Wilbur Owen "Will" Spotts' letter to 11,000 local church sessions in the Presbyterian Church (USA). Posted on The Layman Online: Wednesday, October 6, 2004 September 11, 2004 Dear Members of Session, I do not come from a Presbyterian background, but I have been involved with a PCUSA church for ten years, as a ruling elder for four. In that time I have often been struck by a genuine and heartfelt desire among Presbyterians to love their neighbors as themselves. Both locally and more generally, the PCUSA had endeavored to demonstrate God's love, not as a platitude, but through real actions. Lately, however, I have become increasingly concerned with trends in the denomination. It was with a mixture of fascination and dismay that I read of the proceedings of this year's General Assembly. Two things in particular caught my attention; I bring them up because they are important to me, and also because they serve to illustrate the trend I mentioned. I believe this concerns every congregation, and that it touches on the foundations of Christian belief. The first matter is the participation of the moderator and vice-moderator of the General Assembly in the Voices of Sophia breakfast. Voices of Sophia is an affinity group of the PCUSA. I do not know what is required to become an affinity group, but I would imagine a minimum would entail actually being Christian. Prayers to Sophia, hymns to Sophia, invocations and blessings of Sophia, the use of the names God-Sophia, Jesus-Sophia, and the Spirit-Sophia, and the claim that Jesus acted under the influence of the spirit Sophia (personified) are all incompatible with Christianity. Adherents to this theology evade the charge of worshipping other gods by saying that they are really worshiping Sophia as an aspect of God. This is similar to the claim made by Aaron that in worshipping the golden calf "that [he claimed] brought the Israelites out of Egypt" they were worshipping YHWH. It was untrue then; it is untrue now. Sophia theology is not Christian, but neo-Gnostic. Gnosticism was an opportunistic and parasitic religious philosophy that predated Christianity and superimposed itself onto Christian imagery. It was not stamped out for the sake of misogyny or because it threatened the patriarchy as some are in the habit of claiming, but because it was fundamentally at odds with the gospel. Paul, John, and arguably Jude opposed it in their epistles, as did the entire early church. The attendance and participation of moderators (acting in their official capacities – which is, of course, why they were invited to attend) in Voices of Sophia breakfasts, the Voices of Sophia's status as an affinity group, the support they have received from some offices of the church, and the financial backing of seminaries that teach Sophia theology all serve as endorsements. It is time for the PCUSA to decide if it wishes to follow the Christian religion as we received it or if it wishes to make things up as it goes along. To do the latter and still call itself Christian would be an offense against the truth, against our history, and against anyone outside the church that looks to it as a representation of Christianity. The second thing about this year's General Assembly that caught my attention was the group of anti-Israeli pronouncements. While the divestment proposal and the condemnation of the security barrier were the most extreme items to date, they are just the latest steps in a logical progression of actions by historic assemblies, the offices of the church, even the Presbyterian News service. The various positions supported have ranged from the harmless to the self-contradictory to the patently immoral. The PCUSA has endorsed the two-state solution, the removal of settlements, and the right of return. The upshot of this combination calls for a Jew free Palestinian state and a multi-ethnic Israeli state. The PCUSA has severely criticized Israel for the destruction of olive trees, has even blamed Israel for a situation that causes Palestinian mothers to be unable to produce milk. I do not mean to suggest that Israel is faultless in its dealings with Palestinians, nor that many Palestinians are not suffering. However, when even the basic facts about history and current conditions vary according to whom you ask and whom you believe, the situation becomes very complicated. It strikes me as hasty to try to assign blame or urge the implementation of simplistic solutions. The condemnation of Israel's security barrier does not seem to take into account the rulings of the Israeli Supreme Court requiring changes in its route. It also implies that Israel does not have a right to defend itself even passively. The divestment notion is offensive on two fronts. First – as has been discussed at length – this was the method employed against the South African government. Its use in the case of Israel is intended to convey equivalence between the two situations. It is also not entirely moral to use monies given in the support of other causes as a weapon to try to force a government to comply politically with the will of the PCUSA. Then there is the issue of misrepresentation: political stances taken by the denomination are not binding on the consciences of individual members. They often do not even represent the views of a simple majority of members. This fact is not generally included in letters to the president, members of Congress, leaders of other governments, or statements to the press. Such communications are often believed by their recipients to represent the views of millions of voters. I decided to write this because I sincerely believe that in both matters of faith and politics, the national leadership of the PCUSA comes from a very different standpoint than do many members of the congregations. I have personally felt a keen sense of frustration and powerlessness in the face of this. I do not believe the General Assembly is inclined to police either itself or the offices of the church – mostly because it doesn't see a problem. The presbyteries send the same or like-minded delegates year after year. If this discrepancy is to be addressed, the responsibility to do so falls to the sessions. Traditionally when individual congregations or members have felt out of step with the national leadership, they have chosen to either ignore it or leave. I would like to suggest a third option. We have been told many times that in the Presbyterian form of government power flows from the bottom up rather than from the top down. I believe sessions, if they so desire, can use that power structure to halt or reverse the current trend. The first step would be for the session of your church to get involved – to pay more attention to what is done on the national level and at presbytery meetings, to regularly send commissioners to presbytery meetings and to hold those commissioners accountable. Sessions are prohibited from telling commissioners how to vote, but they're not prohibited from requiring an explanation of those votes. Second, your commissioners should pay more attention to the delegates their presbyteries send to the General Assembly. I'm afraid too many of us have, for too long, been content with the "let someone else worry about it" philosophy. Third, commissioners from your session should openly protest non-democratic procedures employed at the presbytery level. These include, among other things, pressuring people to vote on issues while providing only limited information, cutting off full discussion of issues being considered, the unbalanced or one-sided presentation of information, and the targeting of sermon topics or worship themes to desired vote outcomes. Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, sessions are permitted to bring areas of common concern before the presbytery in much the same way that presbyteries overture the General Assembly. In this way sessions can push for presbyteries to pressure the General Assembly to make changes. Some such changes come readily to mind. 1. Explicitly require all officials of the PCUSA to uphold basic Christian doctrines. 2. Discontinue funding and support of organizations that teach non-Christian theologies. 3. Definitively disavow "Sophia" theology (though this was already done in 1994). 4. Require the General Assembly to provide a biblical basis for any political action it takes. 5. Require a supermajority of at least 75% of delegates to pass any political action. 6. Call on the Clerk of the General Assembly, the General Assembly Council, and the Offices of the PCUSA to discontinue all activism, advocacy, letter writing, petition signing on any issue not expressly addressed by the General Assembly and on any issue on which there is no significant agreement in the church. 7. Reinstate annual meetings of the General Assembly. 8. Discontinue the policy of politically motivated divestment. There are, no doubt, many other worthwhile initiatives. What I am suggesting is neither pleasant nor easy, but if the national and presbytery leadership genuinely are out of step with a congregation, then the elders of that congregation share a responsibility to address the matter. I'm convinced we have been working for the peace and unity of the church only - at the expense of the purity of the church. We have promised to uphold all three. The official stances of the PCUSA ultimately concern every member of the denomination. This is particularly true of matters of faith, but it is also true of political matters – as political stands represent the denomination to the rest of the world. I'm persuaded that if the individual sessions of the PCUSA desire it, they can work to change the entire church for the better. Respectfully, Will Spotts

Respond to this article

Home · Archives · The Layman · PLC Publications Presbyterian Lay Committee · Feedback · Links