Over the past few weeks, there has been a lot of conversation happening in Presbyterian circles about the “Deathly Ill” letter that was signed by a group of 45 Presbyterian pastors (most coming from large churches) – all of whom happened to be men – who refer to themselves as The Fellowship of Presbyterians. I am not going to go into the details of the letter here or offer a specific response to the letter, because others have done a much better job than I could and I will simply point you to Katie Mulligan’s post here and Margaret Aymer Oget’s post here.
What I do want to respond to is a video that was posted by one of the primary signatories, Rev. Jim Singleton, who is on the Steering Committee for The Fellowship of Presbyterians and is currently Senior Pastor at First Presbyterian Church in Colorado Springs. Jim was the pastor of Whitworth Community Presbyterian Church when I started at Whitworth, and so I got the chance to hear him preach for most of my first year at Whitworth. I know full well that I’m at a very different place now than I was at 18 years old, but I enjoyed his sermons and the little that I got to know of Jim at that time. I’d encourage you to take just a few minutes and watch the above video so you can get a sense of what they are hoping this “Fellowship” is going to look like.
So if you watched the video – or if you didn’t – let me break it down for you:
- Jim and his buddies want to create a “differentiated sub-set within the whole” – sounds pretty connectional right? The circle (that is the sub-set) that he draws isn’t a solid line – but a dotted line – to try and show that they’re separate but equal – still connected….
- The churches in this sub-set (The Fellowship of Presbyterians) would have certain “theological accents” – and in case you don’t know what those are, they’re going to define the Essential Tenets of the Reformed Faith for you.
- He says that unlike other renewal groups, they’re going to live in gentleness and humility, but being very clear about what their “ideals” are
- They also want to create new Presbyteries that exist within the sub-set (and potentially a new Synod)
- They’ll also have their own COMs and CPMs in these new Presbyteries
- Eventually they may create a “New Reformed Body” and people could go back and forth between it and the PC(USA)
One of my favorite sections was when Jim was describing the New Reformed Body:
“It could well be, that along this process, some congregations feel like ‘We just don’t know if we can be WITHIN the PC(USA) but we want to be in relationship to this Fellowship…’ and so the dotted line may actually go beyond the boundary of the PC(USA) to form a New Reformed Body – but this New Reformed Body would be different from, for instance, the EPC and the PCA, in that it would still try to relate to the PC(USA), in the way that we would share ordination expectations back and forth, and people could move in and out of the PC(USA) and into this New Reformed Body because we would be in correspondance with the PC(USA) – not running far from, but staying near to.”
Seriously? I haven’t seen or read any other responses to this video, so I apologize if someone has already said this, but can’t they just be honest? Can’t we just call this what it is? From this 5 minute video clip, it seems that the primary purpose of The Fellowship of Presbyterians is to let some of the largest PC(USA) congregations “break away” from a denomination they think is “deathly ill” but let them keep their property and their millions of dollars in assets. I apologize if I’m missing something or not seeing all of the potential polity issues, but that’s what it seems like to me.
If you think the PC(USA) is deathly ill…leave. But don’t try and concoct an anti-connectional scheme that will let you break away and create a “differentiated sub-set within the whole” yet still remain within the denomination and keep your vast properties and millions. If your beliefs and convictions lead you to surmise that breaking away from the PC(USA) is what your community needs to do – then so be it. Each presbytery is working through how it’s going to deal with the property and financial issues of such decisions; work with your presbytery, accept your fate and move forward.
If you feel as strongly as your “Deathly Ill” letter leads us to believe you feel, and if these issues are really important/theological/eternal issues, then you should accept the fact that you may have to shell out some benjamins (okay, a LOT of benjamins) to keep your property and your beautiful sanctuaries. Or you might lose your property. But come on now – you know you can raise the money again.
If you want to leave, then leave. But at least respect yourselves and all of those faithful brothers and sisters of Christ who are part of your congregations enough to leave with integrity. Don’t try and convince them that The Fellowship of Presbyterians is anything other than what it really is: a way for you to try and have your cake, and eat it too.
Adam,
I’m in an interesting position because I serve as youth director at FPC-CS and Jim is a dear friend as well as a bunch of the men on that list. I probably share some of the same insights that you do and Jim does when it appears that the larger churches in the PCUSA seem like the “all boys club” when every name was male on that list. I hope that continues to change and Jim does to.
As far as property, that is a sticky wicket that many of my anglican and presbyterian friends have had to figure out and I see both sides of the argument. On the flip side, what would the PCUSA do with a bunch of humungous church buildings that most corporations would never buy?
Here is my real question as I am seeking my own answers from multiple sides;
is it possible that the structure of denominations served as a might tool in God’s hands at one point but now he is using other means?
Is it possible to be better connected to other churches in our communities instead of only focusing on churches of the same brand across the globe?
I appreciate your thoughts. This conversation has gotten really ugly really fast in some other areas to the point where physical harm has been threatened. I pray that we may all be seekers of the truth and not possessors of it as we seek His will for our churches.
Nate, I’d be interested to know the details of any threats that have been made. That should never happen.
Your question about denominations is pertinent. It’s one that I heard a lot a decade ago while I was participating in one of the “emergent” churches. And since the Presbyterian Fellowship is proposing, among other things, a new Reformed body (ie, a new denomination), it’s a question that gets to both sides of this issue.
From my standpoint, the issue is less about a branded global denomination than it is about connectional bonds between churches, pastors, and elders in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). For a long, long time, many faithful people have maintained those bonds as a witness, even while denominational decisions have gone other than those people would prefer. This new effort is too grounded in “like-mindedness” in my view. Diversity of belief–within limits–is essential to a healthy church. We’re arguing about the limits. I’m pretty confident that any new Reformed body will have to argue about the limits again—and again, and again. It’s the nature of the church in a changing world.
Nate, it seems to me that the “Fellowship” isn’t suggesting something other than the traditional structures of our denomination. Rather, they want to keep those Reformed structures but primarily do so with like-minded people they agree with. It is certainly fair to question these structures, and I agree that in many cases we have more missional affinity with local congregations regardless of denominational affiliation, but neither of these concerns is at the heart of the Fellowship proposal.
I think there is a great untapped potential for presbyteries–and even the General Assembly–to move away from being regulatory and bureaucratic mission agencies and become something more like communities of theological learning and missional collaboration. I agree with Rocky that theological diversity is essential to this kind of community. The Fellowship proposal doesn’t address this at all.
Nate – just a note to agree with Rocky – that I’m very sorry that there have been threats of physical harm – that is very much uncalled for and not at all good for this conversation.
As to whether denominations are the right structures for us to use to further God’s kingdom today….I’d say no. Not at all. Even more of a reason that forming a New Reformed Body isn’t going to help at all.
I am really new to this debate and not every been envolved in church
property issues. I really don’t understand why a church that was
bought and paid for with local dollars can’t be kept and why
anyone or the local church would deed over their property to
any organization with out the possibility of getting it back
in the future if conditions change. Most small local
churchs PCUSA don’t have the money to have a big legal
fight over their property, so there are stuck, like it or not.
Pretty good trap the PCUSA has set, and we are supposed
to be Christians??? After ammendment 10A passed every
one should “walk” and see what “USA” does with all
that property!
Bob,
Just found this thread. Sorry it took so long for someone to respond. I have been a Presbyterian since the late 60′s. Went to General Assembly as a Youth Delegate and Fuller Theological Seminary as a student. My faith lead me away from the professional ministry, I even left the church for many years, but I came back 15 years ago. Why…family. My Mom. And the need to have the prophetic voice of God guiding me. That is my journey. So on to yours!
GREAT question. The reason Presbyterian church buildings are held in trust by the Presbytery (in my understanding) is that the denomination recognized that pastors and or congregations could severely depart from the faith and counsel of the church and might need correction. Most often this is associated with what I call Pastor Cult churches. Think of the Jonestown Massacre and Jim Jones as an extreme example of things gone horribly wrong. Presbyteries and the Presbyterian judicial system are very cautious about exercising this “doomsday” alternative, but that is only correct, don’t you think? It take eggregious action to tip this scale. Please recognize that “liberal” congregations were subject to the same rule when they were in the minority, and could have had their church buildings forfeited then as well.
Now I am one of the majority of Presbyterians who disagree with you on 10A. I know it is probably counter to the expectations that have been built, but I attended Fuller Theological Seminary which nearly every pastor will tell you is not part of the so call “liberal wing” of the church…in fact, far from it. My study (I am now 60) of Presbyterian polity tells me we have to allow one another latitude in their reasoned interpretation of scripture. My personal view is that some have tried to usurp that right in the name of moral purity that is perhaps Puritan at best. But their right to believe and interpret is upheld by our church. What is not upheld is symantec machinations to try to keep property but divorce from the denomination in a separate but not equal movement. The result I fear will sadly end before the denomination judiciary, where such devices likely will be exposed as outside the bounds of our polity and create once again a division in our denomination.
I pray for voices of peace, of reason, and of integrity to step forward and avert this result. God’s grace is capable of making this so. Sadly, I suspect that those who are so certain they are the safeguards of the truth will have no spirit of trying to work it out as did others over the last years leading to 10A. Our church has split on historic social issues over and over. I fear that is coming again. I pray your umbrella will be wide enough to cover me as mine is wide enough to cover you. The Peace of Christ be with you, brother Bob.
Nice work, Adam. One of the things that troubles me about this video is the affirmation that the new fellowship is going to “try to live in gentleness and humility.” That kind of language needs specifics. The tenor of the “deathly ill” letter was not humble, even if the tone aimed for gentle. It’s this posture of earnestness that I don’t fully trust, because, as you say, the real issues involve property and money and disaffected conservatives’ desire to maintain both while unbinding themselves from the current denomination.
It’s the posture. Is that a shallow thing to be hung up on?
Yah dude – the letter that was written has NO signs of the humility and gentleness that they speak of…very much lacking – and I don’t think posture is a shallow thing to be hung up on, especially since Jim makes a point of saying that is going to be a notable feature of this new “Fellowship.”
While I’m not a fan of the “deathly ill” letter or this idea, I do take Jim at his word when he speaks of gentleness and humility. I will also say he is my uncle, so I might be biased. But I have a hard time seeing how their plan will do anything other than divide us and continue the surrounding culture’s tendency to only surround ourselves with people who already agree with us.
First, big love to Rocky. Second, big love to Adam. Good to see you out and about. Let me say, I don’t think I could agree more with you two gentlemen. It’s a land grab. And while I am in favor of denominations, and I am in favor of diversity-within-limits, I am not in favor of property. One of the worst things that happened to American Christianity was getting in the real estate business. Put this in the “co-opted by consumer capitalism” category. Sure, a worship space is terrific, along with air conditioning and a gym; but I don’t think the Lord God Jehovah could care less about a congregation’s campus. Go ahead and give these BOYS their fancy parlors. Let ‘em walk. Who cares? Tear down the temple. Jesus will resurrect it in 3 days. I drink too much coffee. Big love to Rocky and Adam, again.
How is this any different than what we already have? This only formalizes a division that is already present. Everyone knows that different CPMs and COMs already exist. My home Presbytery hammered my statement of faith and the Presbytery that ordained me loved it – and this was all within the same denomination! And even within our same denomination there are churches and entire Presbyteries that completely disregard sections of the book of order and are open about it and we just live with it.
Seems to me that this plan isn’t that much different than what we already have. And let’s face it – the only reason that part of the church wants the conservative wing to stay is for money – and the only reason the conservative wing stays because of money. This is about money and property, not theology.
I watched the video and was left scratching my head… I understand the concept of what they propose, even if I don’t totally buy into it. But I was left wondering what exactly is keeping them partway in? The explain all the reasons they think they should leave or at least withdraw fellowship from the remainder, and they do so pretty explicitly in their letter. No where do they state why this new fellowship has to take place within the PC(USA). I think THAT would get us to the heart of the matter.
I know that I have stayed with the PC(USA) despite things I don’t like abiding by – because God called me here and has not yet called me away. Are they in the same uncomfortable place of waiting for transformation- whether in our hearts or of the church? Or are they afraid of paying the cost of following God out into a new place, only moving partway into the new call on their lives?
Has anyone seen discussion of that nature from any of the signers— anything from the heart (not the spleen)?
Nicely done, Adam.
These big boys are simply getting too much press. This whole scheme is designed to distract our energies away from passing amendment A. None of their plans will fly. Important for the rest of us to keep focused on passing this amendment. Then we can deal if we must with their little power plays. If any church wants to leave the denomination with property, there is a process.
Seems to be more about wanting to be more exclusive, divisive rather than unifying and welcoming. Reminds me a bit of the difference between being bound versus being centered that you spoke of when talking about Asbury’s mission statement.
Adam, I’m not as cynical about this as you are. I think the issues are complicated and it’s worth not reducing them to a single issue.
This as the logical outgrowth of a church (the PCUSA) that has been operating for 30-40 years as two different cultures: “evangelical” and “mainline/liberal.” You know the cultural differences–worship style, liturgy, theology, architecture, theological institutions, philosophy of cultural engagement. If you stay separated from someone for too long, at some point, they become “other.” Liberals and evangelicals are “other” to one another. The debate over LGBT ordination has been the script by which we have acted out our otherness.
But the differences are deeper than one issue. I think this group of pastors feels, on a fundamental level, that they have become another church–that they are where the PCUSA should be, but is not. The financial disincentive to break away is very real and pushes toward remaining within the denomination, but I also get the feeling from talking to folks that this is as much to do with a deep sense of fellowship that nurtures and sustains that binds them together as it is anything concrete. It’s a shared frustration with the parochialism and inefficiency of the denomination’s structures and systems that energizes them and it’s a shared theological core and way of reading scripture.
They’ve been doing things differently than the denomination for a long time… I don’t know how much they’ve tried to reform the denomination in the process, but now that 10a seems likely to pass, it is time to make some kind of formal acknowledgment of the cultural split that’s been a generation or more in the making.
It looks to me like the “tall steeple” pastors have consensus regarding the problems they see in the PCUSA, but they don’t really have consensus regarding the solutions. The “Fellowship” idea is seriously underdefined. For all we know, some of the “tall steeples” want to leave in an orderly mass, others want to stay and have influence, and the balance want something in between.
Because there is no consensus as to solution, the opposition (i.e., the group that thinks the PCUSA is evolving in a positive, God-glorifying direction) gets to define the “tall steeple” pastors’ agenda for them in the court of public opinion. The “tall steeples” have in this way allowed others to establish their identity (i.e., these are a bunch of white, homophobic “boys”), their motives (i.e., they’ve made an idol out of their church facilities, pensions, and/or programs in the PCUSA that they still like), and even the meaning of their white paper itself (i.e., Jim Singleton’s “plan” is everybody’s plan).
If the “tall steeples” think they are going to get clarity this fall by inviting even more people into their conversation, good luck. The letter was a tactical failure. Although it hints at changes to come, it ends up reading like the report of a committee that has much more work to do. The authors need to make a choice: do they want to be associated with a denomination they believe is “deathly ill,” or do they not.
I’m not a presby, so take anything I say with a grain of salt. ALthough I do have to say I went to a Presby college and have several friends in Div school with me that are all PC(USA).
I agree that it seems that he wants his cake and to eat it too. However, I think that it is interesting because they don’t appear to be limiting themselves with pre-existing ideas of what a denomination has to look like. I think a freedom to be a little transgressive is a good thing, even if I, as a more progressive evangelical, don’t agree with why they are unhappy with the current state of the PC(USA).
It reminds me of what a lot of formerly SBC churches have done. Some continue to give to the SBC while their main support goes to the CBF, the Alliance, or both. Some are dually aligned CBF, American Baptist Churches-USA.
Anyway, I think the reality is that we need to rethink how we organize ourselves and that it will be a mistake if we simply continue in the way that we have been.
My $.02, for what it is worth.
I dunno, Adam.
I disagree with significant portions of the “letter,” and am not on the same theological page as the folks writing it. But some of what the letter says isn’t *wrong.* Our processes and structures are, as they accurately observe, too often at odds with the kind of dynamic and transformative change that we need if this denomination is to have a shot at moving forward. You know as well as anyone how maddening it can be.
We also need to do less screaming and flinging poo at each other like bands of territorial chimpanzees. It might be fun to watch from a distance, but that pervasive chimp-poop smell really doesn’t help with the outreach.
The real issues aren’t money or property, and I’m willing to give these folks the benefit of the doubt. As you do, I know one of the signatories. He’s not that sort of pastor. Really. I think, frankly, these are just folks who are concerned. Period.
Is walking the answer? Of course not. You stay. You pray. You engage even your opponents with grace, in a way that shows you have even the tiniest nubbin of a clue what Jesus was talking about. That, more than anything, might help us get to the place we need to be.
I listened, but only sorta. Whenever we Christians get hold of a bone, I wonder if we lose the perspective that the rest of the world – is nodding off. The rest of the world sees a perfectly nice man with a gi-normous white board in a room with white carpeting (how in the world do they keep that thing clean?! And wow, the sofa in my church looks kinda shabby, now that I think about it. . . ) talking about meetings, and drawing circles.
The question I’m left with is, “are they really going to find people willing to attend more than one set of presbytery meetings?”
And then I think about the really important stuff. You splinter presbyteries, and you are left with. . . what kind of support for Presbyterian Disaster Relief? Will some of us send our kids to Presbyterian camps, and some of us not? We send students off to Presbyterian seminaries — shall we divide those, or let our students rub shoulders with people who think differently than they do?
These churches could join the PCA, — they’d just have to give up their women clergy. Small price. And their buildings, which, — case by case– might have been built and endowed by people just like the current occupants or not so much like them. Their presbyteries may have had a role in their building, And if we want to argue about this in the press — wonderful. The rest of the world will continue to nod off.
“These churches could join the PCA, — they’d just have to give up their women clergy. Small price.” Do you seriously place so little value on the contributions of our ordained women?
well said Adam, well said.
I think you’re right Adam. And I’m reminded of “Ooo, Ooo, Oooo…. take the money and run.” Hmph. I’m with Terry; let them go to the PCA. Isn’t this getting a bit old? Stay or leave; the middle ground is a dog that simply doesn’t hunt. And, to put a point on it, think of where we’d be if all this rhetoric was directed to prayer, being Christ in the world, forgiveness, ending hunger, peace…..you get the idea. (I must admit that I’m a life-long Presbyterian who’s been worshiping with the UCC for the past two years.)
Apparently, I’m the only one to actually post on the video’s website. Here it is:
http://vimeo.com/20076314
“I am having a hard time understanding this movement. I have watched numerous proposals go to GA to start non-geographic presbyteries and they were voted down by huge numbers.
What worries me about this presentation is that the Fellowship feels as if they can talk about creating a new structure by fiat within the constitutional system of our agreed upon governance. It feels as if these pastors believe that they can create their own system without approaching their colleagues in their respective presbyteries. If this is true, then this display of entitlement polity is a breach of the ordination vows of these ministers and any elders who seek to impose this new polity.
“Will you be governed by our church’s polity, and will you abide by its discipline? Will you be a friend among your colleagues in ministry, working with them, subject to the order of God’s word and Spirit?”
If these words mean anything to you, why do you seek to create a parallel structure for your own COMs and CPMs? Are we no longer your colleagues? Can we no longer answer God’s call together? Must I have cultural and theological unity in only some ways, or must our unity be in all matters? Ultimately, if I think there is room enough for you in our church, do you think there is room enough for me?
I hope I am wrong. Please help me understand if I am.”
If our colleagues are ready to leave the denomination, but haven’t quite found the EPC to their liking, (perhaps because of their female pastoral staff), this sounds like their best bet. Either way, we need to start calling them on their ordination vows. I am ready to call the colleagues in my presbytery to account if they are leading their congregations away from the PC (USA) without significant involvement with the COM in a timely way, and by that I mean while they have organized committees to study the issue.
Hmm, about 10-20 years behind the Episcopal Church. We’ve had entire dioceses think they can leave and take all the property, but the courts have ruled against them. In many ways these breakaway groups want it both ways – they want all the benefits of the umbrella of a large organization but they want none of the responsibilities. While the rhetoric is mild now, it will soon turn harsher as they don’t get their way.
One thing to keep an eye on is the relationship with international bodies. In the Episcopal Church, the worldwide body os the Anglican Communion and the breakaway groups are trying to get recognition as a new entity vis affiliations with the likes of the churches in Uganda and Nigeria.
I mean really, don’t we have enough denominations now? But this is the way of conservatism and “reform” – always purging the impure until, well, there’s nobody left that qualifies…
well said, adam. i think it’s fairly obvious to a lot of people that this deathly ill letter (and the crazy dotted line venn diagram scenario) is a strange attempt for these churches and pastors to be able to hang on to their property and millions of dollars while breaking away from the denomination. it is also, in my opinion, fairly obviously timed to coincide with 10-a. i’m very interested to see what comes of all of this.
A couple of observations:
Getting to know the PCUSA system more over the past couple of years, it is interesting that the Presbytery or denomination itself doesn’t put any money into the buildings. They are 100% church funded by the people of the individual church, yet the denomination owns the building. So the ones who cast leadership, raise funds, develop the plans, keep up and finance the facilities and paid for everything etc. aren’t the ones who “owns” the actual building (God owns the buildings of course). It puts the churches who paid for the buildings and keep them up, understandably in an interesting tension if they aren’t in agreement with the Presbytery.
Also, I find it interesting as you noted that the churches who are launching this are the larger ones. I haven’t looked at the list of who is part of this new Fellowship. So I can’t make a generalized statement, but from looking into some Presbyteries it does seem to be by far it is the more conservative PCUSA churches who are the ones growing and the largest within the Presbytery. Any thoughts on why? I was recently in a very old PCUSA church in Texas that was dying out and then brought in a new pastor and the church is now thriving and growing with young families. But it is a more conservative church and leadership team. So that’s one question of how on the spectrum of theology do we see which PCUSA churches thriving and which dying and any correlation.
But also, if these churches are large, they then have to function differently due to the size and how decisions are made etc. How decisions are made and leadership works (even following the Book of Order) in a church of 150 and a church of 2,000 is going to be significantly different. And roles of staff and how people view staff etc. So I can understand functionally that it is difficult being in a world where leadership issues may be solved differently too and one not understanding the other. It feels like some of the Book of Order was written for leading churches in a different culture than we live in today. Which it was of course, as most of it was written not recently. But perhaps this is some of the tension also and why this new Fellowship is being formed. I don’t know……
But will be interesting to see how this develops. So much change happening. But every denomination and sub-denomination was formed by change. So not all change is bad. I think how we go about the change however is important. How we honor each other and respect each other and the process of change, even when it is happening because of disagreements both functionally and theologically. Lord help us all.
I think it’s funny that the very thing many of you are railing against “The Fellowship” for doing – not taking no for an answer when GA voted down the non-geographic Presbyteries – are the very things the liberal left has been doing for years. Some of you have stated that, “the church has voted on that, said no and they should move on.” Well, the church voted on Ord Standards, voted the changing of them down 3 times and yet there is still the push to tear the church apart simply to get these passed.
Furthermore, many of you state that this is about property. How in the world can you assume that all these churches are so shallow? Most of them are in a place to purchase their buildings outright and many voted back when the union occured to opt out of the clause that held the church in trust by the Presbyteries. And it’s not like the Presbytery gets to keep the bank accounts, savings accounts and endowments when those churches leave. They may take their 10% tax money or charge for the land but it’s not that bad. In fact, many Presbyteries are making a gracious seperation method. So, no, money and property are not the sole issue.
One of my understandings from this meeting is that these pastors ARE humbled by the fact that they are leaving a broken denomination for the generations of pastors that are coming up and they want to do something to help. Maybe this works, maybe it doesn’t but at least they are trying to form a REAL connectional church – one that is connected by mission and bodies that actually want to work together and hang out together. Regardless of what anyone would say, the PC(USA) is not a connectional body. Most of us do more ministry/mission events with other denominations in our cities than other churches in our Presbytery – so let’s celebrate that, let’s connect and start doing the work of the church.
And I agree with Dan, the majority of the churches that are growing are conservative, mission-minded churches. Why? Someone, please tell me why this is the case? I would say that it is because of the very things that are being talked about (negatively) in this post – a willingness to try something different in the face of incredible opposition and mockery.
The saddest part is that this will get uglier before it gets better and, saddly, it’s just another picture of the church (left and right) not getting it. Lord forgive us…
I really appreciated this comment by Terry:
“And then I think about the really important stuff. You splinter presbyteries, and you are left with. . . what kind of support for Presbyterian Disaster Relief? Will some of us send our kids to Presbyterian camps, and some of us not? We send students off to Presbyterian seminaries — shall we divide those, or let our students rub shoulders with people who think differently than they do?”
One thing that distresses me the most, other than them co-opting the word “fellowship” and how it reminds me of something like “Priesthood” in the LDS church (I’ve been watching too much Big Love, I think), is I don’t hear many voices urging both sides to step back and reclaim the common ground which is the most important of all — our belief in the transforming grace of Jesus Christ. We have Him in common and wouldn’t both sides agree that those things that are dividing us pale in comparison to what holds us together? Instead, it feels like we are splitting the baby in half and neither side is interested in working together to figure out how to prevent this from happening.
I’ve watched this video a couple times now and what disturbs me most is the use of a circle. That is not a biblical metaphor representing the church.
I’d like to see a video where someone draws the body of Christ, and the knee, because it no longer wants to listen to the thigh and also because knee thinks more like shin anyway, wants to create a new “leg” subset of the body. And then knee can try and convince other parts of the body that this is called fellowship.
I don’t know if property is entirely the issue here, but it is surely some of it. There is an ever increasing mountain of precedent for presbyteries dismissing churches with their property. Sure, there have been fights and lawsuits, but in Pines Presbytery we gave a congregation their property and then sang “Blessed Be the Tie That Binds” at the meeting to dismiss last year.
I think the concerns of the Fellowship go beyond property… to some extent. Although, I think you are correct: they need to be frank and say outright, “We want to leave but cannot yet because of property, Board of Pensions, historic ties, etc.” Honesty is a piece of humility.
In the end, there is more that unites us than divides us. Sadly, we spend a lot of time worrying over the parts that divide. Thanks for the post.
Bill – I’m not sure that there is more that connects us than divides us. When this letter came out a person from More Light contacted us and wanted to talk about the letter and how we would vote on 10A. A few minutes into the conversation she said, “I’m sure we can all agree that God is different from the OT to the NT – God has changed.” Our response was, “No, we cannot agree to that! God is sovereign and unchanging.” But what it showed is that there is a chasm that goes far beyond property and money and all of the petty small things people keep pointing to. This is about orthodoxy and an understanding of scripture that we do not all share.
I think it’s quite gracious that these pastors are looking for a way to stay somehow connected through a “Fellowship” of some sort, rather than choosing to just take their toys and leave. If you were at the meeting you would have heard that these pastors are VERY concerned with the small churches and that is one of the main reasons they are staying. They know that if they leave then many of these smaller churches will suffer.
Now, are there things they could have done differently or better? Of course. But I think it’s a rush to judgment to simply say that what they are doing is just attempting to divide the body. I would say that those who continue to push 10A and every other unbiblical change to the Book of Order are equally if not more guilty of the same thing.
It is kind of funny how we define liberal and conservative. The conservative churches are liberal enough to let the liberal churches leave if they wanted. But the liberal churches are so conservative they won’t let conservative churches leave. Let the PCUSA be an association of choice. Once again, it is funny how the pro-choice crowd is liberal until conservatives make their choice. It is funny how those who talk about oppression and justice force large numbers of people to stay in a system by which they feel oppressed. Why not be rid of the conservative churches? Can it be that they fund everything? If I’m wrong then let them leave…with their property.
Another interesting thought to this from observation – is that in the Presbytery I am familiar with, I bet the 4 largest churches are the 4 of the most conservative. At least from the sheet I read that had all the numbers and reports. The top 4 in size where definitely the more conservative evangelical ones. So if they did leave the Presbytery, it would be significant in numbers. But I also observed that the actual committees and those who get on them are from the smaller churches in the Presbyteries and also more of the liberal ones. I asked about it and I was told by one person that in the larger churches they are so consumed with ministry that they don’t get on the committees. So the make up of the committees that make decisions are generally the smaller and more liberal churches in the Presbytery. What a fascinating world it is learning about all this. I hope it is worked out where churches that do fit more of the “Fellowship” way of functioning and existing do stay within the PCUSA and Presbytery. Not because of the buildings, but because the Presbytery and PCUSA would then take a major shift in more homogenous to smaller and more liberal theological churches. It might then have more agreement that way for those in them. But then miss out on the breadth of having diversity. But I agree, that if a PCUSA church does want to leave the denomination and the local church votes on it – it makes sense to let it leave buildings and all. They paid for the building, not the Presbytery and they upkeep the building, not the Presbytery. The churches in a Presbytery should be glad to be in it and want to be in it. If they aren’t, then if the church votes to leave, I think they should be able to with the building they personally paid for themselves. But again, I think this “Fellowship” may not only be about buildings. So I look forward to hearing what develops and hope it remains peaceful and works out in a way that avoids all the messes and can figure out how to serve together.
Nobody is stopping people from leaving. Anyone can leave anytime, including pastors. Where it gets tricky is the nature of church property. In most mainline denominations, the church property is legally owned by the denomination ruling body, not each individual congregation.
And no congregation is unanimous in its beliefs (until they run off all dissenters, at least, which can happen over a period of time). What happens if a “coup” takes place and the a separatist faction takes over the congregation ruling body and want to leave? They really do not own the buildings – they are held in trust for the diocese or presbytery or whatever. Sure, the locals put money into the upkeep etc., but the by-laws of the church I am absolutely certain will say that the church property does not belong to the congregation, and they ought to know that.
So if you don’t like the way the church at large is headed? Feel free to leave, but you don’t get to take all the toys too.
Adam, i think your position is on shaky ground. If this were a couple of small churches that wanted to break away from a conservative denomination, on grounds that they no longer felt those conservative convictions and wanted to express themselves accordingly, you’d be railing against the power hungry denominations that want to maintain their fortresses of theology and limit the congregants’ ability to worship God in the way they felt lead to…
Give me a freakin break. Yeah it is about money, but it’s also about a community being disaffected with the power structures that be. Let them take their money. Let them take their buildings. Let them worship how they want. Why is that so threatening to you?
I just find your argument to be WAY out of sync with *what i perceive* are your values. Maybe my perceptions are off.
Why try to control them? Denominations are going away. Sell the dang building to them for a reasonable price if nothing else works. But don’t try to control them. Even if they disagree with you, they have poured their lives into those churches. Letting all that go and having to start over is an unfair price to pay. Have a little ‘tolerance’ for your brothers and sisters.
Yes, it’s curious that someone claiming to be “pomo” is actually the one who is taking the side of a more centralized governing body that is using legal avenues to hold property for which it did not pay away from the local groups who paid for and use the property and who contend that the institutional bureaucracy is ineffective and out of touch.
Mr. Cleaveland:
Regardless of where they are on the theological spectrum, most people would view the initiative of the Fellowship pastors as authentic, heartfelt concern for the dismal state of the PCUSA. To you, however, it’s all just a nefarious plot to ease their churches out of the denomination while hanging onto their valuable properties, right? Fortunately for your readers, you see right through the Fellowship’s subterfuge and implore those churches to just leave the PCUSA and have the intergrity to surrender their property to the presbyteries.
Maybe in a future post you can explain how your recommended course of action would serve the departing churches, the presbyteries, the PCUSA and the larger cause of Christ. How are financially strapped presbyteries going to pay for the insurance and maintenance of large, empty physical plants for the years it would take to unload the properties in a lousy real estate market? And would you recommend that the Presbyterians follow the example of the Episcopalian dioceses around the country. When a diocese wins its case in court and takes the property from a congregation, the diocese sells the property to highest bidder, religious or secular, with a permanent deed restriction preventing the property from ever being sold to an Episcopalian or Anglican group, thereby preventing the evicted congregation from ever purchasing the buildings they built.
And your suspicion that it’s all just a plot to hang onto the property belies 19th and 20th century thinking about doing church. Nothing has been more clear the last thirty years than that doing effective, game-changing church in the 21st century doesn’t require important architecture, stain glass windows and impressive organs. Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City, a large, thriving church with a congregation of mostly young professionals, holds its services in five different venues around Manhattan and doesn’t expect to ever own any buildings. Actually your insistence that the Fellowship churches just leave the property behind, while causing them discomfiture in the short term, would probably be a great boon for them in the long run. An awful lot of your churches are starting to look and feel like museums for the way people did church a hundred years ago. Are you sure you want the Fellowship churches to dump all those white elephants on the PCUSA?
Jim Caraher
Mr Caraher,
Please stop making stuff up.
“And would you recommend that the Presbyterians follow the example of the Episcopalian dioceses around the country. When a diocese wins its case in court and takes the property from a congregation, the diocese sells the property to highest bidder, religious or secular, with a permanent deed restriction preventing the property from ever being sold to an Episcopalian or Anglican group, thereby preventing the evicted congregation from ever purchasing the buildings they built.”
That is an outright fabrication. So please knock it off.
Mr. Paisley:
I follow these things quite carefully so I’m happy to engage you and your claim that “I’m making stuff up.” The Episopalian Church in America routinely refuses to negotiate the property issue with their departing congregations, giving them only the choices of going to court or handing over the keys. There is only one case I’m aware of that departed slightly from that vindictive, mean-spirited model – a parish in northern California where the diocese agreed to give the congregation a low-rent, five year lease to continue to use their property (!) to give them time to buy or build a new building elsewhere. I’m unaware of any Episcopal parish that has been able to purchase their property from the denomination but I would be very happy to stand corrected.
Jim Caraher
As I have written elsewhere in this thread, canon law of the Episcopal church clearly states that the property is held by the denomination for the use of the denomination. Those are the rules, and courts have upheld those rules.
Congregations differ, but the vast majority of the properties were bought by the diocese many generations ago. Even in cases where the local congregation bought and paid for its own land and construction (very rare) they did so knowing Canon law. Also even fewer of these were paid for by the Johnny-come-latelies who want to leave now and take the property with them. The land and buildings are a corporate asset that belongs to the body, period.
Again, as I wrote previously:
I find it ironic that the “conservatives” are all for playing by the rules when it comes to the “laws of the Bible”, but don’t hesitate to break the laws of the body they belong to (and US law even) and don’t even feel guilty about it. Even worse – proud of it.
I can’t help feeling that there’s something more ulterior here. I am a Presbyterian because I believe in tolerance and acceptance. These “dotted lines” suggest just that: division, intolerance and a kind of fundamentalism that bases its supremacy on some sort of moral high ground. Maybe I am reading into this too much, but there is a condemnation behind these statements that is phobic and potentially dangerous. If this type of thinking eventually grows to commandeer the Presbyterian Church, I will leave.
You know when all is said and done…….the PCUSA is just a “blip manifestation” of the Church founded by our Lord Jesus Christ. I am a non-presbyterian “evangelical” who is involved in a presbyterian organization. My take on this is….walk away from the property…wasn’t it Christ who said we might have to leave mother, father, brother and sister for the sake of his kingdom. That said, am I advocating that conservative churches leave the denomination without the witness of the scriptures (salt and light)? No. However, as I see it the denomination is on a fast ride to insignificance within the greater Church……like other mainline denominations that have bowed their knee to cultural values rather than standing firm for the authority of the scriptures. That said, the Book of Order can always be changed back……yet, how long would that fight go on and what is the toll to real gospel ministry if we pursue that tactic????
I don’t care so much about significance within the greater church. I’d rather be significant to the world we are called to love and serve in the name of Christ.
I believe a growing number of us have come to the sad realization that it will indeed be better to forgo all claims to church property and completely break away from PCUSA. Christianity is a mindset of cherished beliefs, not a collection of properties and goods. But do consider this: those who choose to leave PCUSA will be the older, more conservative congregants. But these people also hold a disproportionate amount of wealth and resources. So it will be easier, financially, for the PCUSA in the short run. Indeed, it will probably proclaim a great victory for itself because it “got the good stuff”. But the financial and resource pipeline that is critical to PCUSA’s survival and growth will have been scaled back, while the new church will be growing. Sad to think that the PCUSA’s great victory would also prove to be its great undoing.
On the issue of leaving the PCUSA and taking the property, where is the “Christian Way”, when
it comes to the Presbytery keeping the property that was paid for 100% by, probably
the relatives of most of the previous congregation members, and depriving the current
members a place to worship the Lord. Is that what we call, Christian. Lets get real!!!
Adam,
I somehow sense that I would be on the opposite side of the table from you if a round table discussion on the state of PC(USA) were to include you and me. Yet, I agree with your assessment that the fellowship is trying to concoct roundabout ways of disassociating themselves from the PC(USA). I even agree with your view that they should get up and leave if they think it is best for them – no excuses, no pretenses. Where I disagree with you is your critical stance on their desire to keep their property and “millions” as they try to leave. In most cases, it is the individual congregations who have faithfully raised those “millions” worth of assets, not the denomination at large. Yes, they should get up and leave if they think the current PC(USA) is not right for them but the current PC(USA) should also recognize that it has failed those congregations and should not add insult to injury by extorting fees for departure. Intimidation and extortion do not belong in the camp of God.
Maybe these people are doing everything they can to preserve the one thing churches are set up to build; a relationship with our Lord. I hope people can put down their swords on both sides of the spectrum that the church has created for itself. Stop using “quotations” to stab at people thinking you know the answer. The only one who can stop this war is the Lord, and we can’t hear him over all the bickering we do on this earth. Jim and the rest of the people who are working on this project, thank you for showing the rest of the world that there is love here. There is hope here. Praise the Lord for that!!!!
I think that trying to paint the causes for Fellowship of Presbyterians in monochromatic ( it’s about the property and the money) terms ignores the fact that many of us feel that the Reformed Faith and Biblical
Authority has been abandoned by our denomination. There are many reasons for the disaffected people in our denomination to feel that their concerns over theology have been trivialized if not completely ignored.
The judicial process has not been fairly and equally applied in the last 30 years. Clear statements in our Book of Order were ignored by our denominational leadership, while those raising the issues were demonized. Property is an important issue, but it is certainly not the only issue.
There may be more to this movement than just property retention and looking at the way the greater Presbytery has handled itself in the last ten years leaves one to believe that it is about belief and making an attempt to follow God’s word. If we went along with the directive to just leave the church and distance ourselves from it, wouldn’t that we like saying Jesus should just have avoided coming to earth and let the sinners stew in their own broth? There is value in association as demonstrated by Jesus.
Dave P. – yes, the buildings are in trust and legally owned by the Presbytery. In the Book Of Order it states:
-8.0201 Property Is Held in Trust
All property held by or for a particular church, 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 particular church or of a more inclusive governing body or retained for the production of income, is held in trust nevertheless for the use and benefit of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).
But the Presbytery never paid anything for the buildings or put money into them. Each local church is the one who entirely funded it. It wasn’t until 1972 (I think!) when that was even added in. Prior to that the local church did own the building on their own but it was added into the Book Of Order. Someone may know more history on that. But I heard that, but need to verify if that was true or not. Doesn’t matter when it happened as that is the reality now.
Something else I think is tension in this is that most people today are not choosing churches based on denomination. Especially younger people. It is the church community and mission etc. that people are then choosing what church to become part of. So the loyalty to denominations is fading fast by people in the churches. That is a whole other dynamic. I was in a Session meeting in an older dying PCUSA church. Out of the 13 people on the Session, all 13 became part of this PCUSA church as they moved from another town to this one and simply became part of the PCUSA church in the new town. Then I was in a Session meeting of another church which was mainly younger people and out of the 7 people on that Session – zero became part of the church because it was PCUSA. Only the pastor did. But the others didn’t become part of it because it was PCUSA (and in fact it didn’t have the word “Presbyterian” in its church name). But they became part of it as they felt connection to the people of the church and vision of the church.
Even look at former PCUSA moderator Bruce Reye-Chow’s church web site http://www.missionbaycc.org/ it doesn’t have PCUSA in the church name and looking at the web site of the church, the PCUSA identity is very low. But obviously it is a strong PUCSA church. But to our culture, PCUSA doesn’t mean much anymore so the identity is more on the church itself and mission and people.
I’m off topic to buildings, but there are so many factors happening – I think to narrow this to only the buildings isn’t accurate. It very well is a part I assume. But there is so much more.
When you said in an earlier reply that the local congregations “paid for the buildings” that may well be true, but I can guarantee that in most cases those were previous generations who are no longer alive for the most part who were very loyal to PCUSA at the time. The people who want to leave and take the buildings with them today are mostly non-loyal johnny-come-latelys who don’t understand the relationship and don’t care. And they haven’t put a dime into it except for paying the utility bills (which doesn’t make you the owner of anything.)
As I mentioned earlier, this dynamic has played out in the Episcopal Church for the past 40 years. The last ten in particular have featured congregations leaving and recently whole dioceses leaving. Now that the legal battles are winding down, the courts have ruled in favor of the Episcopal Church in every case (although Virginia is weird because the leavers invoked some weird civil war era law, but they even lost that.)
Some diocese are negotiating the sale of the property to the leavers where is makes sense – not necessarily at market rates, but something that works for both sides.
I find it ironic that the “conservatives” are all for playing by the rules when it comes to the “laws of the Bible”, but don’t hesitate to break the laws of the body they belong to (and US law even) and don’t even feel guilty about it. Even worse – proud of it.
One more judgment against the schismatics in the Episcopal Church:
http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/episcopal_church/breaking_court_rules_for_dioce.html
Mr. Paisley;
You have several times repeated this tag line: “I find it ironic that the “conservatives” are all for playing by the rules when it comes to the “laws of the Bible”, but don’t hesitate to break the laws of the body they belong to (and US law even) and don’t even feel guilty about it. Even worse – proud of it.”
First, an observation that double standards are common on both sides of the aisle. If you don’t believe this is true, fine. Most of us realize it. Frankly, such a realization is important common ground for any serious discussion.
Second, I am personally familiar with several congregations here in the Pacific Northwest that have already departed PCUSA or are wrestling with the decision to do so. Not one is flaunting US or PCUSA law. One had an interesting legal history, took it to court, lost, and is dealing with the aftermath. One vacated its property in entirety for Presbytery to figure out what to do with. (I talked with a then-trustee about his visit to that church. “John, you could have had service the next morning – everything was in place. Everything.”) The rest have quietly paid to leave, and did so within process.
Less vitriol, please, Mr. Paisley. I don’t think God much cares for it.
Mr. Paisley:
You chortle with delight whenever courts rule that Episcopal congregations who don’t want to be part of the Episcopal Church in America any longer have to hand over their properties. Since you take such delight in these outcomes, could you explain to all of us how the cause of Christ is advanced by empty church buildings? What is the ECA going to do with all of these white elephant properties?
Jim Caraher
You say chortle, but you have no idea how I react. It’s just more mean spirited crap from conservative Christians. Thanks for showing us your true colors – all you really want is what you don’t own.
I take no delight in this other than noting that stealing is wrong – I believe it’s in that big leather bound book you have no doubt heard of. Stealing is a legal term, and we have what we call here in “‘Merka” these things called “laws”, which “judges” and “courts” are bound to uphold. In this case, as they will do in 99% of cases (there’s always some sympathetic wacko judge somewhere who bucks the trend) the judge found that the law is clear and the property belongs to the diocese.
What the diocese does with the property is up to them – they can reestablish a congregation there – with people who were run off by the previous incumbents in many cases. And if not, they can sell the property and use the proceeds to build elsewhere, or support other churches with the money. Basically, they can do whatever they want with it because it belongs to them. It’s the law.
First, this is a huge double standard, not just some small inconsistency.
Second, “vitriol” is apparently anything that disagrees with you, so, meh, whatever.
My comments were primarily about the recent history with the Episcopal Church, and several months on there are now even more cases in the books where the absconders have lost legal battles and won none. The courts continue to rule in line with the laws f the denomination and the laws of the land.
The cases you mention all reinforce that. The one congregation tried to take the property and lost. The others all acknowledged the property belonged to the denomination and either vacated or arranged to buy it. Nothing wrong with that. Not a single congregation in the Episcopal Church tried to do that, so props to those PCUSA congregations that chose that route.