|
| |
|
New Wineskins -- 2007 |
| Some New Wineskins congregations
moving toward separation from the PC(USA) This is
obviously a development of concern to all of us in the Presbyterian
Church (USA), and one which calls for thought and reflection on all
sides. We offer here, for starters, three essays on this movement
for separation, along with a brief sketch of the background of the
matter.
 | Gene TeSelle, Witherspoon's Issues Analyst, lays
out the two options that seem
to getting serious consideration among the conservative churches. |
| TeSelle also gives a brief
look at the background of these
developments. |
| John Harris,
a member of the Witherspoon board, gives his personal view that the
movement toward separation looks more like "whining" about things the
conservatives don't like, than a real move for faithfulness.
|
| Berry Craig
views these developments through his knowledge of the Civil War, and
says to those who would separate, "Leave if you must ... but not on my
dime." |
| For more background, you might look at the
Presbyterian News Service report
on the New Wineskins conference in February. |
| See also our reports on the
New Wineskins
Convocation in 2005. |
If you have comments of your own,
or would suggest other comments on this matter,
please send us
a note,
to be shared here. |
|
New Wineskins considers "two faithful options"
by Gene TeSelle, Witherspoon Society Issues Analyst
[3-5-07]
The New Wineskins movement met in Orlando in February.
Recognizing that its adherents had different views about leaving the PC(USA),
the leadership offered a choice, "two faithful options." Some may decide to
stay within the PC(USA) and make their witness here. Others may want to
realign with other Presbyterians. According to a
story by Leslie Scanlon (Presbyterian Outlook, January 29, 2007),
co-moderator Dean Weaver estimated that a third may be "already out the
door," a third are "never going to leave," and a third need to "discern what
they’re going to be called to do." The larger congregations, it appears,
intend to stay and pursue their own independent course within the PC(USA),
funding their own parachurch organizations and sending out their own
missionaries.
For those thinking of departure, the Evangelical
Presbyterian Church has already extended a welcome; its leadership has even
proposed a new option (which must be voted on by the EPC’s General Assembly
in June of 2007) that harmonizes with what New Wineskins has already been
saying — non-geographical "transitional" presbyteries into which
congregations could move together and which would last for five years,
enabling all parties to see where they will go from there.
The EPC meets many of the
expectations of evangelicals in the PC(USA), because it ordains women but
has strict ordination standards when it comes to doctrinal matters. This is
what many conservatives have been calling for in the wake of the 2006
General Assembly’s approval of an authoritative interpretation (AI) that
allows for variations from the constitution of the church as long as they do
not involve "essentials." At least sixteen presbyteries have adopted
resolutions saying that no exceptions, no "scruples," will be allowed, and
that the "essentials" are stated in the constitution of the church.
When there is talk about
withdrawal by anyone – right, left, or center – there will be at least the
passing thought that it would be "good riddance." But this is likely to be
followed by the feeling that, no matter how much we disagree, we have grown
accustomed to each other and may even like each other. Departure is always
interpreted as a sign of failure – somewhere, somehow.
But let’s notice that
departure to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church would not be to a group
that is alienated from the PC(USA) to the extent of anathematizing it. The
EPC is in communion with us. We might think of those who withdraw to it as
being in a "holding tank," an interim situation while they think things
over. They might even decide to return to the PC(USA), especially if the EPC
gets tangled up in debates over women’s ordination. When you think you’re
escaping to a purer and more homogeneous communion, you may find that you
are only increasing the number of disputes to be worried about.
And then what about those big
congregations that seem to be leaning toward staying inside the PC(USA)? It
is difficult to know all their motives, but one expressed motive is to use
their financial power to strengthen organizations that are not under the
jurisdiction of the General Assembly.
This again expresses an attitude we can find across the
spectrum: stay inside in order to advocate your position, agitate, be a burr
under the saddle. It is not a sure-fire way to gain influence in the church.
Many Presbyterians are reluctant to elect ministers and elders from such
congregations to major positions or to make them commissioners to the
General Assembly.
When we think about
consequences like those, do we really think it would be better for all of us
if they stay in? It looks as though their adherence would be merely formal,
based on historical nostalgia and perhaps, in some strange way, on mutual
affection. But I’m not sure that this scenario is better than the other one
of exodus and return. Those who depart might be told, in effect, "Blessings
on your way. We hope you’ll come back again, chastened by your experience."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
New Wineskins –
some background and reflections
by Gene TeSelle
[3-5-07]
The New Wineskins group was formed
several years ago by evangelicals "envisioning a new denominational reality
for the 21st century from within the PC(USA)." (For updates,
check their web site.)
Some features will sound familiar,
especially the emphasis that "the church does not exist for itself but as a
servant for ministry and mission."
This is very much like the "functional"
view of the church that was pressed during the Fifties and Sixties by
Johannes Hoekendijk, Paul Lehmann, and Arend T. van Leeuwen, and for a time
by Lesslie Newbigin. It is the tone of much that the Presbyterian Church
said and did during the Sixties, expressed in the Confession of 1967. "To be
reconciled to God is to be sent into the world as God’s reconciling
community," it says (C-9.31, italics added; see also C-9.32 and 9.37). In
those years, it was progressives who were talking about "church renewal."
In keeping with that emphasis, the New
Wineskins movement calls for a connectional structure that is "defined by
relationships more than by structures," based on "organic relational
networks," providing "active support" for the clergy, and "centered on
serving and equipping the local congregation for contextually relevant
ministry and mission." Staffing and structure are to be minimal, "set in
place only to support the ministry and mission of the local church and its
leaders."
When it comes to "national church
networks" (meaning the General Assembly), this is to be "an alliance of
like-minded churches" in relationships of "trust and mutual accountability."
"A dramatically downsized national staff will feature mission specialists
operating on a convene-and-deploy model . . . " Polity will be
"permission-giving, not regulatory," designed to "foster, not hinder,
ministry and mission."
Similarly in "international church
networks" (missions), the emphasis is on networks and alliances "with other
connectional structures, organizations, and ministries for the sake of
effective cross-cultural Kingdom ministry."
This kind of language is appealing. But
it also raises a number of questions.
1. The emphasis on leaner structure that will "foster, not
hinder, ministry and mission" may build on stereotypes about "the structure"
as it is now, i.e., Louisville, bureaucracy, captivity to alien forces, and
all of that. These themes are repeatedly voiced by the right wing of the
church, but votes at the General Assembly and opinion around the church do
not seem to agree. Most Presbyterians are impressed with what the General
Assembly agencies are able to do (and help them to do at the local or
regional level) and are not inclined to make drastic changes. We often say
that we should emphasize what unites, not divides us, and most segments of
the church support programs like Hunger and Peacemaking.
2. We must ask what would happen with what we call the
"ecclesiastical" functions of ordination and discipline that fall under the
office of the Stated Clerk, in contrast with the "program" agencies dealing
with worldwide, national, and congregational ministries. These
"ecclesiastical" functions are an intrinsic part of the activities of
presbyteries.
3. The New Wineskins answer to this question is that all
governing bodies would look more like the current "affinity groups" or "parachurch
organizations" that are united by common commitments and purposes.
Evangelicals in the church often look to these as the focus of their
activities; at least since Matt Welde they have compared these with the
"religious orders" in the Catholic church. The Catholic religious orders do
indeed have considerable independence from the bishops, except where
pastoral "care of souls" is involved. They do exhibit a special zeal in
carrying out their particular callings. But religious orders are not immune
against power struggles. Human realities have a way of catching up with even
the most dedicated.
4. The problem of potential divisiveness is dealt with in
the New Wineskins "design" — but in a way that has the potential to divide
more than unite. A major emphasis is that the various "networks" are to
include only those persons who can subscribe to "defined theological and
ethical boundaries," an "unambiguous, biblically-derived statement of
orthodox and reformed faith essentials," a "new and concise statement of
theological essentials " to which all participants would subscribe. At the
same time it is to be made clear that "property will belong to the local
congregation." The connectional system is to be characterized not by
solidarity but by voluntary association — and the freedom to divide.
The New Wineskins movement’s enthusiasm for ministry and mission does not
manifest sufficient concern for due process in governing bodies, making it
all the more likely that "networks" at all levels would be riven by disputes
when they arise. And insofar as it would be able to achieve national unity,
the price would be uniformity and enforcement of the sort that we have seen
in the last two decades in the Southern Baptist Convention.
The New Wineskins group is to be thanked for getting us
thinking. But its "design" is not likely to be the answer, both because of
its uniformity and because of its lack of attention to dealing with
differences. |
|
New Wineskins or Simply Whining?
Opinion and Response by John E. Harris
(While John is an elected officer of the
Witherspoon Society, his opinions and comments do not necessarily
represent the collective views of the Society or its officers.)
According to
Outlook national reporter Leslie Scanlon, the New Wineskins
Association (NWA) of Churches voted unanimously February 9 to ask the
Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC) to create a new, non-geographic
presbytery to which congregations that want to leave the Presbyterian Church
(U.S.A.) could be dismissed. The vote represents both the height of
hypocrisy and ignorance of ecclesiastical and theological history. To me, at
least, this vote seems hypocritical, because it is so seriously inconsistent
with the stance of NWA on a number of important questions. And it seems to
show regrettable ignorance of our history and theology as Presbyterians.
According to Scanlon’s report, the
approximately 600 self-selected registered participants at the NWA February
8-9 meeting included representatives from 130 of the 151 endorsing churches.
Even if all 151 endorsing churches had been represented, their number would
account for less than 1.4% of all PC(USA) congregations, less than the
number of congregations with elder Commissioners to the most recent General
Assembly and far less than the number that will be present for the 2008 GA.
In addition, since they were self-selected, the participants would have been
far less diverse and inclusive than General Assembly commissioners at any
recent or future GA. Thus, while the NWA has a right for their voice to be
heard, they are only a loud voice because they are whining loudly, not
because of the strength of their numbers.
To its credit, the NWA passed a motion asking
its leadership team to affirm and outline the biblical basis for women
serving as pastors, elders and deacons. Was this issue not settled for most
Presbyterians a generation ago? Nevertheless, some in the New Wineskins
Association have stated that the EPC must agree to women’s ordination or
that would be a "deal-breaker" for Wineskin congregations thinking about
jumping ship to the EPC. Is this not the height of hypocrisy? Have NWA type
evangelicals not been the main stumbling block to the full inclusion of Gay,
Lesbian, Bi-Sexual and Transgender (GLBT) Presbyterians within the PC(USA),
including ordination? It seems that the NWA is demanding that the EPC accept
the full inclusion and ordination of women. Does the NWA not understand that
many of the arguments they have been using to argue against the ordination
of GLBT Presbyterians are strikingly similar to arguments used a generation
ago, and even more recently, to deny ordination to women?
According to Scanlon, at least one
participant at the recent NWA meeting raised concern about the makeup of the
New Wineskins strategy team, which consisted of nine white males. Have women
in the NWA forgotten their church history? Racism and patriarchy may be
dying but they are breathing their last gasps within the NWA. Responding to
such criticisms, NWA co-moderator Carmen Fowler responded that seven of the
nine strategy team members were chosen from nominations made at the NWA
meeting in July 2006. "If you want different people you have to nominate
different people" Fowler is reported to have said. Does Fowler not
understand the doctrine of total depravity and that both the sins of racism
and sexism, not to mention homophobia, are institutional as well as
personal? It seems that the NWA has no problem pointing out the splinters in
the PC(USA)’s eyes while ignoring the log in its own eyes.
According to Scanlon’s recent Outlook
report, NWA participants at their recent meeting referred over and over to
the flashpoints of frustration in the PC(USA) – including the controversial
report of the Theological Task Force on the Peace, Unity, and Purity of the
PC(USA), which some contend could give local congregations and presbyteries
leeway to ordain sexually-active gays and lesbians. Yet as previously
mentioned, many in the NWA have problems with the fact that regarding
women’s ordination, the EPC allows it only as a local option. Does the NWA
not see the their demanding leeway for their congregations within the EPC to
ordain women, is no different from GLBT Presbyterians asking for the "local
option" to ordain sexually active GLBTs practicing both fidelity and
chastity in committed and covenanted monogamous relationships?
In conclusion, Scanlon’s report notes that
the NWA has said there are two faithful options, to go to the EPC or stay in
the PC(USA) and work for change. While many individual progressive
Presbyterians have chosen to leave the PC(USA) for more open and affirming
churches such as the United Church of Christ and the Metropolitan Community
Church, others have chosen to leave the church altogether because they have
grown weary of the struggle for justice in a church where so many of the
members have not yet "gotten it." Meanwhile the Witherspoon Society, as well
as other progressive affinity groups such as the Covenant Network, More
Light Presbyterians, and That All May Freely Serve, have never once
advocated that any individual abandon the PC(USA), let alone planned for
entire congregations to desert our expression of the Body of Christ. Rather,
the Witherspoon Society has committed itself to remaining a faithful part of
the PC(USA) while holding before our beloved but often distracted church the
full gospel and working for, as part of our church’s progressive witness,
the full inclusion of all God’s children within both its membership and
leadership. |
| ‘Not on
my dime’
By BERRY CRAIG
[3-5-07]
Presbyterian News Service says the conservative New Wineskins
Association of Churches wants the conservative Evangelical Presbyterian
Church "to create a non-geographic, transitional New Wineskins presbytery (NWEPC)
for those churches wishing to leave the PC(USA.)."
What are liberal Presbyterians to make of the would-be
secessionists? History, the subject I teach, may offer some insights, if not
answers.
In 1860-1861, 11 Southern slave states exited the Union
and organized the Confederate states of America. Some Northern abolitionists
said good riddance." Abolitionist orators were openly welcoming secession,"
wrote Bruce Catton in The Coming Fury, "as if this convulsive step
would at last take the great evil of slavery off forever."
Other foes of slavery – Abraham Lincoln among them –
disagreed. They argued the Union must be preserved.
I suspect Presbyterian liberals are similarly divided over
the Wineskinner disunionists.
Some liberals probably would welcome the departure of NWAC
churches. After all, that would help liberalize the PC(USA).
I imagine other liberals are more Lincolnesque. They
probably like the idea of one church, indivisible.
At any rate, secession is not a new idea in American
Presbyterianism. "The Presbyterian church in the United States has split and
parts have reunited several times," the Presbyterian Historical Society
says. Indeed, the formation of the PC(USA) in 1983 healed a 122-year-old
rift between Northern and Southern Presbyterians that began over slavery and
the Civil War.
On the eve of America’s bloodiest conflict, the slave
states knew they were a dwindling minority. The presidential election of
1860 proved the South was out of step with the rest of America.
Lincoln was elected president on a platform opposing
expansion of slavery into the federal territories. Afraid that Lincoln and
his Republican Party would end all slavery, the South abandoned the Union.
The Wineskinners realize few Presbyterian agree with them.
Otherwise, why would they would they consider bolting to the EPC?
"A house divided against itself cannot stand," Lincoln
said. The Civil War, which abolitionists supported once the fighting
started, ended slavery and saved the Union.
Whatever the Wineskinners do, the devil will be in the
details. The Presbyterian News Service story cited "weighty issues over
whether [departing NWAC congregations]…could take church property with
them."
Such "weighty issues" remind me of a tale told about Confederate Gen.
P.G.T. Beauregard. When he resigned from the U.S. Army to join the Rebels,
he allegedly billed Uncle Sam for his travel expenses south.
"Not on my dime," the army reputedly replied, in effect.
My guess is "Not on my dime" would be the reply of most
liberal – and moderate – Presbyterians to secessionist Wineskinners who
expect to take PC(USA) property on their new faith journey.
| The author:
Berry Craig is a professor of history at the West Kentucky Community
and Technical College in Paducah. He and his wife, Melinda, are members of
the Witherspoon Society. |
|
|
If you would like to add comments of
your own,
or to suggest other comments on this matter,
please send us a
note,
to be shared here. |
A comment from New
Wineskins
[3-9-07]
Gerrit Dawson, a CoModerator of the New Wineskins Association
of Churches, has sent a word of thanks to Gene TeSelle for his recent
article on the New Wineskins movement
Dear Editor,
I'd like to thank Gene TeSelle for his article on the
New Wineskins. I suspect he has reared a child or two. He clearly knows
something about how letting go is often a more effective strategy of love
than clinging or demanding. I'm very grateful for his gracious words
concerning those of us who are considering changing Presbyterian
affiliation to a denomination (the EPC) with whom the PCUSA is in
communion but which also seems more compatible with our core beliefs.
Personally, no decision has been made by our congregation or this pastor.
Yet I'm willing to grant that if we move to the EPC, we could be wrong. If
that is the case, and the Lord calls us back to the PCUSA, I will happily
take the role of a returning prodigal and ask public forgiveness. It's
very refreshing not to be anathematized for even considering the subject
of affiliation. Gene's irenic spirit draws me whereas commentaries that
center on possessiveness ("not on my dime") and control ("you're dreaming
if you think you can have your property") and paternalism only drive me
away. This, perhaps, is a lesson that I, as an evangelical, need to heed
about my own rhetoric as well. So, thank you.
Gerrit Dawson, CoModerator
New Wineskins Association of Churches
We'd like to say Thanks to Gerrit Dawson for his
gracious and thoughtful note. |
|
"Formally engaged" New Wineskins votes to move ahead with
"marriage" to Evangelical Presbyterian Church
A report from Presbyterian News Service
[2-15-07]
After a yearlong courtship, a formal engagement between
the New Wineskins Association of Churches (NWAC) and the Evangelical
Presbyterian Church (EPC) was agreed to on Friday, Feb. 9.
The NWAC, a group of Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
congregations unhappy with the state of the denomination, voted unanimously
on Feb. 9 to petition the EPC to create a non-geographic, transitional New
Wineskins presbytery (NWEPC) for those churches wishing to leave the PC(USA).
The EPC will vote on the matter at its General Assembly
(GA) in June. If approved, the NWEPC presbytery, transitional for a period
of five years, could be set up immediately following the GA, said the Rev.
Dean Weaver, co-moderator of the NWAC.
Highlights of the plan include:
| The NWEPC will be self-governing under the NWAC
Constitution and shall have the authority to ordain, install, receive and
dismiss pastors. |
| NWEPC pastors and staff shall be
immediately eligible to participate in the pension and medical plans of
the EPC. |
| Each NWEPC church will own its own property and will
elect and ordain elders and deacons from its own congregational members.
|
| The NWEPC shall have the authority to plant churches.
|
Under PC(USA) law, a PC(USA) congregation must ask its
presbytery to dismiss it in order to officially leave the denomination. A
presbytery can only dismiss a congregation, either with or without the
church property, to an ecclesiastical body "whose organization is conformed
to the doctrines and order of this Church," according to a 1976 General
Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission decision. The EPC falls within that
rubric, said Office of the General Assembly officials.
It’s not clear exactly how many PC(USA) congregations
might seek to leave the denomination and join the EPC via a newly created
New Wineskins presbytery, but the New Wineskins say they have 151 endorsing
churches overall.
Not all will opt to leave, particularly with weighty
issues over whether they could take church property with them often hanging
in the balance.
The complete report >> |
| |
| |
|
If you like what
you find here,
we hope you'll help us keep Voices for Justice going ... and
growing!
Please consider making a special
contribution -- large or small -- to help us continue and improve
this service.
Click here to send a
gift online, using your credit card, through PayPal.
Or send your check, made
out to "Presbyterian Voices for Justice" and marked "web site," to
our PVJ Treasurer:
Darcy Hawk
4007 Gibsonia Road
Gibsonia, PA 15044-8312 |
| |
|
Some blogs worth visiting |
|
PVJ's
Facebook page
Mitch Trigger, PVJ's
Secretary/Communicator, has created a Facebook page where
Witherspoon members and others can gather to exchange news and
views. Mitch and a few others have posted bits of news, both
personal and organizational. But there’s room for more!
You can post your own news and views,
or initiate a conversation about a topic of interest to you. |
| |
|
Voices of Sophia blog
Heather Reichgott, who has created
this new blog for Voices of Sophia, introduces it:
After fifteen years of scholarship
and activism, Voices of Sophia presents a blog. Here, we present the
voices of feminist theologians of all stripes: scholars, clergy,
students, exiles, missionaries, workers, thinkers, artists, lovers
and devotees, from many parts of the world, all children of the God
in whose image women are made. .... This blog seeks to glorify God
through prayer, work, art, and intellectual reflection. Through
articles and ensuing discussion we hope to become an active and
thoughtful community. |
| |
|
John Harris’ Summit to
Shore blogspot
Theological and philosophical
reflections on everything between summit to shore, including
kayaking, climbing, religion, spirituality, philosophy, theology,
politics, culture, travel, The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), New
York City and the Queens neighborhood of Ridgewood by a progressive
New York City Presbyterian Pastor. John is a former member of the
Witherspoon board, and is designated pastor of North Presbyterian
Church in Flushing, NY. |
| |
|
John Shuck’s Shuck and Jive
A Presbyterian minister, currently
serving as pastor of First Presbyterian Church of Elizabethton,
Tenn., blogs about spirituality, culture, religion (both organized
and disorganized), life, evolution, literature, Jesus, and
lightening up. |
| |
|
Got more blogs to recommend?
Please
send a note, and we'll see what we can do! |
| |
|
