The latest on "CC"

What's up with the "Confessing Church Movement"?

by Doug King, with assistance from Kent Winters-Hazelton, Gene TeSelle, and Chris Iosso [7-4-01]

According to reports from The Presbyterian Layman, which is functioning as a sponsor (and by many accounts, the initiator) of the confessing church movement, it continues to gather support. The Layman web site reports as of June 30 that "now exceeds more than 558 congregations representing in excess of 193,874 members." The movement was begun in western Pennsylvania in March, first by an action of Summit Presbyterian Church in Butler, followed by actions of other congregations.

[See our earlier reports and comments for background on this matter.]

These congregations (or sessions, or somebody) have signed confessions of faith that, with minor variations, affirm salvation through Christ alone, the infallibility of the Bible and the Christian imperative for purity, which is seen as requiring that sexual relationships take place only within heterosexual marriage.

But there appear to be some strains within the movement.

The General Assembly created considerable distress for the confessing church movement, as all four of the candidates for moderator - including elder Nancy Maffett, the candidate most clearly committed to a conservative stance - told the Assembly that they viewed the movement as unhelpful to the Presbyterian Church, and an inappropriate way to deal with the formulation of doctrinal stances. The candidate who spoke most clearly in criticism of the movement, Dr. Jack Rogers, was elected on the first ballot. [Elder Nancy Maffett has asked us to add to what is said above.]

More recently there has been another distressing turn for the movement. In March, urged on by Summit Church in Butler, the Presbytery of Beaver-Butler approved a statement of faith by a vote of 46 to 42 - a decision much heralded by the Layman. Now, however, members of the presbytery have decided to review their action, not to do away with a statement of faith, but to draft one by a more inclusive and less divisive process. This may be in part that the original vote was somewhat irregular - an item of new business added to the end of the docket, it was ruled out of order by the Stated Clerk, who was then overruled by the presbytery. This reconsideration may be an effort simply to make the action more legitimate, or it may indeed be aimed at making the action more inclusive and less divisive. It will be interesting to observe how the presbytery deals with the newly declared three fundamentals when they are given time for reflection and prayerful consideration.

Finally, it appears that even some supporters of the movement are nevertheless concerned about its potential for division. A group of 25 "evangelical" congregations in Beaver-Butler Presbytery has called for a National Confessing Church Assembly to be held in 2002.

But the Rev. Jerry Cooper , whose congregation has signed a confession of faith, has sent a note to PresbyWeb expressing concern that the "movement" is beginning to look like an organization, which would have a more divisive impact and would compete with other evangelical groups that are seeking to influence the denomination.

Finally, of course, there is the question of what all this portends. Perhaps it's a show of force (and the great emphasis on numbers of congregations and members seems to suggest this); for some it is probably a declaration of conscience, similar to that of the "dissenting congregations" over G-6; some may intend it as a challenge to the church and specifically to the GAC, a demand that they either sign or resign.

What will happen if they do not prevail? What if they draw a new and more confining boundary and nobody retreats inside it? What if there is internal dissension in the congregations or among the leaders? (One gets the impression that this is a parade that was started by a very few people and publicized by the Lay Committee, which many other conservatives felt they must support but about which they have many qualms.) [See the query from one church member.]

If the votes at the General Assembly are an indication, the hard-core conservatives include about 15% of the church. Repeatedly they showed themselves more interested in drawing lines than in finding middle ground. Eventually they will have to decide whether to leave the church or to continue claiming that they alone, despite their minority status, represent the authentic tradition of the church and deserve to select its leadership and define its policies. This dilemma, too, has clearly haunted every gathering of conservatives.

And how should others respond to the confessing movement? Progressives and moderates have no obligation to respond to the demands of a small pressure group. [See below for a comment.] In the past, attempts to placate them have led to one retreat after another, but the recent Assembly in Louisville showed no willingness to be intimidated. That common sense and courage may well give courage to many others.

On the numbers game:

Some may recall the 1996 Assembly, when conservatives came to the GA with a sack full of mail, claiming that 3,000 churches had written in protest of the possible ordination of gays. They claimed that these churches would leave the denomination, or at least withhold their giving. The sack of mail was presented to the Sexuality Committee and left in the middle of the room. After the Assembly, it was said that someone followed up on those letters and found out that many of the churches did not know that their names had been used, or that the session had not approved of the letter. It may have been the pastor or a member of the church that sent it in.

So we might wonder whether there may be similar manipulation of the numbers here again. In at least one congregation in Virginia, the pastor brought a statement that might have been a confessing church statement, and told the Session he was going to sign it. The Session responded with stony silence. Is that one of the 558 congregations?

Elder Nancy Maffett has sent this comment on our report about the statements by the candidates for Moderator in relation to the Confessing Church Movement

Dear Doug,

I was very surprised to read my name in your web site article and comments indicating that I found the Confessing Churches' statements to be unhelpful to the Presbyterian Church and an inappropriate way to deal with the formulation of doctrinal stances. During the Question and Answer part of the election process I answered the question about the Confessing Churches by affirming their right to speak in these ways, that they were affirming doctrinal positions held consistently throughout our history as believers and that I did not believe their motives were to lead to disunity within the PC/USA.

I also alluded to the fact that other groups had lifted up doctrinal positions for affirmation. Certainly the Covenant Network and More Light Movement have made similar doctrinal statements supporting their positions. It is a distortion of what is happening to claim that new doctrinal stances are being formulated. These churches are lifting up positions already stated in our Book of Order, the Book of Confessions and, I believe, clearly supported in Scripture.

I believe very sincerely that churches are seeking to affirm positions which they consider to be central and which have been challenged in the debates and votes over the past several decades. That is our heritage and freedom within our Presbyterian system. I am most troubled by motives being impugned by either side. We accomplish nothing and dishonor God by such demonizing of those with whom we disagree.

Thank you for enabling me to speak to the way my views were misrepresented in your article. I trust that you will do me the courtesy of offering a correction.

Sincerely,

Nancy Maffett

A little response from Doug King: I'm happy to publish this addition from Ms. Maffett; she did indeed elaborate on her statement roughly along the lines she has indicated here.

Her words in full, as recorded during the session:

I don’t know how Presbyterians got the reputation for doing things properly and in order. I have the sense over the years that we’re pretty rowdy at times. We have our debates, we have our issues. I have also a feeling that what we’re in the middle of right now is an attempt by many elements in the life of the church to speak. It certainly has come from a variety of directions, and I would venture that many of the sessions who have endorsed this, many of the sessions that have endorsed versions of statements of commitment to particular positions on other sides of these issues, are doing so because they feel the need to speak. And that is also a part of who we are. I would also say that I don’t think that very many of these sessions who are voting to bring us to disunity. I think they are speaking out of their love for the Lord, on both sides of these types of things. It’s hard, isn’t it? It’s hard to listen, but it is healthy to speak, and we’re doing that right now, and I don’t believe we need to fear, because we are in a dialogue with each other. And let us be patient, and let us be gracious, as we seek to be heard.

A reader questions one statement:

[Received 7-5-01, posted 7-7-01]

You say: 'Progressives and moderates have no obligation to respond to the demands of a small pressure group.' [See the comment above.]

I say: Conservatives have no obligation to respond to the demands of an assortment of smaller liberal pressure groups.

Sarah Guiles
Baltimore, Maryland

Sounds pretty fair. What do you think??
Please share your thoughts!
And let us know if you'd like your comments to be published.
And if so, may we mention your name?

Thanks!