It is safe to say that our Presbyterian Church (USA) is currently
undergoing a major “schism,” in that many of our more conservative sisters and
brothers are choosing to separate from us and join denominations they find more
congenial to their views. They
have been threatening this for a long time. The recent move to drop the ban on ordaining Gays brought
this matter to a head, and many presbyteries are finally allowing churches to
take their property with them when they go. This flow may only intensify in the next couple of years,
when the denomination may change its rules to allow Gay marriage.
Having listened carefully to the concerns of those who advocate
separation, I must say that I don’t always recognize the denomination of which
they are so vociferously critical.
Let me address some of the more common charges made against the PCUSA by
people building a case for departure.
Apostasy?
First of all, I take issue with the charge that the Presbyterian Church
(USA) has drifted into “apostasy,” and is no longer an expression of the
catholic and apostolic Christian faith. I am not sure they have
worked through the consequences of this opinion. If the PCUSA is no
longer a Christian church, then a congregation would have to re-baptize PCUSA members who wished to
join. It also means that members of PCUSA churches would not be welcome
at the Lord’s Table in their churches. Is that really what they
intend? I doubt it. So maybe they should tone down the hyperbolic,
incendiary rhetoric.
Trinity.
They imply that we of the PCUSA deny the traditional formulation of the
Trinity, and that creative experimentation with the language in which the truth
of the Trinity is expressed is a transgression of the Third Commandment.
Yet the church has throughout its history done just this. Are our critics
prepared to condemn such luminaries of the faith as Augustine (who developed
both a psychological analogy, and one of lover-beloved-love), Patrick of
Ireland (who is said to have used a cloverleaf to illustrate the Trinity), John
of Damascus (sun-light-heat), Mechtild of Magdeburg (heart-body-breath),
Catherine of Siena (table-food-server), and many other perfectly orthodox
teachers of the faith on the same grounds?
The PCUSA does not suggest that different ways of talking about the
Trinity in any way replace the traditional terminology, which remains
the indispensible anchor of our understanding of God. Indeed, the use of
the traditional language from Matthew 28 remains mandated for the Sacrament of
Baptism in our Book of Order. One of the motivations for the paper they find so offensive,
“The Trinity: God’s Love Overflowing,” was actually to lead the church away from the dangers of Unitarianism
and Modalism.
The Trinity is a great mystery beyond human comprehension. To
reduce it exclusively to three particular words which contain their own baggage
in people’s perceptions and experience, and then refusing even to discuss
analogies that might make it more clear and accessible, veers dangerously close
to idolatry.
Biblical Authority and Interpretation.
They also express frustration with the views and practices of the PCUSA
concerning Biblical authority and interpretation. However, it is simply
not true that the PCUSA no longer accepts the Bible as authoritative in its
life and work. We believe that the Holy Spirit is always opening the mind
of the church to new nuances and readings in Scripture. Passages once
considered marginal come to the center; once authoritative passages are viewed
more in context. As the church strives to make the good news of Jesus
Christ intelligible to people in new times and places, the Spirit leads us to
new understandings. But different interpretations do not diminish
Scripture’s authority for us. Indeed, they are a result of taking the whole message of the Bible with great
seriousness.
In short, the PCUSA has been more faithful to the fullness of the
Scriptural witness in all its diversity. We are willing to question
whether traditional readings are indeed still faithful to the good news of
God’s love revealed in Jesus Christ. The Reformed Tradition has an acute
allergy to idolatry in all its forms, especially when dressed in orthodox
language. We admit that we may occasionally need our perspectives
broadened to appreciate a wider view of the Biblical witness.
For instance, the church came to the decision to welcome women into
ordained ministry, not by simply
caving in to contemporary cultural standards, and political pressure (as some
charge), but by listening carefully to the full
witness of Scripture. We found
women in leadership positions in Paul’s churches. We decided it was important that the primary witnesses to
the Incarnation, the Passion, and the Resurrection of Jesus were all
women. We noticed women wielding
authority in the Old Testament, especially Deborah the judge, and the prophetess
Huldah who is the first person to validate Scripture as the Word of God. We decided that this wider witness
overrode Paul’s handful of scattered comments mostly referring to particular women
in the particular churches of his time.
In other words, everything they complain is a “rejection of Biblical
authority” has actually been the church responding self-critically to the
broader witness of Scripture. We feel this holds the Bible in higher regard than to force it into a
doctrinal straitjacket based on a few verses, arbitrarily chosen to prop up the
values, doctrines, principalities, and powers of another age.
In short, we agree wholeheartedly with Heinrich Bullinger when he writes
in the Second Helvetic Confession: “We hold that interpretation of the
Scripture to be orthodox and genuine which is gleaned from the Scriptures
themselves (from the nature of the language in which they were written,
likewise according to the circumstances in which they were set down, and
expounded in the light of like and unlike passages and of many and clearer
passages) and which agree with the rule of faith and love, and contribute much
to the glory of God and [human] salvation” (Book of Confessions, 5.010).
Amen.
To sum up, the case may be made that the Presbyterian Church (USA)
is more confessional, responsible, and open to following and being
critiqued by the good news and the complete Biblical witness than those who try
to force the Scriptural text into narrow theological categories and strict
moral rules reflecting the cultural conditioning of previous generations.
The case may be made that the PCUSA is being far more responsive to the movement of the Holy Spirit than churches retreating
into doctrinal shelters sealing them away from the present world.
Atonement.
Those seeking to depart complain rather bitterly that the PCUSA allows
and encourages the work of people who question what is called the “penal-substitutionary”
theory of the atonement. In fact, they seem to assume that this is the
only orthodox way to understand the saving work of the Lord on the cross.
Many Presbyterians find it unpalatable to have a doctrine of the
atonement in which God apparently demands the suffering and death of God’s Son
to somehow appease God’s wounded honor or overflowing wrath. As if Jesus had to die in order to protect
us from this violent and vindictive deity. This gives us an image of an abusive and heartless god which
is far from Jesus’ depiction of his Father in a parable like the Prodigal Son. Did Jesus die to reconcile us to God, or to protect us from God?
The Confession of 1967 holds that “God’s
reconciling act in Jesus Christ is a mystery which the Scriptures describe in
various ways. It is called the sacrifice of a lamb, a shepherd’s life
given for his sheep, atonement by a priest; again it is ransom of a slave,
payment of debt, vicarious satisfaction of a legal penalty, and victory over
the powers of evil. These are expressions of a truth which remains beyond
the reach of all theory in the depths of God’s love for [humanity]. They
reveal the gravity, cost, and sure achievement of God’s reconciling
work.” (Book of Confessions, 9.09.)
We believe faithfulness to Scripture is more important than adherence to
particular historically-conditioned theological doctrines, or even to the
Confessions of the church. The PCUSA recognizes that the Word and Spirit
of God may be leading the church to hear Scripture in ways that do not reflect
a medieval, feudal, and patriarchal understanding of society.
The particular view of the atonement that they advocate is found in
neither Jesus nor Paul, and was not fully articulated in the Western church
until Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th century. (The Eastern church
doesn’t hold this doctrine at all.)
While the PCUSA certainly accepts this as one way of framing the
atonement, we do not find it wise to close ourselves off to others, especially
theories that are more ancient, more universal, more relevant to contemporary
experience, and more faithful to the whole witness of Scripture.
Simply forcing people to assent to doctrines that are not required by
Scripture and that do not make sense to 21st century people, is not something the
PCUSA finds to be in the interest of effective evangelism.
Some are offended by the willingness of the PCUSA to entertain and permit
theological questions and reflections that extend rather far from what has been
considered traditional orthodoxy. Yet we Reformed Christians have always
held that “the life of the mind is service to God.” While we may not
embrace the findings of those exploring the extreme frontiers of Christian
doctrine and practice, we feel that allowing and even encouraging such efforts
strengthens the church in both its encounter with the world, and its
faithfulness to the Word and Spirit of the living God. After all, many of
those who “pushed the envelope” of doctrine – including numerous great saints
as well as the Reformers and many others whom the church has eventually
followed – served to keep the message of Christ fresh and relevant to new
generations.
And, when some go too far, rather than wielding the heavy hammer of
ecclesiastical discipline, we find simply hearing them out to be much more
effective. In the end we trust the wisdom of Presbyterians gathered in councils,
guided by the Holy Spirit, to sort out what actually gets preached and taught
in our churches.
Universalism.
Some advocates for separation say that the PCUSA has fallen into “universalism,”
which they seem to think means denying the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and the
essentiality of faith in him alone for salvation. On the contrary, our denomination has never adopted any form
of universalism.
At the same time, some Presbyterians may notice that the idea that it is
God’s sovereign will to save/restore the
whole world (John 4:42; Acts 3:21; 1 John 4:14, etc.) has a long,
venerable, and Scripturally-based
history. For instance, Paul’s argument in Romans 5:18, when he writes:
“Just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of
righteousness leads to justification and life for all.” Or in 1
Corinthians 15:22, “As all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in
Christ.” Does “all” mean, well, all? No less an orthodox theologian than Gregory of Nyssa held to
a form of universalism. The wider church never officially agreed with
him, but his opinion in this matter did not prevent his being lifted up as a great
saint and theologian of the faith.
Perhaps what gets mistaken for universalism is the reticence of many
Presbyterians to automatically judge and even condemn to hell their neighbors
of other faiths. Frankly, we know
too much of a history in which Christians committed horrible atrocities. In addition, we have also known of too
many who do not call themselves
Christians, who nevertheless appear to live in greater conformity with Jesus’ actual
life and teachings than many Christians do. We can no longer accept a facile equivalence between being nominally
a “Christian” and actually living in ways God calls on us to live.
Our church has awakened to the mature realization that it is possible to
live a life in obedience to God’s law, and at the same time not be part of our
faith community, as Paul affirms in Romans 2:14-16. Jesus himself allows that he has “other sheep that do not
belong to this fold” (John 10:16).
We long ago acknowledged that Jesus could have sheep in folds that do
not call themselves “Presbyterian” or “Reformed” or “Protestant.” Is it beyond possibility that Jesus could
have sheep who belong to folds that do not call themselves “Christian”?
So, we continue to confess that salvation comes by no other name (Acts
4:12) and that there is no other way to God but through him (John 14:6). We simply recognize our own imperfections
and humbly decline to tie salvation to something dependent on our human names, institutions, and rituals. Neither do we presume
to make this evaluation on the Lord’s behalf, but we leave it up to him to
recognize his own at the Day of Judgment.
This means approaching our neighbors with the good news humbly and incarnationally,
rather than with a superior, patronizing, exclusionary, or even threatening
attitude. Maybe, while affirming
that trust in him alone remains a necessity, we also confess that the true
uniqueness of Jesus Christ is found precisely in his inclusion somehow of all in God’s plan for salvation.
Salvation vs.
Liberation.
Proponents of separation charge that we have replaced a traditional
emphasis on salvation with a new stress on liberation. But we hold that if salvation does not
include liberation, it is an empty word.
Jesus comes into the world to set people free from sin, and from
institutions and beliefs that keep people in bondage. When he heals the sick, drives out demons, welcomes women
and children, and proclaims the good news of the Kingdom of God, Jesus is a
liberator. To be saved is to be set free. Even the Greek word usually translated
as “forgive” is rooted in the word for “release.” Salvation is emancipatory.
This liberation is not merely spiritual or psychological. It also calls to be realized in our
relationships, from the family to the world. Jesus did not simply preach; he was probably better known in
his own time as a healer, exorcist, and community organizer. His work was more than talk; it was
saving and liberating actions. Salvation that is just a matter of
words and opinions is incomplete at best; salvation is only real when it is
extended into our life in community.
We find it disingenuous when some (though certainly not all) who complain
that we reduce salvation to liberation, appear to benefit morally and
materially from unjust social structures, oppressive institutions, and exploitative
practices. It makes us wonder if
they aren’t more concerned with protecting a profitable and comfortable status
quo, than with obedience to the radical demands of the Lord Jesus.
Abortion.
The position of the PCUSA on abortion is far more nuanced than critics
charge. It is not simply a blanket
affirmation of the “pro-choice” position. Our denomination never
advocates or recommends that anyone get an abortion for any reason. We do
not take the position that abortion is always justified just because it is a
woman’s choice. We do allow that there are extreme circumstances when the
decision to have abortion may be morally justifiable. We also hold that
many abortions are morally wrong. We believe this intensely personal
decision should be left to a woman, her family, and her church community to
address prayerfully. We find this approach more faithful and pastoral
than advocating that the State prohibit it in all, or almost all, cases.
Seeing such difficult and complicated personal moral issues in
black-and-white, either-or, terms, relegating them to the often sordid and
corrupt political machinations of the State, and taking the decision away from
the church and individual believer, is not in our view faithful, or even
effective in reducing the number of abortions.
Still, our churches are free and even encouraged to study the issue and
come up with a position they can support in good conscience, even if different
from that of the denomination.
Sexuality.
In terms of sexual ethics, the Bible’s views are famously diverse,
ranging from the forms of polygamy we find in some of the Old Testament, to the
celibacy advocated by the Apostle Paul and practiced by the Lord. It is
the view of the PCUSA that the relatively few Biblical verses that appear to
talk about homosexuality need to be read in light of the very many more passages
that advocate for justice and inclusion.
While it appears certain that homosexual practice was condemned in
Israelite society, so were other practices that Christians have always allowed. The
church has had to make a determination concerning whether Old Testament
statutes refer to the ceremonial law,
now fulfilled and completed in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, or the moral law, which remains in force for
Christians (epitomized in the Ten Commandments). Different generations
and families of Christians have always held to different understandings of
which specific laws fall into which category.
The prohibition of homosexual behavior is not explicitly included in the
Ten Commandments. We find it
generally associated with other purity laws we Christians no longer literally
keep. Hence the view of some that these laws have no more effect for us
than many other kosher laws. On the other hand, the mainstream of
the church through its history has almost always categorized these laws as
moral and continued to uphold them.
The ambiguity is not conclusively cleared up in the New Testament.
Jesus says exactly nothing about the matter. The verses in which Paul
appears to address it are notoriously difficult to translate from the Greek, which
is often done with a remarkable disregard for context. The 1 Corinthians
6:9 passage, while very clear in some English Bibles, is not nearly so clear in
the original, with at least three highly charged words: pornoi, malakoi, and
arsenokoitai, that scholars, linguists, and cultural historians continue
to argue about. To assume that these words clearly refer to what we know
as same-sex relationships is somewhat presumptuous and perhaps even biased and
anachronistic.
Then there is the view that what people in Paul’s day knew as
“homosexuality” (the word wasn’t even invented until the 19th century, by the
way), almost always referred to a violent, abusive, or coerced sexual act or
relationship. There is no evidence that Paul ever personally knew anyone
who lived in anything like the same-sex relationships of mutual love,
commitment, and respect we know today.
Finally, we have to take into account the wildly inclusive
practices of Jesus and Paul, reaching out even and especially to people who had
been rejected and victimized by the larger society. While there is no
mention of Jesus’ inclusion of any homosexuals in his circle, it is hard for
some Christians today to imagine that the Lord who welcomed prostitutes, tax
collectors, and all manner of other people categorized as sinners, would then
turn around and reject loving same sex partners. The Lord rejected no one who
came to him in faith.
It is becoming clear that there is enough ambiguity and room for doubt
about homosexuality in the New Testament that the church needs to exercise
caution when issuing blanket prohibitions about it.
The PCUSA does not condone or approve of any and all sexual behaviors
between consenting adults. The removal, in 2011, of the “fidelity and
chastity” language from the Book of Order does not imply an “anything
goes” morality. Adultery and other sexual relationships characterized by
lies, abuse, inequality, coercion, violence, or those which lack long-term
commitment, mutuality, and reciprocity, remain morally repugnant to virtually
all Presbyterians and Christians. We have now returned to a polity in
which we trust local councils, those who personally know the individuals coming
for ordination, to make their own prayerful and Scripture-guided
decisions. We find this preferable to enforcing a simple one-size-fits-all
legal edict. (And the implication
that some make that accepting Gays somehow opens the door to condoning
practices like bestiality strikes many of us as offensive, paranoid, and
disturbed.)
Furthermore, does merely having a license from the State always make a
sexual relationship proper and good? Does nothing immoral ever happen in marriage? Does not having a license from the State make
a sexual relationship always wrong? Does
God care about love, commitment, fidelity, and trust, or does God just look at
the government paperwork?
We live in a time of sexual confusion and turmoil. While we
respect people’s right to adhere to and follow a particular standard in their
own congregations, we are no longer willing to impose one standard on every
session and presbytery absolutely. Rather, we trust councils to seek and
rely on the guidance of the Holy Spirit in assessing the gifts and vocations,
and moral lives, of those they ordain.
Does this mean that councils will ordain people of whom others don’t
approve? Yes. Will councils
err? Certainly.
But we don’t feel that errors in this area are necessarily any more
egregious than others. Why are sexual sins worse than, say, economic sins (concerning which the Bible has a great deal more to say)? Why are
they worse than racism and other forms of bigotry? Why list some sins
explicitly in our polity, and leave others out? What about the other,
certainly less ambiguous sins listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: Idolaters,
adulterers, thieves, greedy people, drunkards, revilers, and robbers? Are
these no longer problems in the church?
Syncretism.
Some critics habitually charge us with caving to and compromising with,
if not actually embracing with enthusiasm, values and practices from the
prevailing culture. While the
stances and commitments of the PCUSA may have often appeared to be in harmony
with some of the social movements that appeared since the 1950’s, we have
always responded mainly to our reading of Scripture. Indeed, some of these, like the civil rights, anti-war, and
environmental movements, explicitly reflected and expressed the values of the
Lord Jesus and Holy Scripture. If
we seem to habitually come down in favor of inclusion, economic and ecological justice,
equality, peace, and non-violence, it is because we hear Jesus and the Bible advocating
on behalf of the same values.
On the other hand, when some reflexively uphold and defend values more
in tune with the policies and traditions of the State, big business, the wealthy, and other established, powerful elements of
society, we wonder where such loyalties are mandated in Scripture.
The Bible begins with stories of wandering migrants, continues in an
account of escaped slaves, and settles into a narrative about members of a
small, victimized nation. The New
Testament presents us with a Messiah who is born in a barn to displaced parents,
who even as an adult owned practically nothing, and reached out to all manner
of poor, sick, rejected, excluded, and oppressed people. The Bible always speaks from the
perspective of the poor, the alien, the disenfranchised, the victims, and the
weak. This is especially the case
when we understand the Bible to reveal the Word of God, Jesus Christ. It is impossible to take the crucified Jesus
seriously and still ignore, let alone advocate, the tyranny of the powerful
over the powerless.
Therefore, when the Bible is made to support oppression, violence, and
injustice, we feel the text is being seriously misread. We are forced to ask the question
whether many in the church who say they uphold the Bible, aren’t really just
supporting the values of previous supposedly more stable, orderly, prosperous,
and complacent generations.
Polity.
While we understand ordination to be on behalf of the whole church, that
does not mean that councils do not still have the right to determine their own
membership. They do. This is a basic principle of Presbyterian
polity.
The PCUSA does not challenge any session’s right in this area. Recognizing
that God calls both men and women into leadership, no session or presbytery is
required to ordain or even consider for ordination anyone whom it does not deem
appropriate. Under the new Form of Government, a council may even
formally adopt the standards of the old Form of Government.
As far as the objection to Book of
Order, F-1.0403, is concerned, it does not mean that theological convictions
are of no consequence. (It is in fact often conservatives who have
generally been advocating for language like this as a way of ensuring their
continued inclusion in denominational decision-making processes.)
Then there is the final stipulation: “No member shall be denied
participation or representation for any reason other than those stated in
this Constitution.” So the reader is referred to other parts of the
Constitution (which includes the Book of Confessions as well as the Book
of Order), where theological convictions matter a great deal. We
simply don’t feel that the Form of Government is where this belongs.
Schism.
Finally, we are reminded that neither Jesus nor Paul, nor even the 16th century
Reformers, intended to break away from the religious communions in which they
were respectively raised and nurtured, Judaism and Roman Catholicism. In
their devotion to the truth they and their followers became obnoxious to
traditionalists in those communions, and they were eventually systematically
excluded. In the case of the Reformation, actual war was made
against them. But they did not choose to separate; they were, as we say, kicked out.
It is therefore important, in our view, to state that all our congregations remain welcome and
valued members of the PCUSA. We don’t want any congregations to leave. We value other voices. We cherish having different perspectives among us, even if they do occasionally annoy
the majority. The majority sometimes needs to be annoyed.
If one of our presbyteries dismisses a church to another communion it is
with our deep sadness and regret, and at that church’s request.
They are choosing to separate from us. We are not kicking them out.
+++++++
