Here’s my confession: I’ve been sitting on this post for a while. I’ve been wanting to reflect a bit more on the recent developments of the Fellowship of Presbyterians, their announcement last month about the Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians (Evangelical COPs…that’s cute), and how all of this will affect our denomination. I’ve read a few good posts that I wanted to make sure I linked to:
- Lipstick on A Pig: the ECO and Its Plan to Split the PCUSA, by Timothy Simpson
- Will the PC(USA) Split in 2012, by John Vest
- Embracing the Pathos of Our Situation, by John Vest
And like I said, I’ve been sitting on this post for a while. I figured I’d spend some time going through these documents, writing out a thorough, detailed analysis for you all….but I just haven’t had any energy to get into the Fellowship stuff more, or dive into the theology or polity documents of the ECO. I’m just not interested.
And then I saw this tweet from friend Shawn Coons:
Question for which I don’t have the answer: At what point does #Presbyterian unity become an idol? fb.me/14wjs6kL1
— Shawn Coons (@shawncoons) January 26, 2012
Shawn linked to a “letter of reconciliation” that 24 Presbyterian leaders signed shortly after The Fellowship of Presbyterians announced the new ECO denomination that would be formed. In the letter, signed by some folks who I know and consider friends, they ask for the General Assembly leaders to be “bridge builders,” say that there are more signs of unity from within our denomination and ask that those who are planning to leave slow down, and come back to the table for more conversations and reconciliation.
But I think Shawn asks a good question: at what point do we make the unity of the Presbyterian Church (USA) an idol? At what point does saving our denomination became a golden calf for us? At what point does the unity of the church take our focus and energy and efforts from actually living out the gospel in other, perhaps more meaningful and impacting, ways?
I’m not entirely sure about the answer – but I’d say we’re getting close. Now, I know I vowed to further for the peace, unity and purity of the church in my ordination vows – and those are still pretty fresh in my mind. But I do think that even that good work could get in the way of being the church in the world today, of continuing to be a witness of Christ’s inclusive love for all, of working on creating spaces where all feel welcome, and moving forward as a denomination that can serve God’s people with energy, intelligence, imagination and love and not have to have the same, old conversations, over and over again, concerning ordination of LGBT candidates for ministry.
Because, let’s be honest. Can we do that? That’s what it’s about. I don’t care how many times someone from The Fellowship of Presbyterians or ECO says “it’s not about gay ordination” – it IS about gay ordination. Why have we seen such a fast and furious following of The Fellowship? Why have they just in the past 6 months been able to gain as much traction as they have? You’re telling me that it’s not connected to our denomination finally removing barriers from those who are called by God to serve God’s people?
I don’t buy it.
Sure, I think it’s about a lot of other stuff: a desire to create new churches, to be more missional, to try to cut down on some of the bureaucracy of our denomination…and maybe more too. But I don’t buy the line that it’s not first and foremost because we now allow for the possibility of being gay and being ordained as a Teaching Elder (don’t get me started on that new title!) in the Presbyterian Church (USA).
So, sorry – no detailed analysis here. No big vision for the future. Except that if you’re unhappy with where we are as a denomination, it’s okay for you to leave. We can still be brothers and sisters in Christ, working for God’s kingdom, but I’m okay if you want to join a new denomination. I’m not going to try to fight to keep you here. And I’m certainly not going to sign a letter asking that we sit down at the same old table and rehash the same old theological arguments, while you quote small passages from Leviticus and Romans to me. I’d prefer that you actually just be honest about what you want, and not try to stay and remain in the PC(USA) and become an affiliated member of a “new reformed body” – which is really a new denomination anyway…
Schism happens. And it might not always be the worst thing. You clearly don’t agree with our polity to allow LGBT candidates to be ordained. And that’s fine – join a different denomination that’s not having those conversations yet (oh…if we could get a glimpse into the world 50-100 years in the future, when people will think we were all ridiculous for having these conversations at all!), and then we can all get on with loving and serving God and others in this world.
Deal?
Hi Adam,
Thanks for your post. I’m convinced our attempts at unity in the PC(USA) are an idol. And have been for a long time.
I attended the Fellowship / ECO conference on behalf of the other pastors I serve with (a sort of reconnaissance mission, if you will) without having been a part of the Fellowship conversation at all. For what it’s worth, I wasn’t privy to a single conversation about homosexual ordination.
As you say, I’m sure that IS part of the underlying reason for many of the 2,200 attendees, though – again, for whatever it’s worth – it wasn’t mentioned at all. Instead, a great deal of emphasis was put on the things you mention above: “a desire to create new churches, to be more missional, to try to cut down on some of the bureaucracy of our denomination.” In ECO leaders’ words: They’re hoping to get back to being church. Now, I’m sure that for many, under the surface, this includes different ordination standards than the PC(USA).
While I understand your willingness for the naysayers to leave, my concern is for other churches in my Presbytery. What happens to the smaller churches who are in need of assistance in a given ecclesiastical body when half (or a majority, even) of other churches leave?
That, for me, is when unity is not an idol. When we can actually support one another in our varying mission contexts regardless of theological conviction and Scriptural interpretation. Maybe one of the only times, because, for all the talk about working together, it doesn’t really happen much at this point.
Great post, Adam. I’ll be making this case over the next several months, but I think the Mid Councils Commission recommendation for a “season of experimentation” that includes non-geographic presbyteries is a way to explore new ways of being Presbyterian without schism or the idols of “unity” or “the ways Presbyterians have always done it”.
(As for “teaching elder”–that’s not new; it’s actually an older way of referring to pastors in the Reformed tradition.)
Thanks for the comment John. Yah – I know Teaching Elder is older nomenclature – I’m just not a fan of it.
At what point do denominations themselves become idols?
These problems won’t be solved until the idolatry of the word “God” is itself desacralized.
Thank you for bringing the thought of church unity as an idol out and tossing around some ideas about it. This very issue (church unity as idol) was not discussed at all, although it was very present, during the time of reunion that formed the PC(USA) while many differences had yet to be “worked out.” Hint — they never really were and had their root in differing views of the Bible. Likewise, some ecumenical efforts were plagued by a similar problem. Of course, this was not a popular worldview at the time, to say the least!
What I have noted is about times of integration, while today it seems to be about dis-integration. Dynamics to ponder.
Another question: when is “disunity” in the Scriptures NOT a sin–or a symptom of sin? This is why I agree with Colin that denominations themselves are idols … and ordination to whatever sort of hierarchical eldership.
I was in 8th grade, about 14, when the first rejoining took place. I had grown up in the UPNA and was very excited about the idea. In 1988, I was on session and able to vote for the reunion, which I again was thrilled about. I have held the Moderator’s 3-cross cross and noted that each one moves on its own. When the first rumblings of disunion took place I was anguished, but then had it pointed out to me that the Reformed tradition is constantly reforming itself and that my ancestors (Covanenters among them) rode out the storm and still remained Presbyterians. If we sit under different trees, we are still breathing the same air and receiving the same blessings from God. I hope that all the trees grow and flourish and continue to do God’s work in the world.
Lenore Justman