Comments for So what's driving the New Wineskins? at http://pres-outlook.com , comment 1 to 6 out of 6 comments http://pres-outlook.com Thu, 20 Nov 2008 08:18:56 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://pres-outlook.com/opinion/commentary/4544.html#comment-3559 Everyone should read this: the New Wineskins locks members out of their church following a vote: http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2007/10/new-hampshire-court-refuses-to-order-co.html I'm sorry but my only comment is that the New Winesins should not exist if it is doing things like this. The PCUSA should have disbanded them. - Carol Schaef Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:00:00 +0100 http://pres-outlook.com/opinion/commentary/4544.html#comment-3540 The New Wineskins have an agressive movement to get churches to leave the PCUSA. While I believe they have honest disputes with the PCUSA, the facts are that there will always be disagreements with others in any church about numerous issues. The issue of women's ordination is a difficult one for the New Wineskins. They are finding themselves leaving the PCUSA for the EPC only to encounter much strife on this issue. It's replacing one set of issues with another and I don't see what is to be gained. Much will be lost for the women who have devoted their lives to serving God; they will now become 'optional' and potentially discarded. When churches vote to leave the denomination, when elderly people feel the need to leave the church because of separation, when families become unchurched because of bitterness, I don't see how 'paradigm shift in polity' is important. The church is for people, to empower God's people in ministry, not for breaking apart and hurting people because of paradigm. The claim that 'everyone believes the same thing in the EPC' is false. The nature of people is that different opinions will exist. Out of this comes growth and direction. I have never seen a group of people who all believe exactly the same thing in the same way. I myself do not have a need to worship with only people that are only 'like myself' because it would limit my Christian growth. God does not only speak through one narrow situation where people are all the same. God is present in many diverse situations. I agree that although the New Wineskins are getting churches to leave the PCUSA it is just a matter of time before another issue starts up and some group begins another separation movement, thus creating New Wineskins version 2.0. I am not convinced that these movements have been led by God; maybe they've been started just by people. If the New Wineskins would focus on their ministry instead of their 'leave the PCUSA' drone I believe a lot more energy would be used in ministry to reach all people. They may have a lot of interesting ideas -- I would like to hear more of these ideas -- but the constant talk of leaving the PCUSA drowns out their message. - Carol Schaef Wed, 26 Sep 2007 12:00:00 +0100 http://pres-outlook.com/opinion/commentary/4544.html#comment-3256 I appreciate the less fire-breathing response by the Rev. Wolpert. I think we do much better when we tone down our responses and address the issues vigorously without calling personal character into question. However, I still say he fails to address the specifics of Weaver's essay. Instead, he merely elaborates on his previous comments in a more irenic way. Oh well. At least I can respond with some brief responses on Wolpert's three points: Dan: 1. How can something listed in the Book of Order as a possible course of action be 'unpresbyterian'? To leave the PCUSA and become part of another Presbyterian body is not un-Presbyterian, particularly if you use the available processes. I came to this denomination from the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, using the available processes in both denominations. Was I being un-Presbyterian as I did so? No, of course not. (As to 'they aren't getting what they want,' I'll address this in #3.) 2. 'Evangelical' is not a term without definition. Most often it is defined as having a high view of the authority and inspiration of Scripture as infallible and/or inerrant (most PCUSAers choose infallible), a strong view of Jesus as the Son of God and the only way of salvation, a belief in the historicity of the Incarnation, Crucifixion, Resurrection, and other biblical miracles, the insistence upon a substitutionary perspective on Jesus' death on the Cross, just to name a few of the points. While the boundaries between evangelical and non-evangelical have some elasticity, there are boundaries. We are not free to make up the meaning of the term. Not every PCUSAer is an evangelical. 3. I agree with you that the language often used in our discussions/debates is off-putting and non-productive, especially when we may carelessly throw around terms like 'un-biblical' and the like. I also know that fellow Christians may have differing opinions on a variety of issues, as you and I apparently do, and may argue them without believing the other is apostate. But I have no problems with wanting a good amount of theological 'agreement' and believing that such agreement is an important glue that holds our common life together. One of our chief issues since the 1920s has been our lack of ability to define ourselves clearly. How else can you explain the delicious irony of vowing to uphold the essential tenets of the Reformed faith and yet refusing to state what these essential tenets are? We're also talking about requirements for church officers, who would be supposed to have a higher level of theological understanding and commitment. In other words, we need our Presbyterian church officers to be committed to Presbyterian theology and the Reformed tradition. So I see nothing insecure and hypervigilant about this desire for theological and ecclesiastical congruence. If the majority of PCUSAers do not want to honor this desire, then in reality the better part of wisdom would be to let those who do to move another direction for the overall peace and unity of the body, and to move in the most pastoral, redemptive way possible. That seems to me to be quite different than leaving because you're not 'getting what [I] want.' Grace and peace, Clay - Clay Brown Fri, 27 Apr 2007 12:00:00 +0100 http://pres-outlook.com/opinion/commentary/4544.html#comment-3243 Dear Rev Brown, Ok, I'll try again, although I don't feel that my responses were either sloppy or grandstanding, just brief. - As to being illiberial or judgemental, I'm not leaving or threatening to leave the denomination, the New Wineskins movement is, and their express reason for this is that they aren't getting what they want. This stikes me as unpresbyterian and judgemental. - I used the term 'so-called Evangelical' becasue I am quite tired of this term (Evangelical) being tossed around by folks who seem to feel that their version of evangelical is 'correct' and everyone else is somehow 'not evangelical'. I find this highly problematic, offensive, and inaccurate. Everyone I know on all sides of these questions tries to be evangelical: that is people who wish to spread the good news of Jesus Christ. - I do believe and experience people who need a high degree of 'agreement' to remain together in the Church to be both insecure and hypervigilant. These are descriptive terms. Again I am quite tired of hearing one group of people label another group as 'un-biblical' (as well as other names) just because they disagree. It appears to me that 'agreement' has been raised to the level of idolatry where by agreeing with someone is the only thing that categorizes whethere you are a Christian in their eyes or not. I do not think that this is the litmus test of our faith, rather faith in Jesus Christ is. And I do think that those who cannot exist in community with those who have this faith yet disagree with them have some significant problems. Peace, Dan - Daniel Wolpert Mon, 23 Apr 2007 12:00:00 +0100 http://pres-outlook.com/opinion/commentary/4544.html#comment-3235 Ahhh, where to start indeed? It appears someone didn't have any caffeine this morning. For such an apparent champion of tolerance, Dan Wolpert sounds rather intolerant, doesn't he? He doesn't even address Weaver's points, but rather he ignores them, preferring ad hominem attacks like 'so-called Evangelicals' and 'insecure, hypervigilant and judgemental,' Who needs to hear his warning of 'I pray for you in this regard for you will be judged with the judgement that you apply and my guess is that won't be fun' more than pastor Wolpert? I hope he is not judged by the measure he's showing. Then he has the inconsistency (or gall) to close his remarks with 'Peace.' Seeesh! I could over-generalize and state, as some have in other venues, that 'liberals are often the most illiberal folks' or a similar broadside. But I'd rather believe that Wolpert is the exception, not the rule. We get nowhere with name-calling and failing to deal with the theological and polity issues dividing us. If you disagree with Weaver, fine. Critique his essay fairly and maturely, and leave the sloppy thinking and grandstanding at home. - Clay Brown Wed, 18 Apr 2007 12:00:00 +0100 http://pres-outlook.com/opinion/commentary/4544.html#comment-3219 Ahhh, where to start? What I hear at the heart of this article is what I always hear from so many so-called Evangelicals: I'm right, you're wrong and I cannot tolerate being in community with anyone who doesn't agree with me. I'm Biblically based and you're not, etc etc etc. It's truly a sad state of affairs when people who claim to follow a man who commands us to love our enemies are so insecure, hypervigilant and judgemental (I pray for you in this regard for you will be judged with the judgement that you apply and my guess is that won't be fun) that they can only work with those who completely agree with them. Furthermore, those folks who require this high level of uniformity are deluding themselves if they thing that the apparent uniformity is real and will stay in place. just wait until the next issue rears it's head and you'll need some new wineskins all over again. Blessings to you. Peace, Dan Wolpert - Daniel Wolpert Fri, 13 Apr 2007 12:00:00 +0100