The Rev. Jake Young, co-moderator of the Witherspoon Society, attended the meeting and sends this report.

Read an earlier report from Presbyterian News Service >>

Along with a couple other observers from a progressive affinity group, I spent Friday and Saturday, November 3-4 at a gathering of the "Constitutional Presbyterians" (CPs) in Greenville, SC. There were approximately 200 registrants. Slightly less were in attendance Friday, slightly more Saturday. (You may learn more about this group, from an indigenous point of view, on their own website >> )

The gist of the presentations follows: "We are committed to the unity of the church. But we are also committed to correct theology and polity. We fear the 217^th General Assembly is guilty of bad theology and bad polity. [I find "bad" to be such a lame descriptor, but that’s the word that was used…repeatedly.] But, we are not prepared to leave the denomination until cases against the 217^th GA’s acceptance of recommendation 5 of the PUP report are decided by the GA PJC." So, it’s going to come down to an ecclesial court decision.

What will be the rationale for schism, should the PJC not decide as the CPs have determined they should? Well, according to Calvin (who was alive and well and sitting right beside you at this conference), no one should leave the church. However, if the actions of the church reflect "bad theology and bad polity," then they are apostate, and, therefore no longer the church and we are free to leave. (This insight, too, was attributed to Calvin.) So goes the current thinking of the Constitutional Presbyterians.

As for that name, some explanation is required. You may remember the Witherspoon Society’s statement concerning these issues that, among other things, declares our commitment to "defend our Constitution against anarchy and misinterpretation." How could this group, calling themselves Constitutional, possibly not see eye-to-eye with the Society?

Again, suspend all reasonable logic for a moment, and hear the argument: "The Book of Order is only one part of the Constitution. The FIRST part of the Constitution is the Book of Confessions." And since actions of the 217^th GA and other parties do not conform to the Westminster Confession, they are unconstitutional. (It was interesting how the Confession of 1967 and the Brief Statement were mentioned only once, in a low, derisive tone, while the Westminster, Heidelberg, and Scots were invoked too many times to count. Perhaps more interesting was the claim on more than one occasion by the CPs to be in the tradition of Bonhoeffer’s Confessing Church AND the Civil Rights movement.)

I must say, it was encouraging to learn that 85% of the PC(USA) is "liberal," including the TTF and anyone who supports the PUP report. On the other hand, it was discouraging to hear one of the presenters declare that "Number five of our five reasons to stay in the PC(USA) is because the liberals want us to leave." This declaration was greeted with cheers. It caused us observers to wince. How can we so misunderstand one other? When have progressive Presbyterians called for the departure of our more conservative sisters and brothers? Never, in my experience. More revealing was the speaker’s next line: "To be honest, we hope they leave." God, help us. The same speaker quipped, "Love a liberal today." I reckon he’s correct. Only love will win the day.

A group calling itself the "Constitutional Presbyterians" gathered about 215 people to Greenville, SC, on November 3-4, to consider the possibility of separating from the PC(USA), if it is felt that the denomination has ceased to be "a true church." Some participants said that is already the case, since the 217^th General Assembly last summer approved an authoritative interpretation on the church’s Constitution, which might make it possible for some lgbt candidates for ordination to declare on grounds of conscience that the provisions in G-6.0106b of the Book of Order (the "fidelity and chastity" amendment) should not be applied to them.

Some sample overtures were distributed for introduction in congregations and presbyteries, which would essentially invalidate the Assembly’s authoritative interpretation.

Keynoter James C. Goodloe, IV, pastor of Grace Covenant Presbyterian Church in Richmond, VA, argued that it congregations decide to separate themselves from the PC(USA), they will not be leaving the denomination, but simply acknowledging that the denomination has ceased to be a "true church."

The Rev. J. Howard Edington, pastor of the Providence Presbyterian Church on Hilton Head Island, SC, preaching on the second day of the conference on Jesus cleansing the temple, said in his sermon: "Here in your hearing I publicly want to say that I denounce those leaders of our denomination who dare to suggest that at the PC(USA) is the true church. Rubbish!"

A thought from your WebWeaver: I can’t recall ever hearing any leader of the PC(USA) ever claiming that this denomination is "the true church." The very notion seems to fly in the face of the basic teachings of the Reformation, but clearly it’s a claim that some in the conservative wing of the church are quite prepared to claim for themselves.

Read the report from Presbyterian News Service >>

The headline over a report from The Christian Post put the tone of the conference a little more sharply:

Unhappy Presbyterians Urge, Legitimize Separation

Unhappy Presbyterians urged fellow members to separate from the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) in their attempt to counteract the leeway granted for gay ordination.

On November 15 we posted a report by Jake Young, co-moderator of the Witherspoon Society, giving his impressions of the meeting of the Constitutional Presbyterians in Greenville, SC, on November 3-4.

We quickly received two very different responses to his report – both disputing his view of the meeting, but in strikingly differing tones.

First came a note saying "Jake Young is a nut."

Then came one saying "I was there as well. It amazes me how, depending on our own perceptive, we hear different things from the same words. I'm not saying that what was reported was not said, rather there is a difference in emphasis."

You may find it interesting to read them both.

One little comment: We do not normally post communications that are insulting to persons or groups, and we suppose someone might take offence at being called a "nut." But we believe (and Jake Young agrees with this, even though he was the one labeled as a nut) that the contrast in these two comments may be instructive.

"Jake Young is a nut"

Date: 11/16/2006

I cannot imagine where your reporter got some of the nutty things he says in his report on the Constitutional Presbyterians gathering. This is manifestly irresponsible reporting.

Here is an excellent statement of what Constitutional Presbyterians are really about that recently appeared on another web site, from Clay Brown, a pastor who was also present at the gathering:

Some attendees of the recently held Constitutional Presbyterians gathering have written of their displeasure with what transpired there. They perceive that the gathering was another "all talk and no action" event similar to others convened over the years, with no clear strategy offered as a way forward.

I respectfully disagree. I heard a coherent and active strategy expounded as follows:

1. Fear not as you strive against the current direction of the PCUSA. Truth, as in Scripture, our confessional and constitutional witness, and the classic Reformed tradition as a whole, is on your side.

2. Know that the issue of the ordination of self-affirming, practicing gays and lesbians has not yet been decided. There is disagreement even on whether or not ordination standards indeed have been changed. You will not know for sure until a case makes it to the PJC. Until then, it is too early to talk of leaving.

3. In the meantime: a) Make sure your theology grounds your polity and ethics. Know what you believe, why you believe it, and how your belief should direct your practice –then make sure it does. b) Articulate and contend for the authority of Scripture, the consensual creeds of the Church, and the orthodox constitutional ordination standards in your congregations, sessions and presbyteries. Get involved. Ask tough questions fairly and forthrightly. Serve when, where, and how you can. Band together with like-minded people for support and encouragement. c) Evaluate your stewardship regarding funds sent to higher judicatories. d) Investigate your congregation's property issues in your state sooner rather than later. e) Use the resources provided to help you with a) through d).

4. Remember that the PCUSA is but a small part of the Church universal. If push comes to shove, there are sound Reformed criteria for distinguishing between the depravity always found in the church and the apostasy that necessitates a decision to leave. For now, though, there is much work to be done, and you are part of God's "can-do army" for doing it.

That seems a pretty clear strategy to me. It may not be the strategy some want to hear, but it is a viable strategy nevertheless. Furthermore, it is a strategy I believe is the most appropriate one at this time. I recognize something could happen tomorrow that might change things (was it Ron Scates who said, in his address to the Constitutional Presbyterians, that every day he wakes up and wonders what shame the PCUSA will bring on the gospel today?), but as of now this is where I stand.
The Rev. Dr. Clay J. Brown, pastor
First Presbyterian Church
Mooresville, N.C.

That is an accurate view of what we are about. The kind of nonsense your Mr. Young reported does not help your cause. It’s obviously crazy.

Michael Bush
Erskine Theological Seminary

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There is a difference in emphasis

The other comment, which was sent both to Gene TeSelle, Witherspoon Issues Analyst, and to your WebWeaver:

Dear Gene and Doug,

This is what the Constitutional Presbyterians would say about themselves.

In Christ,

Renee

[This is the same comment as that cited by Michael Bush in the note above.]

In response to our reply, she added:

Yes, the organizers of the event would not agree with Jake Young's assessment. :-)

I was there as well. It amazes me how, depending on our own perceptive, we hear different things from the same words. I'm not saying that what was reported was not said, rather there is a difference in emphasis. One of the speakers at the CP event clearly stated that he was not leaving. Many of the speakers did not talk about staying or leaving, and left us, by assumption, believing they intended to stay.

Like New Wineskins, the Constitutional Presbyterians are not focusing on staying or leaving. They seek to be constitutional and they are referring to the PCUSA constitution. New Wineskins is seeking to live out a new way of being presbyterian in order to become a theologically centered and missional church.

I remain thankful for your willingness to publish different viewpoints.

In Christ,

Renee Guth

If you have further comments,
either on the Constitutional Presbyterians’ meeting,
or on this little exchange,
do send a note,
and we’ll share it here.
Some degree of courtesy will be appreciated.