Today is “fat Tuesday,” the day before Lent begins, and time to ponder spiritual realities, discipleship goals, and what it means to be “Reformed and always in need of Reform according to the Word of God.”
Our back yard garden is home to fourteen bearing fruit trees, two walnut trees that are past bearing age and dying off gradually, and numerous other decorative trees. My pet project every year is our fig tree, and I have already applied the shears to it for its annual severe pruning. Every year, my husband says, “You’ve killed it for sure!” but the leaf buds pop out in March and by August we have a lush, fruity tree to remind us of Eden.
On a windy day last week, our stately birch trees
took a beating, necessitating their removal. Turns out, they were dead, decimated by a bark beetle from the inside out. One of our lemon trees also sustained damage in the wind: a particularly laden branch bearing perhaps forty lemons has started peeling from the main trunk. It’s only a matter of time before that branch must be lopped off, but sap is still running and the fruit is still ripening, so I will wait another week or two and see what happens. We call it our miracle lemon tree, as this has happened before and my hopes are high for harvest.
The image is ripe for interpretation for the church, and Jesus helped us along in this direction with his parable of the Vine and the Branches (John 15:1-17). A portion of it here:
“I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinegrower. He removes every branch in me that bears no fruit. Every branch that bears fruit he prunes to make it bear more fruit.”
The first idea of note here is that pruning is a necessary exercise whether the tree is dead or alive. If it bears fruit, it gets creamed. If it doesn’t bear fruit, it gets creamed. Pruning is in our future, perhaps even our present. If the tree is dead, like our birch trees, it must be taken down to make room for plants that are still alive. If the tree is fertile and full of potential, it must be pruned to coax fruit-bearing. For whatever purpose, pruning is necessary but painful.
The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is undergoing a pruning, a spiritual discipline with which we must cooperate in order for God’s purposes to be accomplished. It is a necessary, painful process we must endure as a prerequisite for God’s blessing, for vitality, and for fruitfulness. If we do not go along with what God is doing, we will end up either a dead, dead shell of a church that will fall over in a wind storm or a forever fruitless vine of undisciplined foliage that looks good in a dead-end sort of way.
If the PCUSA is dying, it is because individual members have died spiritually and only the structure of dead wood (an institutional organization) is holding them together. Tree-tending takes the form of Christian discipleship and disciple-making, getting people in touch with Jesus so that they can stay connected to the Source of life. To the degree the church has failed in this basic vine-tending, we are seeing the result in diminishing membership, fewer congregations, and a paralyzed ministry.
If the PCUSA is fully alive and well, it is because individual members have abided in the Vine, stayed connected to Jesus, stayed connected to one another “remaining in love,” stayed connected to God’s will “remaining in obedience,” and stayed connected to their calling “bearing fruit.”
The reality of the present moment is something between dying and vital, but trending toward dying as an institution. [Alternatively, some believe that the PCUSA is now two trees, one flourishing and the other dying.] If as God’s people we want to reverse this trend, we must submit to pruning. However we interpret the reality, being Reformed and always needing Reform points to our perpetual need of this shearing, to contain this tree, curtail its free but fruitless growth, and discipline it into fruit bearing. Pruning restores the shape of a tree just as God’s discipline of his children shapes lives in the image of his Son. We are always called back to our roots. During this Lenten season, may we submit to God’s discipline, cut back our ecclesiastical excesses, lop off our errant and fruitless beliefs and practices, and undergo the shaping that will produce a tree of life that exists for Christ’s sake and the nourishment of our neighbor.
As we compare the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC) and the emerging Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians (ECO), the most important consideration seems to be the doctrinal foundations of each. The EPC rests on the Westminster standards (the Confession, Larger, and Smaller Catechisms); the ECO retains all nine Confessions currently in the PCUSA Constitution. In addition, the EPC has listed “essentials” to which every member subscribes. The ECO has launched a Theology Project to identify the essential beliefs of Presbyterians in that fellowship. In the meantime, the ECO statement addresses the great themes of the Reformed Tradition found in F-2.05 as prime identifiers of our stream of the Christian church.
The PCUSA embraced the nine confessional statements in the late 1960s, celebrating this milestone with the addition of the Confession of 1967 (C67). Conservative/evangelical churches were greatly concerned about the implications of many rather than one confession and split off in 1973 to form the Presbyterian Church of America. They, too, as the EPC would do later, reaffirmed Westminster alone and, as a key part of that choice, they re-emphasized the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures.
In my conversation with many long-time Presbyterians in the PCUSA, this shift to a more diffuse elaboration of the faith is still troublesome. The proof that the move disturbed the peace, purity, and unity of the church is before us now, in our inability to identify and enforce essentials especially among our clergy and church officers. So far, it has not been demonstrated in actual practice that a candidate who holds heretical views can be barred from ordination. In my personal experience, judicial commissioners plead “It’s not my job; I’m not a theologian” when asked to adjudicate controversies that have bad theology at their root. In the present case, Parnell et al v. San Francisco Presbytery, the Synod decision we are appealing actually stated Because there is a “vast diversity” of views and biblical interpretations regarding sexuality, we cannot pick one as “essential,” and therefore cannot interfere with a council’s ordination decision.
Those who welcome the nine confessional statements view them in one of the following ways:
1. Emphasis on the historical setting in which each was written, underscoring the possibility that they are culturally bound and maybe not applicable today.
2. Emphasis on an emerging, evolving (‘always Reforming’) movement toward a superior understanding more likely to be found in the later confessional statements.
3. Emphasis on the inadequacy of any one statement to cover all the pertinent topics, instead focusing on the (new) topics the church must address as history unfolds.
4. Emphasis on the overwhelming consistency of some statements at the core of our faith.
Those who regret the adoption of nine instead of the one confession hold views such as these:
1. The more confessional statements we have, the less important or definitive any one of them is. The whole Book of Confessions loses its impact as its contents are watered down by additions.
2. There are now contradictions within the Book of Confessions that befuddle doctrinal clarity and undermine believers’ confidence in them and in “essential tenets of the Reformed faith.”
One might jokingly say, this is enough to make one want to become a Baptist (who espouses no creeds, “only the Bible”). But those in the Reformed Tradition have experienced over centuries the positive benefits of doctrinal statements. They have been used as teaching aids, devotional guides, and liturgical elements. Children and adults have found in them encouragement for their faith and a guide to the development of their consciences.
The question now is whether we are best served by our nine confessions and/or the 17th century Westminster confession; or would we find it a fruitful exercise to develop a new, comprehensive Confession (with accompanying catechisms, like Westminster) that can reliably and thoroughly explain what the Scriptures teach us to believe and do? The idea fascinates me; as a teacher, I am deciding “What is essential for these people to learn” all the time. If I were to write a full-scale Christian standard, what would I include? How would I state it? Would I address current issues such as Postmodernism? Technology? Sexuality? Globalization? I have, in fact, written a statement of faith for a Presbyterian preschool, an exercise that was edifying and clarifying for me as I considered, “What do little children and their teachers need to know?” I recommend the exercise to all, as a starting point to a comprehensive statement of faith you can share with your session, your family, or your classmates. It is, in fact, the Theology Project undertaken by the ECO.
My readers continue to bless and amaze me, and I am grateful for the corrective comments to my blog post of earlier this week, comparing ECO and EPC. I will not repeat them here, but want to continue the discussion, because, clearly, folks are thinking about “Where do I go?”
It reminds me of the encounter in John’s gospel (6:66-69):
Because of this many of [Jesus’] disciples turned back and no longer went about with him. So Jesus asked the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.”
To be clear, the PCUSA is not to be equated with Jesus himself, so the question for Presbyterians “Where else can we go?” does not lead us to the conclusion that the PCUSA is the only Body that “has the words of eternal life.” That humility is embedded in our Historic Principles of Church Order (F-3.0102, 0107), and, therefore, the question of dismissal to some other body is legitimate.
Since the EPC is one of the destinations of departing congregations, and ECO is rising as another alternative, I have been comparing the two and asking a few questions. My friends in the EPC have corrected a couple of mischaracterizations on my part regarding women’s ordination and organizational “red-tape.” On the latter topic, it seems to me, from the literature provided by the ECO, that the ECO aspires to be a looser association of churches than the EPC is. As is practiced in the EPC, ECO accountability will emphasize relational rather than regulatory form, although I suppose in some egregious situation even ECO could muster formal church discipline.
It would seem, then, that the greatest difference between the EPC and the ECO is in its doctrinal platform: Westminster-only (EPC) compared to the Book of Confessions (ECO). In my last post, I listed the EPC essentials. Would a person who accepts the Book of Confessions as containing the essentials have trouble with any of EPC’s list? The fact is that some liberals do; it was stated in a meeting of our presbytery the shocking news that the EPC believed in the personal, bodily return of Jesus Christ! My conservative colleagues and I looked at each other as if to ask, “And the problem is . . .?” So it might be worth the effort to cull our confessions for a sample of references that support the EPC list of tenets:
1. Scripture infallible, inspired, authoritative: Scots, BOC, 3.18, 3.19; 2nd Helvetic, 5.001–.003; Westminster, 6.001–.010.
2. God’s sovereignty, Trinity: Scots, 3.01; Heidelberg, 4.026; Westminster, 6.011–013.
3. Jesus Christ, Incarnation, virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, resurrection.: Scots, 3.06 & 3.07, 3.09, 3.10; Heidelberg, 4.016-4.049; Westminster, 6.043–.050; C67, 9.08–.11.
4. Holy Spirit: Scots 3.12; Heidelberg 4.053; Westminster, 6.051–.054
5. The human condition, sin, grace, faith, salvation: Scots, 3.02; Heidelberg, 4.003-4.015, 2nd 2nd Helvetic, 5.036–.037, 5.106–.110; Westminster, 6.031–.036, 6.043.047; C67, 9.12–.13
6. Marks of the True Church (Word, Sacraments, Discipline): Scots, 3.18; 2nd Helvetic, 5.134–135; Westminster, 6.143.
7. Jesus’ return: Westminster Larger Catechism, 7:166; Barmen, 8:17; C67, 9.32, 9:52.
8. The Great Commission: Westminster, 6.046, 6.058, 6.190; Brief Statement, 10.4 (68)
It is safe to say, that everything the EPC holds up as essential is found in the Confessions of the PCUSA. One notices that all of these tenets appear in one form or another in the Westminster standards, but they also appear in other creeds and confessions of the Book of Confessions.
For some people in my presbytery, the problem with the EPC is that it lists some doctrines (among many) it considers “essential.” It is as if the existence of such a list of non-negotiables is offensive and wrong. But when we PCUSAers refer to the essentials of the Reformed faith and polity that are contained in the Book of Confessions, what do we mean? Here are the choices:
• That there are some essentials (a subset of the whole) that all agree are basic and indispensable to one’s faith (basically the EPC position); OR
• That there are essentials contained in the Book of Confessions, but there can be no list because what is essential to one person (or presbytery) is not perhaps essential to another; OR
• The entire Book of Confessions constitutes essential doctrine.
A pickle, is it not? In my next post, I’d like to explore the implications of having more than one PCUSA confession and why, for some, this is problematic.
Since writing the post comparing ECO and EPC the other day, I have had a flood of comments and over 800 hits, so apparently this subject is of interest! Meanwhile, my “day job” has been intensely demanding this week.
I am working on a post that compares the essential tenets of the EPC and the Book of Confessions and hope to have it done tomorrow. For now, though, the brain is spent and it’s time to call it quits for the day. Since I addressed the topic of Sabbath last Sunday, I kinda feel like I should practice what I preached.
Hey, if my readers want to make this an interactive exercise, I invite you to collect all the references in the BOC to one of the EPC tenets, like Christ’s second coming or the Great Commission mandate. Or, alternatively, thumb through one of the creeds or confessions and note where it addresses any of the nine beliefs on the EPC list. I’ve been through Scots and Heidelberg already. Just send your input to me at mary@presbycoalition.org and I’ll give you credit in my post!
As conservative/evangelical Presbyterian congregations and sessions discuss their options for responding to the liberal trends in the PCUSA, a question is voiced about the “leaving” option. Why do we need a new denomination (the future ECO) when we have the EPC in place now? What is the difference between transferring membership to the Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians (ECO) and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (the EPC)? I understand that the folks at Fellowship of Presbyterians are working on a comparison chart that goes into some detail about the various elements to consider, and it is going to take them awhile to make this public (probably months). This suggests to me that the matter is complicated and detail-ridden, so I am humble in my offering some general ideas in this post. Yes, that was a disclaimer.
The Evangelical Presbyterian Church affirms the Westminster Confession of Faith and its catechisms as its only system of doctrine. In general, it subscribes to a list of essential tenets, but offers each other liberty on matters it does not deem essential, such as the ordination of women and the exercise of charismatic gifts. The essentials, however, are listed as these:
1. All Scripture is the true, infallible Word of God, uniquely and fully inspired by the Holy Spirit and the supreme and final authority on all matters on which it speaks. Sola Scriptura.
2. God is sovereign Creator and Sustainer of all things, existing in three Persons. Soli Dei gloria.
3. Jesus Christ, fully God and fully man, was incarnated by miraculous conception and virgin birth, died on the cross a sacrifice for human sins and rose bodily from the dead to ascend into heaven where his reigns. Solo Christo.
4. The Holy Spirit glorifies Christ and applies the saving work to human hearts, convicting of sin, indwelling, empowering, instructing, gifting for service, and sealing believers for the day of redemption.
5. Human beings in their natural state are estranged from God and rely solely upon the work of God’s free grace for salvation, justification by faith, and the regeneration by the Holy Spirit. Sola fide, sola gratia.
6. The true Church is found in congregations where the Word is preached in its purity, the sacraments are administered in their integrity, and scriptural discipline is practiced in loving fellowship.
7. Jesus will come again personally, visibly, and bodily, to judge the living and the dead, to consummate history and God’s eternal plan.
8. The Great Commission requires all believers to proclaim the gospel and make disciples.
According to the EPC website the denomination is small, with approximately 115,000 members in approximately 300 congregations, organized into eight presbyteries plus the PCUSA transitional presbytery. However, doing the math, an EPC church has an average of 383 members, compared to the PCUSA average of 191. The median size of congregations in the PCUSA is now 95 according to denominational reports. (A similar statistic is not available from the EPC).
The ECO embraces the witness of the entire Book of Confessions now held by the PCUSA, which includes Westminster standards but ranges from the Apostles’ Creed to the Brief Statement of Faith adopted shortly after the 1983 reunion. Its Theology Project enumerates essentials in perhaps more nuanced language than the EPC list (more on that tomorrow). While the EPC is inconsistent on the matter of accepting women’s ordination (it is “local option” by presbytery), the ECO makes it a hallmark. Further, the EPC has a more developed structure than the ECO, which seeks to stay “lean and mean” for missional movement and flexibility.
If you are interested in a very similar governing style, are flexible on the matter of women’s ordination, are more at ease with a single doctrinal confession, and want to join a body that is already up and running, it would seem that the EPC is ready to receive you. If you do not want to be shackled with a lot of governing red-tape and perceive yourself to be more missional in spirit than perhaps the EPC can accommodate, the ECO may be for you. The ECO retains the Book of Confessions in its entirety, which to some is problematic, but if you want continuity with the PCUSA, ECO will retain the spirit without as much regulation.
All this week I have been attending the annual gathering of my “national covenant group” of Presbyterian pastors. Traveling from the four corners of the U.S.A., we come together to log in, share what is going on in our lives, enjoy recreative afternoons, and huddle in small groups.
This year, the east coast contingent presented reviews of several excellent books on the subject of the relationship between church and culture. One particular book sparked some thoughts in relationship to the predicament faced by the PCUSA these days. Culture Making: Recovering Our Creative Calling, by Andy Crouch, challenges the church to make something of this world by cultivating a good and meaningful culture consistent with Kingdom values. Crouch lists five different ways the church can interact with culture: it can condemn culture, critique it, copy it, consume it, or create it. My readers might differ in opinion about what this blog does, for example, because elements of most of these options may be perceived to be present (perhaps on different days). But my overall goal is to create a culture of thoughtful, faithful reflection on God’s story and biblical ideas that help us know how to live.
According to Crouch, condemning the culture becomes counterproductive because all of us belong, in one way or another, to “western” culture with regional and denominational differences. [I may be underestimating my international readership, but based on comments I believe most of my readers are at least familiar with American culture.] A critique of culture is, for many, a mere academic exercise and largely irrelevant to them. When we copy culture, we mimic its features. Contemporary worship and so-called Christian movies are examples of this type of effort. Consuming culture entails putting one’s money where one’s mouth is as a way of influencing culture’s direction. A boycott is a classic method (in the negative).
With this framework in place, it is helpful to reflect on how the PCUSA sees itself in relationship to the world’s culture. Within the PCUSA, there is some benefit to examining how evangelical conservatives also relate to a wider culture, the denomination.
Historically, the denomination has seen itself as proclaiming the gospel and providing a prophetic witness to the world. This value is codified in our constitution in the Great Ends of the Church (F-1.0304). In practice, the PCUSA has perhaps seen itself condemning and critiquing the prevailing values contrary to the Kingdom of God. On the other hand, one of the current points of contention revolves around its propensity to copy the world by adopting worldly values (such as sexual ethics and confusion about gender differentiation). It was startling recently to hear the arguments presented to the Ninth Circuit Federal Court in favor of overturning California’s constitutional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. The material was very familiar to me, as the fundamentally secular themes and logic have been circulated in PCUSA debates for years.
Evangelicals, in contrast to their denomination, have felt as if they were foreigners in the larger context of the denomination itself, certainly condemning and critiquing trends in the PCUSA that they feel are copying the wider culture. Liberals may in fact do this too, but I know from first-hand experience that conservatives use the distribution of their financial support to influence decision-making within the denomination. This is done, for example, by withholding per capita, designating mission moneys, redirecting benevolences to evangelistically-minded mission projects, and so on. Rather than “consume” the PCUSA culture, some choose not to do so in the hope that the church’s direction might change. It does not appear in general to have been a successful strategy, though in the process members’ consciences may have experienced relief by disassociating with undesirable programs and projects.
So this rundown begs the question, what opportunities do the PCUSA and the evangelical wing within it have to create a Kingdom culture? This gets to the heart of our purpose and mission, and is a question addressed quite directly by the Evangelical Covenant Order (ECO). Let’s look at that tomorrow.
For we do not proclaim ourselves; we proclaim Jesus Christ as Lord and ourselves as your slaves for Jesus’ sake. For it is the God who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. But we have this treasure in clay jars, so that it may be made clear that this extraordinary power belongs to God and does not come from us. We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be made visible in our bodies. For while we live, we are always being given up to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus may be made visible in our mortal flesh. (2 Cor 4:5-10)
After a couple of heartbreaking phone calls and email correspondences in the last few days, this post is for those conservative PCUSA pastors and presbyters who feel isolated in darkness.
In the Waitomo Caves of New Zealand, a gnat called Arachnocampa luminosa lives out its life cycle. The eggs develop into larvae, clinging to the ceilings and walls of these limestone caves dripping with water filtering through the porous stone, in complete darkness. In this stage, they are called glow worms, because by a chemical reaction they appear phosphorescent. We took a breathtaking tour of one of the caves, and as we floated along the river and looked up, it was if we were gazing at a starry night. Thousands of glow worms dotted the inside of this cave. And of course, for this preacher-teacher, a question arose. What on earth are glow worms good for? [A very functional, utilitarian question, I know. But what can I say? I am an American.] Glow worms live at this larval stage for up to a year, depending on the abundance of food to sustain them. But when it is time finally to take flight as an adult, they live only two or three days during which time they search frantically for a mate in order to lay a new batch of eggs before they die. Wow. It seems so futile, and who would ever know whether they existed or not?
Believing as I do that these minute creatures are an expression of the creativity and good humor of almighty God, it strikes me that before human beings discovered the caves, only God knew these glow worms were there. God alone took delight in them. And that was enough to justify their existence.
Some of my friends and correspondents are part of a presbytery or congregation that is overwhelmingly liberal. (I also know that in a few overwhelmingly conservative presbyteries, lonesome liberals feel the same kind of isolation.) My own context is not that discouraging; San Francisco Presbytery is what I would call “contested,” and the evangelical caucus therein is large enough to offer genuine (and sometimes effective) support for like-minded colleagues.
But too many of my colleagues in ministry around the country feel themselves to be completely alone with their orthodox/evangelical convictions. There is no one for miles or hours of travel who share their theological starting point, no friend on this side of the aisle to reassure them they are not crazy, no moral support in floor debate. They wonder, “What am I doing here?” And in fact, they may not be able to do anything but just be. To them I say, “Just be a faithful light-bearer. Hold that light high. Jesus sees you. He is pleased with your steadfast love and is glorified.”
When I went to New Zealand on vacation, my intention was to leave “work” behind, which these days includes thinking strategicially about the role of evangelicals within Presbyterian Church. So on one of our long-drive days around the North Island, I was startled to see a Presbyterian church on the main street through a particular town. I just hadn’t thought about it in advance, and therefore was surprised to find a kin on this Pacific island. Now on the lookout, I discovered several congregations, although most were union churches, often paired with the Methodists.
When kayaking was ruled out one Sunday, due to choppy, windy conditions, we decided to go to church instead (we were on vacation, after all, and worship was always an option but not a mandate for us). We found the union church in town, and showed up for the 10 a.m. service. The average age of those attending was predictably older, though there were several international visitors like us, and a Tongan contingent off to the side. Otherwise, the members were European, and, later I learned, the fruit of an early 20th century immigration of Scots to the island.
The congregation and its pastor, an eloquent poet and a Kiwi, were in many respects frozen in time. It was not “high church” Reformed worship, but it was a relic of times past, a museum piece of a proper Presbyterian gathering. It was totally familiar and foreign at the same time. What was foreign to us was the almost complete isolation of this group of people from what was going on in their town, their families, or their country. Nothing in the service was particularly challenging to the people present; there was no obvious alertness or aliveness to the vitality of the gospel; but it was a proper service and the people gathered, had tea, and went home afterwards. The pastor and his wife graciously invited us to their home for lunch, too, which was generous and lovely.
What struck me most, in a country where only 4% of the population are affiliated with a church (much like the Bay Area), there was absolutely no evangelistic impulse at work among these Christians. It was shocking really to realize that these dear, comfortable people were happy to meet together, delighted if someone foreign found them, but under no obligation and exerting no effort to make Christ known in what I perceived to be an amazing missional setting. That subject was closed as if they had given up in this remarkable secularized society.
As orthodox evangelicals in the PCUSA get used to the idea that the Presbyterian culture around them is secularizing or heading in questionable directions theologically, they may feel themselves to be in a numeric minority ready to give up. (I do not think we are there yet, but the day may be coming.) With numeric minority, some are feeling the need to leave via the EPC or the ECO, but for one reason or another a good number of congregations are going to need to stay in the PCUSA. The question is, How are they going to be? How are they going to think of themselves within the Presbyterian context? Are they going to isolate themselves on a shelf as a museum piece of proper (and orthodox) Presbyterianism, or are they going to retreat into a remnant mindset hopelessly cast off into irrelevancy?
My hope would be that those evangelical congregations that remain in the PCUSA would do so out of a commitment to pursue vital, robust, and bold expressions of the true gospel to their fellow Presbyterians. My hope would be that they would choose courage over complacency, engagement over isolationism, suffering over comfort, bold and true application of the gospel over “safe” topics, and evangelistic spirit over institutional survivalism. It must never be appropriate to give up on evangelistic witness, faithful preaching, the administration of the sacraments, and church discipline. But we are going to be tempted, after the current troubles seem “settled,” to entrench and retreat into a comfortable Presbyterian life. We must resist this temptation.
There is another side of the issue to consider, that of “being” versus “doing.” Tomorrow, I will share my one last reflection from New Zealand life to illustrate.
Our two week holiday in New Zealand intentionally bypassed the city of Auckland. Even the locals say, “It’s just another big city.” With all due respect to the Kiwis reading this, the extent of our visit to the North Island’s biggest city was to make a bee-line for the marvelous Maritime Museum. On the way into town, international business, banking, commerce, and suburbs were a familiar sight to one whose own “neighborhood” is the megalopolis of the San Francisco Bay Area.
And then there was Wellington at the southern end of the island. Granted, we had a personal tour of the environs of the city known for its export of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. So we got the inside scoop on how the 200,000 citizens of Wellington proper (and maybe 400,000 in the district) “use their city,” according to our guide. He made the comment that the population comes into downtown for their entertainment, dining, shopping, recreation, and cultural enrichment. Regardless of their residential proximity, they feel that Wellington is their city. It is not so small as to be inadequate and not big enough to be intimidating, and therefore is accessible and well-used. I thought that was an interesting insight and wonderful indication of loyalty and social capital.
The PCUSA, with all its bureaucracy, tiers of governance, detailed Book of Order, and other complexities, has an Auckland feel to it: just another big denomination big on government and light on fellowship. The freeway of GA Overtures and Authoritative Interpretations runs between governing bodies, built for efficiency but not for intimacy. The Evangelical Covenant Order (ECO) offers a more Wellington feel. The stated goal is to be simpler, organizationally flatter, more intimate, and accessible for nurturing the life of congregations and their pastors. Greater personal accountability is possible with a smaller group, even if commissioners must travel a greater distance to attend a presbytery meeting. Sharing of best practices, greater trust built on close interaction, and other relational benefits of a smaller body are very attractive and worth pursuing. [This line of reasoning begs another question down the road: is it possible for the ECO to get too big?]
Having said that, the PCUSA has an opportunity to respond to the implied challenges ECO presents. There are some conditions that must change within the denomination in order for Presbyterians to experience the same kind of intimacy and trust within the PCUSA framework:
1. A common confession of faith not only on paper but in proclamation and practice.
2. A true “joyful submission to the Lordship of Jesus Christ” and all that implies.
3. Increased visibility, interaction, and impact of PCUSA orthodox/evangelical staffers with congregations and presbyteries. [I know there are more evangelicals than ever in Louisville, but few presbyters have ever met them or been aware of their efforts.]
4. A renewed commitment by the denomination—at all levels—to the health and nurture of congregations.
5. Simplifying denominational structure, perhaps by eliminating the Synod level, in order to get decision-making between national and local levels in sync with each other.
6. Revamping the election of representation at General Assembly to be more representative of the “people in the pew.” It has been demonstrated by GA votes and Presbyterian Panel surveys over the years that GA Commissioners tend to be more liberal than church members overall. [What are the forces at work that create this dichotomy?]
7. Reinvigorating our commitment to church discipline, as a way of fostering “the right kind of diversity” highlighted in yesterday’s post.
It may be possible, with the separation of the ECO from the PCUSA that both bodies end up being the right size: big enough to cover the ministry and small enough to be relationally healthy and mutually accountable according to their different sets of assumptions. Could this be another way of expressing our diversity?
Last October, I reflected on the question “How Much Diversity Can a Church Handle?” I return to the topic, in response to a comment made in a Fellowship of Presbyterians document released last week.
In the Evangelical Covenant Order (ECO) communiqué dated January 19 (during the Orlando conference), the value of life-giving diversity was lifted up:
“Just as earthly ecosystems draw richness from the right kind of diversity, ECO is committed to unleashing the ministry gifts of women, men, young leaders, and every ethnicity. ECO’s name also draws from the Greek term oikos, meaning ‘household,’ used in the Bible to reference the network of relationships that nurture an individual.”
“The right kind of diversity” is an intriguing phrase, to which I bring another Kiwi image: One of the highlights of our two-week trip to the North Island of New Zealand was a full-day’s excursion to Kapiti Island, off the southwestern coast.
Kapiti is a marine reserve, a safe habitat for New Zealand’s unique bird population. Some species are found only here and nowhere else in the world. Hiking up the mountain through temperate rain forest, we were greeted at every turn with the cacophony of sounds—tweets, flutes, twitters, and even deep organ pipes—in happy confusion. Some birds like the kaka will steal your lunch on its way to your mouth; others like the kiwi are reclusive and nocturnal. The diversity on this island is breathtaking.
Everything is in balance, and every effort is made to keep it that way. But there’s one thing you won’t find on this island: mammals. The rat population, introduced centuries ago by mistake, was finally eradicated in the last fifteen years or so. Three stoats were found and removed from the island in 2011. With these natural predators absent the habitat, endangered birds are again able to reproduce in safety. 
The right kind of diversity affords health, wellbeing, trust, and freedom to those for whom the habitat was created.
In the Gospel of John (chapter 10), Jesus likens the community of believers to a herd of sheep that need the vigilant protection of a shepherd to keep thieves and wolves out of the pen. It is not helpful, in the name of diversity, to introduce wolves into a sheep-pen; rather, the shepherd is charged with guarding the gate and securing a safe environment for the sheep. “Diversity” can go only so far, and then it becomes dangerous.
And so it is with the church: the ecosystem of a healthy church stays in balance as long as predators are prevented from invading the population. Leadership of a healthy church keeps a vigilant eye on the portals and gates into its fellowship, for the purpose of securing safety and health for those who belong with its boundaries. The Apostle Paul used this image while explaining what had to happen in the Corinthian church to bring it back into balance: “Expel the immoral brother” (1 Cor 5:9-13). He was saying this: If among you Christian believers are found the immoral or idolatrous (not to mention the greedy or swindling), they must be removed from the fellowship for the good (the safety and health) of the whole. It was a wise pastor who told me decades ago, “You do not sacrifice the spiritual wellbeing of an entire Bible study group to keep a [disruptive] person loose among them.”
Presbyterians historically have used the “due process” of church discipline to remove the immoral brother or sister from fellowship, so that the sheep will not be stolen away spiritually or led into dangerous theological territory. As discipline has faltered in the last few decades, ideas and movements dangerous to Presbyterians’ wellbeing have been let loose. The balance within a fragile population of saints has been upset by the introduction of heresy, doctrinal error, and bad behavior. The ECO, as far as I can tell, is seeking to establish a sanctuary where the right kind of diversity can be installed and perpetuated without the threat of spiritual thieves to decimate its population. This is completely consistent with the gospel, with Christ’s concerns for his people, and with church history. It is, of course, countercultural, but then, that should be a good sign that the ECO is on the right track.
