 Coalition Gathering: Feeling the wedge effect PUP's task force report wet-blankets traditionally ebullient affair By Parker T. Williamson The Layman Online Thursday, November 17, 2005 On November 7-9 in Orlando, the Presbyterian Coalition spread its umbrella over a cluster of evangelical groups in the Presbyterian Church (USA). Hosting such a family gathering has become increasingly challenging, for Presbyterian evangelicals appear to be anything but united, not only on how to deal with a looming threat to the viability of their denomination, but even on whether publicly to acknowledge that such a threat exists.
The Orlando occasion, number nine in the Coalition's history, bore some resemblance to former events. The music was glorious, with people singing the great hymns of the church at the top of their lungs while timpani, brass and organ rattled the windowpanes and bagpipers processed down the aisles. As in previous times, tall steeple preachers declared their confidence in the providence of God and his rock-solid promises to preserve his church. Absentees noted But there were also differences. Attendance was 375, a sharp contrast to the Coalition's 2001 meeting in Orlando where more than 1,300 showed up and a meeting in Dallas in 1997 that drew more than 1,000. Notably absent from this gathering was Rev. Jack Haberer, former Coalition moderator, whose new position as editor of the liberal Presbyterian Outlook signals his departure from the evangelical wing of the church. Also absent were Rev. Mark Achtemeier, and Rev. Gary Demarest, who have served with Haberer on the board of Presbyterians for Renewal and also on the PUP task force. Haberer, Demarest, Achtemeier and another Presbyterians for Renewal board member, Rev. Mike Loudon, were among the 20 task force members who unanimously declared that presbyteries and sessions should be allowed to decide for themselves whether candidates for church office should be ordained, even if they violate sexual behavior standards in the Presbyterian Church (USA) Constitution. PUP's report wet-blanketed this traditionally ebullient event. Prior to the Orlando gathering, 23 representatives of ten Coalition-related renewal groups signed a statement rejecting the report in toto. The statement assailed irreparable flaws in PUP's theology, methodology and recommended outcomes. Only Presbyterians for Renewal declined to sign the statement, preferring instead to issue what it described as its own "measured evangelical voice." That voice identified no flaws in the PUP report and objected to only one of its seven recommendations. Making sausage In Orlando, the Coalition provided a program of platform speeches and workshop events that gave voice to these differences. Rev. James Berkley, former issues director for Presbyterians for Renewal and now interim director of Presbyterian Action for Faith and Freedom, gave a plenary speech likening the PUP report to sausage: "I write not to praise their sausage, but to bury it," he said. Rev. Gerrit Dawson also gave an address, simultaneously published by Reformation Press and distributed by the Coalition, that some evangelicals regard as a Biblically faithful alternative to the PUP report. Dawson characterized the pluralism promoted by PUP as "poisonous air" and "an alien atmosphere." Rev. Michael Walker, executive director of Presbyterians for Renewal, conducted a seminar in which he reaffirmed his group's position that "there is much about which we can rejoice in the report … and little to regret." Walker lauded the PUP report's theology section and mentioned other sections only in passing as he moved to address Recommendation #5. Presbyterians for Renewal and Walker, along with all of the renewal organization leaders, strenuously object to Recommendation #5, which calls for leaving the current ordination standards in the Constitution but allowing local governing bodies to set them aside if they deem them "nonessential." Dr. Robert Gagnon, professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and author of the definitive work on homosexuality and the Bible, also conducted a seminar at the gathering. Gagnon surgically dissected the entire PUP report, paying particular attention to the theology section that Walker and Presbyterians for Renewal had affirmed. The problem, he said, is not that the task force denies Scripture, but that it distorts Scripture, deftly twisting its meaning. The fact that the task force salts its report with numerous references to Scripture may lead an undiscerning reader to assume that its report is Scriptural. Nothing could be further from the truth, said the New Testament scholar. Permitting pluralism During his seminar, Walker was asked if Presbyterians for Renewal had considered sections of the PUP report other than the theology section. Those sections reveal the task force's methodology of replacing yes/no decisions ("binary decisions") with both/and decisions. They also include the task force's conclusion that Scripture is unclear on the subject of sexual behavior. Walker said Presbyterians for Renewal did review these sections but felt that they required no comment since the material was "descriptive rather than proscriptive." "We didn't spend too much time addressing weaknesses in the report that do not have the force of law," he said. Gagnon pointed out that it is precisely the PUP task force's both/and endorsement of pluralism that produced Recommendation #5. Merely contesting #5 while finding no fault with the methodology that engendered it opens the door to future assaults on the denomination's faith and practice, he said. "If the PUP report is approved by the General Assembly," said Gagnon, "the denominational debate on human sexuality will be decided." Berkley concurred with Gagnon's criticism of the task force's methodology. "Its blatant, repeated dependence on closed meetings violated the proper intent of the denomination's open-meeting policy," he said. Berkley also suggested that sections of the report that promoted both/and answers to yes/no questions are not merely descriptive but action-oriented because they form the rationale for Recommendation #4, a proposal that calls on governing bodies to use consensus decision-making. "Consensus decision-making is clearly unconstitutional," he said. An oily emulsion If the PUP report is adopted, said Berkley, it will do to the Presbyterian Church what detergent does to oil and water. Where sexual relations outside of marriage are concerned, we have "two unmixable convictions," he said. But what happens to unmixable oil and water when a "magic powder" called detergent is added? Detergent emulsifies them. "The irony of detergent is that it makes the unmixable mix," he said. The task force report tries to be that magic powder, said Berkley. "What we get, however, is not a pleasant blend; it is instead a slick, oily emulsion that will disgust those who examine it and cause the Presbyterian Church to slip into further disarray." Making headlines Participating on a panel with Berkley and Alan Wisdom, interim executive of the Institute for Religion and Democracy, was Loudon, who said he sided with other members of PUP because, "I felt that this report was our best attempt to hold the church together." When asked how one can continue to say the denomination has standards if it allows ordaining bodies to disregard them, Loudon said, "The standards are still in place. How a presbytery applies the standards, I cannot guess. But to me the standards are in place." Rev. Doug Pratt, minister of First Presbyterian Church, Bonita Springs, Fla., addressed the panel: "We've seen this happen before. Smart people come together and after laboring they come up with a clever, subtly nuanced solution to cut the Gordian knot, and then they are so excited about sharing their solution with the people. But unfortunately, the people don't see the subtlety and nuance. Neither does the press. If the PUP report is adopted by the General Assembly, what headline does each of you believe will show up in USA Today? Berkley responded, "Presbyterians Loosen Standards." Wisdom said, "Presbyterians Approve Sexuality Compromise." Loudon said, "I'd like to see it say that we uphold the historic balance." Institutional lobbying Despite attempts by several speakers to create an upbeat atmosphere, an ominous sense of inevitability clouded both public and private conversations about PUP. Often mentioned was the denominationwide public relations campaign (Walker called it "a strong marketing effort") in which PUP members are traveling two-by-two to more than 100 presbyteries at denominational expense. Also noted was the standing ovation that PUP leaders received at the Sacramento General Assembly Council meeting, a recent endorsement by all of the denomination's seminary presidents, and PUP's plans to conduct a day-long event for commissioners before the 2006 General Assembly meeting begins. "Some of us think the church is so infected that we cannot win," declared Terry Schlossberg, executive director of the Coalition, who says that she, herself, does not share that view. "The deck is stacked against us. Only a miracle can prevent PUP from passing," a Coalition board member told The Layman. Although rumors abound that an alternative to the PUP report will be proposed to the 2006 General Assembly, some renewal leaders have preemptively declared their opposition to that strategy. Walker says Presbyterians for Renewal's issues committee believes that a motion to replace the PUP report with an alternative would fail and that evangelicals' best hope is not to try to replace the PUP report but improve it with amendments. The Coalition's Terry Schlossberg encompassed both replacement and improvement factions by calling on renewal groups to promote "alternatives to the harmful parts of that report." Evangelical alternatives Berkley urged evangelicals to think tactically through all alternatives: "Some people are thinking through a substitute report ... Knowledgeable, skilled, and diligent commissioners definitely will be needed to work together at General Assembly toward making a substitute report the main report, or toward amending the most damaging parts of the task force report, or toward defeating the task force report altogether." Throughout the Orlando gathering there were frequent pleas for unity in the evangelical camp. In his Monday evening sermon, the Rev. David Swanson, pastor of the host church, lamented the division that he believes is fracturing conservative Presbyterians. "There is a profound lack of unity among the very people who should be the most united … bickering behind the scenes … little agreement about the best way to move forward," he said. "We have people who are committed to causes and have an agenda. Our house divided will never stand." Rev. David McKechnie, the recently retired co-pastor of Grace Presbyterian Church in Houston who lost in his bid to become moderator of the General Assembly, compared the Presbyterian Church (USA) situation to the Apostle Paul's shipwreck experience. He urged conservatives with strong convictions to make friends with "moderate" commissioners. "Talk to the moderates. A conservative cannot be elected in this General Assembly without the moderate vote." Berkley said, "Our history as evangelicals, as renewal-minded persons and groups, as conservatives in a wavering denomination is checkered with petty little skirmishes among ourselves." During Walker's seminar, Richard Johnson, an elder, lamented the signs of disunity that he had observed. "The other side is united and we are not," he said. "I'm looking for some way that we can put our stake in the ground and win the hour!" Walker quickly dismissed reports of divisions in the evangelical camp: "I am encouraged that in a lot of ways we are on the same page, mostly behind the scenes. I think we have substantial agreement." Rev. James Tony agreed: "As a member of the Coalition board, I want to concur with what Michael just said. The unity that we have is in objectives, with plenty of room for differences in style." But the fact that so many participants, both on and off the podium, in plenary speeches, workshops and conversations in the halls, addressed the disunity issue suggests that it remains a concern that invites no easy solution. Having been unsuccessful in its attempts to forge a common statement on PUP in its Chicago meeting, the Coalition did not pursue further efforts in Orlando, but simply gave opportunity for the differences to be expressed. 'Line in the Sand' vs. 'Damage Control' "What happens if we lose in 2006?" That question was voiced repeatedly in Orlando, leading some evangelicals informally to caucus around contingency plans. Here again, family members appear to be marching in different directions. The New Wineskins Initiative, an alternative vision for "being the Church in the 21st Century," conducted several seminars in Orlando, their combined total drawing more than half of the registered participants. New Wineskins leaders are calling for radical change, no more patches on the old denominational garment, no more business as usual in a denomination that has lost almost one half of its members at the rate of nearly 50,000 per year since 1965. But some evangelical moderates worry that New Wineskins tactics might split the denomination, and they are urging their colleagues to keep their distance. With its eyes on the 2006 General Assembly, the New Wineskins Initiative has already announced a gathering of its own to be held in Tulsa, Okla., July 19-22. Rev. David Henderson, co-moderator of the New Wineskins Initiative, fired a warning shot during one of his Orlando seminars. He said that for many congregations, if PUP passes, "that would essentially constitute the end of their ability to stay within the PCUSA." Often viewed as a precursor to a successor denomination that would attract those who can no longer live with the policies and practices of the Presbyterian Church (USA), New Wineskins could experience a major growth spurt if PUP is adopted by the General Assembly. McKechnie voiced his own concerns about the denomination's future if the PUP report passes. He said that he has warned liberals and wavering moderates to consider the consequences of a General Assembly's removing or undermining the denomination's ordination standards. "They said, well, we'd probably lose a few people, and I told them that the bottom would fall out of the boat. People will leave. Support for our seminaries, our institutions, our churches … I'm telling you, everything that we have built together will be lost!" Some evangelicals who place a high priority on institutional preservation in the Presbyterian Church (USA) eschew language that might describe the coming assembly in "make or break" terms and thereby set the stage for an evangelical walkout. Backing away from "line in the sand" declarations, they proffer "damage control" themes, stressing that losing to the liberals in 2006, while regrettable, would not warrant a pullout. Referring to the possible adoption of PUP's Recommendation #5, Walker said "I don't think it would undermine the whole Constitution, but I agree that it would significantly weaken it." He suggested that the image of a "slippery slope" was preferable to a more precipitous alternative. Walker has stated that even if the ordination standards were removed – a development that he is working very hard to prevent – such a loss would not justify separation from the denomination. A history lesson During a plenary session in Orlando, Loudon referred to the Presbyterian controversy of the 1920s, and, in particular, a special General Assembly Commission whose recommendations were adopted in 1927. As have other members of the PUP task force, Loudon spoke approvingly of that commission which, like PUP, was appointed to bring peace to a troubled denomination. Using words that became PUP's script 78 years later, the 1927 group was commissioned "to the end that the purity, peace, unity and progress of the Church may be assured." Following the commission's recommendation, the 1927 General Assembly nullified previous General Assembly requirements that ordained leaders be committed to specified "essentials of the Christian faith." In a related move, the same General Assembly set the stage for ousting from Princeton Theological Seminary, and ultimately from the ordained ministry, J. Gresham Machen, Princeton's distinguished professor of New Testament who had insisted that the denomination maintain and enforce churchwide confessional standards. The 1927 General Assembly represented a major turnaround for the liberals who had tried for years to get the denomination to do away with required "essential beliefs" but simply did not have the votes. But in 1927, the liberals changed their strategy, winning the day by forging an alliance with moderate evangelicals whose desire for institutional preservation trumped their commitment to doctrinal purity. Using compliant moderates as a wedge, the liberals fractured the conservative majority and gained control of the 1927 assembly. Déjà vu 1927 In 1998, Barbara Wheeler, co-moderator of the Covenant Network, a group that is dedicated to removing sexual behavior restrictions from the denomination's ordination standards, laid out a strategy for overturning the standards. Citing the liberal victories of 1927, Wheeler urged the liberal Covenant Network to employ a similar strategy. "What was true then remains true today," she said at a luncheon during the 1998 General Assembly. "If our side, now the minority on ordination questions, wants to prevail, we will have to convince the middle, who are moderate conservatives on current ordination issues, that our approach is more Presbyterian and more practical than the alternatives." Three years after she made that speech, Wheeler was appointed to the PUP task force. Ostensibly to bring balance to PUP, four members of Presbyterians for Renewal were added to the mix. After five years of mostly closed door meetings, task force members unanimously agreed on a recommendation to the 2006 General Assembly that, if adopted, will effectively nullify the denomination's ordination standards. Among Presbyterians who remain committed to Biblical standards the most damaging fallout from PUP has been a sense of desertion by their fellow evangelicals who served on the task force. That lament is cutting deeply into the conservative consensus, leaving a breach that is being discussed everywhere except on the record. Thus, the Wheeler/1927 strategy has become a wedge, fracturing the conservative coalition, as evidenced by signs of disarray that were so obvious in Orlando. Forward march The Wheeler/1927 strategy succeeded with PUP, and, if prognostications that were prevalent in Orlando are correct, it may also prevail when the typically liberal General Assembly meets in June. But that is by no means a foregone conclusion. PUP appears to have lost credibility among leading Presbyterian evangelicals. Clearly, no one in Orlando believed PUP's claim that it had charted a course toward unity. A line has been drawn within the conservative camp: the choice is between peace at any price or a non-negotiable, all or nothing, no-compromise insistence on historic Christian faith and morals. Presbyterians who are committed to Biblical standards have seven months left to decide on which side of that line they will stand. |
||
Respond to this article |
||
| Home
· Archives
· The
Layman ·
PLC
Publications Presbyterian Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |
||