

But churches ask us all the time, “What is your strategy for saving the PC(USA)? How do you plan to renew the denomination?” And we tell them that we don’t have a strategy for that. We were formed because we believe that whatever happens to the denomination, God is still calling us to get on with being Kingdom people following our Kingdom Lord and attending to Kingdom business. Our view is that churches can easily get so distracted in their attempts to save the institution that they forget why God has formed the church in the first place.
Marty Holman said:

November 21st, 2007 at 10:14 am

I think this is one of the great conflicts that divides generations. Being careful not to stereotype everyone in a given generation, many who grew up in the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s have a real desire to see their denominations grow like they once did. I remember growing up in the baptist church my dad pastored and occasionally attending baptist conventions, with preachers constantly pushing their denominational agenda under the mask of “revival,” and I remember asking myself if this was even the point of “revival”. As an adult, I see now it is not.
Brian said:

November 21st, 2007 at 10:49 am

Nicely put Adam
Taylor George said:

November 21st, 2007 at 11:27 am

First off, I’d like to say great post Adam. I love your focus on the kingdom of God vs. our kingdoms (read denominations). It’s a healthy reminder to me to refocus on the right stuff.

I am a member of an ELCA church, the mainline Lutheran denomination. Our church is thriving, and I don’t mean numerically. We are thriving because we haven’t gone the route of total theological liberalism. We are optimistic in what Christ could do for the human race but we have not given way to Universalism. In my opinion that’s the edge that must be maintained. Without the hard stuff we end up with no good stuff.

The PC(USA) received a huge boost in taking on John Ortberg. At my church we’re reading The Life You’ve Always Wanted. It’s really giving us a vision for ministry that mainliners and emergents have swarmed to.
Shawn Coons said:

November 21st, 2007 at 12:31 pm

Adam,

I started responding here but after several paragraphs I figured I’d blog a response. Thanks for the insightful post!

http://www.igeekrev.com/?p=99
Jan said:

November 21st, 2007 at 3:29 pm

Good post Adam.
I agree that we are not about saving the PCUSA. But I’m feeling a bit like a consultant. Strangers email and phone wanting to talk about their churches and the movement from what they’ve been to what they could be in the 21st c. It’s very exciting.
Adam Copeland said:

November 21st, 2007 at 4:54 pm

Adam WC,

So it’s a bit tacky, but I’m going to copy Shawn since my response is so long (and thoughtful:) In int, I comment on Shawn’s and Adam’s perspective using theological language.

http://adamcopeland.wordpress.com/2007/11/21/pcusa-emergent-and-a-savior/
Dan said:

November 21st, 2007 at 5:20 pm

It has been interesting learning about PCUSA coming from a non-denominational background. I will become a member of the Presbyterian church in 2 weeks and then an elder and I think you know what is happening in our particular story. But I can say, that from what I am sensing and experiencing there is a lot of beauty to the denomination, but also sets itself to be very difficult for innovation and mission with the existing infrastructure. Someone mentioned John Ortberg here and I just read yesterday a report on his message at a Presb USA event in Texas where he broke down crying saying that the Presbyterian USA church is dying. I am curious what are the advantages for a young pastor or church planter to be PCUSA instead of independant or another denomination that may not have as much restriction to who can be a “pastor” or can’t (by what degree you have), the limitations of laity to really following the “preisthood” of all believers where the pastors/elders can serve communion and do things that the Book of Order says the average church person can’t etc. The levels of committees and process of decision making that seems to be extremely slow, where mission and innovation needs more speed and flexibility etc.
Amy said:

November 23rd, 2007 at 2:51 pm

Adam– Like the other commenters I like your focus on the Kingdom of God and as you are pointing to it is only God who can “save” PCUSA (or any other church). Something that Presbys have taught me well is that it is God’s will that starts and stops things–not our own creative plans. But I also want to challenge you on too points: 1) Using the language “bringing about God’s Kingdom” can be dangerous–throughout history when people have tried to bring about the kingdom they have made a huge mess of things (talk to Guder or John Flett). Just as it is up to God when the PCUSA began and when it will end, the Kingdom will also only be brought about by the Spirit. 2) I understand you not wanting to associate with the agenda of PFR– but I don’t think you really want to say that you do not want renewal. What is renewal? I would think that renewal by the Holy Spirit would truly produce the open and progressive theology and practice you are looking for… But then again I am one of those Charismatic types so what else could I say?
Troy Bronsink said:

November 27th, 2007 at 6:09 pm

Great conversation!

I just left a presbytery meeting where we discussed a lower budget and, while one noted that campus ministry was cut by more than 35%, the presbytery was basically asked to either "trust the process" or vote for "more funds for my or your idea." The whole thing was not as ugly as it could have been, but it did leave me thinking, why are we doing this?

Which makes Shawn’s comments interesting. you should read his post, but here are a few cursory responses (R) to the questions (Q) he poses to Adam, and to me by association, I guess.

Q. If you are not concerned about the dying PC(USA) then why be a part of it? R. I joined the PC(USA) as a connectional community seeking to display the kingdom of God, and our connection is rooted in the fidelity of that God to bring such kingdom and provisional toward that end alone…

In a sense we joined a team in the game of kingdom work, and when the court and the players adapt and we are no longer playing that game but simply running drills like the harlem globetrotters, then its time to let the team end on its own, not set up an endowment that it might play in perpetuity.

a few excerpts from our book of order:G-3.0401c, "The church is called to a new openess to the possibilities and perils of its institutional forms in order to ensure the faithfulness and usefulness of these forms to God’s activity in the world."

G 30400. "The Church is called to undertake this mission even at the risk of losing its life, trusting in God alone as the author and giver of life, sharing the gospel, and doing those deeds in the world that point beyond themselves to the new reality in Christ."

Q. If we choose to be here [in the PC(USA)], aren’t we affirming that God is at work here? And if we affirm God’s work being done here, shouldn’t we be concerned if that work should stop?

R. Niehbur might have said this best in his "approximation of brotherly love." To grossly paraphrase this ethical concept, we work toward an ideal, toward an eschatological promise, and yet we are called to submit these working ideals to critiques. We can learn by what is not working, that it may no longer fit. While eschatological hope (and prophetic imagination) is a guide our prior hopes and actions are not "proof" that God’s mission depends upon us hoping them and doing them forever.

I agree with Shawn’s last comments, "I think we can be concerned about the survival of the denomination, without being inordinately concerned about it." However, I am worried that we assume, then, that our call is to refine and protect our precious denomination/church/ideology because of it’s historical precedence. Survival of a structure does not guarantee its future usefulness. But continually rebuilding and being rebuild (with consideration of the construction tools we have been handed by the great cloud of witnesses before us), that is missional.

returning to the presbytery meeting I just left- What if we were led by images from scripture and the testimonies of those structure ahead of us (all signs that the spirit uses) to hand our denomination away, to put it in risk, the way that G30400 might dare, like Barmen dares, like paul dared as he met with Peter and others in the Jerusalem counsel? What if we were not concerned with renewing a previous thing, but building something funded in those testimonies for our children and for our neighbor?

On sunday I spoke at a local Atlanta church on the topic of missional churches (you can download the podcast of the class here). Using the Newbigin triad, i was explaining how the church is not the end-user of the gospel but placed in relationship with culture by the gospel.

Afterwards an architect came to me and described his firms approach to designing hospitals. He noted that all the other firms in Atlanta come to the client with three different options, A, B, or C. And they ask the hospital which would they would prefer. His firm, however, asks the client to describe what they hope to become in their hospital service, to describe the functions. He saw a similarly between his firm’s work with hospitals and our church structures addressing culture, those we are called to bless with our hope-in-action.

I think that the "renew our denominations" drum is too concerned with finding clients to keep models A,B,or C in business. And we could learn from the architect who (1) asks about the future that their clients hope to see, and (2) are building (appropriating classical knowledge) based on function and not precedence.
Nancy said:

December 25th, 2007 at 4:42 pm

Kudos Adam, Amy and Troy on great thoughts, here… I’ve been thinking a lot about this because of events I witness like Troy’s mention of cutting college ministry. This happens over and over because (and seriously committees SAY this) these ministries do not yield the financial return to make them sustainable. They don’t produce “giving units.” How unspiritual and short-sighted is this? This bring us to the icky subject emergents don’t talk about because we’re about being earthy and the poor: resources.

With all its huge endowments at the GA level, PCUSA is attempting to restore power to presbyteries who are closer to the action. Good - but most presbyteries are financially pinched and think more like businesses than ministries. With about 4-6 exceptions, they’ve lost their raison d’etre, a sense of mission and advancing the Kingdom of God. Yes, it’s sad.

On the other hand, if we abandon the ship because we’re tired of short-sighted pragmatics and money talk, we’re snubbing our ancestors who gave their resources in good faith in the name of mission, that ministry would continue in Jesus, not (in most cases) in the name of PCUSA. Yes, heritage mattered to them, but I know some elderly people who wanted to bless PCUSA through a new church like the one I was doing, an emergent, knowing that the church as it is today is not “reaching the young people.” Can we be faithful and stick to our elders who want what we want? I think the main problem is the wrong people get put on these power-broker committees.

I’m in PCUSA because (1) I was a member when I went off naively to seminary after years as a lay leader, (2) I interned in several very healthy PCUSA churches which gave me a misleadingly sweet taste of the denomination (which I credit to the Holy Sneakiness of God), (3) these missional congregations gave me a vision for our denomination, one rooted in history, healthy theology, connection and a democratic model, doing great things for God’s Kingdom.

In short, let’s not let the healthy PCUSAers down by giving up on the decaying bureaucracy. Let’s empower them and give them increased voice - not just “trust the process” (boy, I’ve heard that one - usually right before some political lynching). Some good changes seem to be happening in the streamlined GA. Encourage leaders of healthy churches to actually show up for presbytery meetings. They are out there - they are just not in the limelight, speaking in committees or on the floor.

It’s not simply about “saving PCUSA.” We can’t become a huddle of young people that sails off for the hills of innovation and idealism. That would be like a teenager leaving his parents in a huff because they “just don’t get me.” While that may be true, can we really do better? Historical studies of ‘awakening,’ revival or renewal (or whatever you want to call it - the topic of my MA thesis) reveal that they all end up congealing after a generation or two, forming a doctrinal statement and whatever they vowed at the start they never would. Do we want to start that cycle over again? Avoiding such arrogance is one reason why, during my 20s, I left an independent church that wanted to do everything new and refused to recite ancient creeds. History is valuable, and if we don’t learn from it because we want to be new and cool idealists, we’ll end up with a flash in the pan that may or may not amount to anything… fizzling out or hardening like all the others. Perhaps the old have to learn from the new and vice-versa. ? Just a thought experiment from a raving idealist.