I observed recently that the PUP Report had not changed anything. A pastor asked, "If nothing's changed, what's the big deal?" An elder responded that we are in a spiritual battle. These comments spurred my deeper evaluation of the dynamics gripping us all.

The key to understand our dilemma is to realize the depths of that spiritual war.

Some history is helpful. In 1978 the northern Presbyterian Church issued a Definitive Guidance prohibiting ordination of  "... avowed, practicing homosexuals..."

  In 1979 the Definitive Guidance of the southern Presbyterians stated, "...unrepentant homosexual practice does not accord with the requirements for ordination..."

With reunion, these statements were incorporated as Authoritative Interpretation (AI).

I observed recently that the PUP Report had not changed anything. A pastor asked, "If nothing's changed, what's the big deal?" An elder responded that we are in a spiritual battle. These comments spurred my deeper evaluation of the dynamics gripping us all.

The key to understand our dilemma is to realize the depths of that spiritual war.

Some history is helpful. In 1978 the northern Presbyterian Church issued a Definitive Guidance prohibiting ordination of  "... avowed, practicing homosexuals..."

  In 1979 the Definitive Guidance of the southern Presbyterians stated, "...unrepentant homosexual practice does not accord with the requirements for ordination..."

With reunion, these statements were incorporated as Authoritative Interpretation (AI).

Each AI is interpretation of the church constitution, with equal authority of the constitution itself. However, GA commissioners pass an AI; a subsequent GA could abrogate previous statements. So, in 1996 the GA passed a constitutional amendment to strengthen the PC(USA) position on the ordination issue, which became G-6.0106b, after ratification by the presbyteries in 1997. The rule enunciated in 1978 became harder to change.

Since 1997, there have been efforts to remove either G-6.0106b or the 1978/1979 AIs.  The majority of the denomination has consistently refused to change.

This past summer the Peace, Unity, and Purity Report was presented to the GA. It stands firm in the consistent opposition to ordination of homosexual persons; specifically stating that no constitutional amendments should be offered, that no PJC decision be altered, and that all previous AIs remain in full effect. [Recommendation 6a, lines 1305-1312].

The GA approved this report and recommendations.

Also this GA went further to affirm the PC(USA) opposition to ordaining homosexuals. Commissioners considered two proposed changes: one to remove the 1978/1979 AIs and a second to remove G-6.0106b. Overwhelmingly, commissioners voted to reject any change.

Much has been made of Recommendation 5. Claims are that Presbyterians are now free to disobey the constitution and ordain homosexuals using the "scruple" process.  These assertions are contrary to the plain language of the report: "The principles established then and confirmed in this authoritative interpretation do not permit the kind of 'local option' arrangements that some have proposed, in which each ordaining and installing body sets its own standards. Such a procedure would be new, and it would be un-Presbyterian." [Recommendation 5, lines 1133-1137] emphasis added.

The PUP Report's foundation is that there is no constitutional or AI change. The 1978/1979 AIs and G-6.0106b are in full force. So too, are the PJC decisions of Hambrick v. PJC, Synod of NC (1983) and of Londonderry. v. PNNE (2001). These cases emphasize that while one may be ordained and disagree with the PC(USA) ordination standards, s/he may not violate those standards nor declare that s/he will not enforce them nor live by them. The Stated Clerk's Office publication, Constitutional Musings #11 has confirmed all of this.

These positions are all things that conservative and evangelical Presbyterians affirm.  So how is it that the conviction of so many of these members is that the PC(USA) positions are just the opposite?

What's the big deal? How can the PC(USA) conservative majority be convinced that the denomination is walking away from them? It is the conservative majority that has been in control on this issue for three decades. Yet this majority feels marginalized and sees repeated victories as losses.

How can this be? Who is it that is the master of deception, who has the power to cloud the truth from the faithful, and who uses lies to defeat God's people? It is Satan. It is Satan's goal to destroy God's church and its work in the world. Destroying the PC(USA) furthers the devil's purpose.

With this understanding of the spiritual warfare confronting us, we can understand how big the deal is. Satan has reaped a series of victories in attempting to destroy our PC(USA). Through the use of lies and deceptions he has convinced the majority of our church that they are the minority being ignored by the denomination, and has incited the conservative majority to fight against itself. The battle among Presbyterians that Satan incited has affected great damage. In 1978, the two Presbyterian denominations had 3.4 million members. Today: 2.3 million. In 1965 we had 1,675 missionaries across the world. Today: 497. Once, PC(USA) developed premier curricula used in many other denominations. Today it's common for PC(USA) congregations to use other curricula.  Distrust of Presbyterians by Presbyterians has crippled mission giving and withered mission witness.

If we are to be set free of Satan's grip, we have to work for the truth and pray for clear discernment.

Since making a statement in 1978 prohibiting ordination of homosexuals, every time a request has been made to weaken this position, the denomination has rejected it. Every time the denomination has been asked to strengthen its position on this issue, it has.

We are in a spiritual battle and we have been blinded from the truth. Satan has deceived us into believing that the enemy is ourselves. The consequent divisions and attacks upon ourselves have drained our strength and resources, and weakened our capability to engage the evil that Satan spreads. Satan is awaiting destruction of the PC(USA) by its members walking away from themselves.

With the clear vision of Christ's faithful people, we may see the devil's workings and oppose them. Now is the time for our conservative and evangelical members to reject the distortion Satan preaches. Now is the time to accept the responsibilities of leadership in the denomination, not to abet the devil's work by walking away. The Presbyterian Church cannot be renewed by those who would abandon it. Now is a watershed moment in the life of our denomination and in the faith journey of each of its members. Standing against Satan is not the easy path. Running from the fight is not the right path.

Christ's message is that we can know the truth and Satan can be defeated. The truth is before us. Pray with me that the Holy Spirit might grant us all clear vision so that together we can deny Satan's goal of dividing and destroying our church.

RICHARD O. WYATT is general presbyter of the Northern New England presbytery (Manchester, N.H.)

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (16)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

wrote on February 16, 2007

Title: ... If nothings changed, why is the openly gay member of the PUP committee now seeking ordination?

wrote on February 15, 2007

Title: Disciple of Christ first, PCUSA elder (distant) second 'Destroying' the PCUSA? 150 churches out of 11,000? I'd ask Wyatt the same question I asked in response to Jack Haberer's anti-NWAC diatribe last week. What are you so afraid of? Why the hyperbole? Why the hysteria? I'd ask Wyatt another question. Who is serving Satan by disseminating lies? Who is hell-bent on destroying the PCUSA by stripping away the authority of scripture and denying the unique saving lordship of Jesus? Who is unable to state unequivocally the essential tenets of orthodox Reformed Christianity? Here's a clue: In no case is the correct answer 'the NWAC'. The NWAC and other evangelicals have already done what Wyatt so disingenuously calls for. They have already rejected 'the distortion Satan preaches.' Some have also rejected the denomination that so willingly harbors Satan's distortions.

wrote on February 15, 2007

Title: Retired Minister If the PUP report did not change anything then why was it voted on in the first place? If the report did not change anything then why did not a commissioner at the 2006 General Assembly stand and say, 'Since this report does not change anything let us thank the PUP task force for their work and go on to other matters.'? Those who voted for the PUP report thought it would change something and those who voted against it did so because they thought it would change something. We may have to sift out what these changes will be, but if it changes nothing then the whole PUP process was an exercise in futility.

wrote on February 15, 2007

Title: Elder, First Presbyterian Church Here is an perplexing question related to this discussion. What does it avail an ordination candidate to be approved by a governing body in scrupling out from accord with an essential tenet of the Reformed Faith when, before becoming ordained, s/he must respond affirmatively to this constitutional question: 'Do you sincerely receive and adopt the essential tenets of the Reformed Faith as expressed in the confessions of our church as authentic and reliable expressions of what Scripture leads us to believe and do, and will you be instructed and led by those confessions as you lead the people of God?'

wrote on February 14, 2007

Title: Pastor, First Presbyterian Church Mooresville Dear Editor, As much as I would love to think otherwise, my initial response to Wyatt's open letter is that he is engaging in significant redescribing, revisioning and reimagining of the "situation on the ground" for the PCUSA. The PUP report and GA response to it are much more ambiguous than he allows. Furthermore, his interpretation of the impact of the current AI is much rosier than warranted. In short, this letter is yet another restatement of "nothing's changed." Yet it surprisingly fails to take into account that proponents of gay ordination certainly believe that things have changed. It also presupposes that most evangelicals thought everything was wonderful with the pre-PUP PCUSA, an erroneous presupposition to make. Most importantly, Wyatt locates the "spiritual warfare" we're presently experiencing in the wrong place. It is not in the battles for organizational unity of this denomination, but in the battles for Biblical and confessional authority and fidelity that are being waged as we speak, in which the matter of gay ordination is but the most recent presenting issue. Grace and peace, Clay Brown

wrote on February 14, 2007

Title: Executive Pastor, First Presbyterian Bakersfield Brilliant. Even so, what Wyatt calls 'running from the fight' does not preclude serving the Kingdom of God in fresher territory. There is faithfulness in both the stay/fight/win mode as well as with those whose consciences will no longer allow them to steward their gifts in a wayward bureaucracy of a denomination. The New Wineskins Association of Churches intends to include both the stay/fight/win churches (known as New Wineskins Initiative [NWI]) as well as some that may in time realign themselves with other Presbyterian siblings). It is not--never has been--about service to a denomination, but about service to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of God. Why in God's name would the PCUSA seek any way of standing against such effort?

wrote on February 14, 2007

Title: ... In response to Richard O. Wyatt's open letter: Talk about deception! What is it called when one ignores facts? Consider these: Scott Anderson thinks PUP has made a significant change. According to published reports, Anderson, an active and influential member of the 2006 PUP task force and openly gay, cited "conscience" when he resigned his PCUSA Ordination in 1990. But now something has changed. In November 2006, he offered the passage of PUP as grounds for hope that he can now be ordained. He applied and in November was unanimously received into the process toward ordination by a committee of John Knox Presbytery. Voicing their support were PUP panel members Barbara Wheeler and Mark Achtemeier. In 2003, Cliff Kirkpatrick was part of the installation of Anderson as director of the Wisconsin Council of Churches. Citing PUP, Anderson recently told one publication: 'Given the action of the General Assembly, I felt this might be an opportunity. It gives some clarity to the scrupling process.' Mr. Wyatt: PUP author's think something has changed. Who you callin' deceived? 20 Presbyteries have acted to support previous standards against PUP erosion. 3 have acted to protect what PUP supports. Is this Peace? Unity? Let's address the real reasons members and churches are leaving the PCUSA; the loss of witness for Jesus Christ as the only way to the Father, the loss of witness to the authority and reliability of Scriptures and the loss of missional focus. Can you deny 2 million members gone? Can you deny a loss of 89 mission jobs in the last 5 years? Can you deny a drop in mission funding without a similar drop in funds spent on the Washington Office or NCC and WCC? Why is none of this addressed in recent denomination leader's letters asking members to stay? Could you and those saying "nothing has changed" be clinging to a structure that no longer clings to Christ and His Word? A structure that for the above reasons, no longer holds to the Living Water? Some are called to continue the 80 year effort to reform this denomination -- but please don't label those called out deceived. I will pray with you -- but I won't join you in whistling past the graveyard. With you under His mercy, A. Kirk Johnston Pastor, First Presbyterian Church Paola, Kansas

wrote on February 14, 2007

Title: ... This is a very strange article. I've lost my bearings about what words mean. What on earth is this man talking (writing) about?

wrote on February 14, 2007

Title: Head of Staff, Westminster Presbyterian Church Mr. Wyatt's article points out the maddening character of PUP. Yes, the GA affirmed previous AI's in regard to gay ordination. I would agree with Mr. Wyatt that permitting the ordination of a self affirming practicing homosexual person in a local presbytery will be an uphill battle. But it is no longer an impossible one. Why? Because the process envisioned by PUP allows standards to be scrupled and gives local presbyteries the option to determine whether such standards are 'essential'. In determining that a standard is 'non-essential' a presbytery could allow a candidate an exemption to uphold the standard, while the standard itself remains unchanged. Unlikely in many places, I will admit. But not impossible. What did PUP accomplish? The increase in energy around the desire for separation from those who have 'won' the previous votes suggests an answer. It seems to me it has injected an incredible amount of ambiguity into a denomination that could desperately use some clarity.

wrote on February 14, 2007

Title: Pastor, Tully Memorial Presbyterian Church Richard Wyatt's open letter is interesting. Much of what he says is true. Some of it obscures the debate over the meaning of the Authoritative Interpretation of G-6.0108. And, if I have understood him, Wyatt seems to blame conservatives for the drop in membership over the past 30 years, for the drop in the number of missionaries and for the low sales numbers of denominational curricula. Wyatt is correct. In the debate over ordination of, as the Definitive Guidance of 1978 put it, 'self affirming, practicing homosexuals,' those who oppose their ordination won every battle from 1978 to 2004. And yes, even at the 2006 GA attempts to amend the constitution to remove G-6.0106b and to overturn the 1978/9 Definitive Guidance, the 1993 Authoritative Interpretation and all PJC decisions on the issue were easily defeated. Whether he has correctly interpreted the meaning of the Authoritative Interpretation of G-6.0108 is open to debate. Wyatt quotes from lines 1133-1137 of the PUP report. Unfortunately, the lines he quotes are not actually part of the Authoritative Interpretation. The GA voted to approve Recommendation 5 as amended, which produced the Authoritative Interpretation, not the commentary on Recommendation 5. The great debate in the denomination since GA met is over the meaning of the AI. Wyatt assumes that the AI does not allow a session or a presbytery to approve someone for ordination and/or installation who says s/he will not obey a mandated section of the Book of Order. This is not what the AI actually says. The AI says that a session or a presbytery, if it determines that a candidate for office will not obey a mandated section of the Book of Order, may decide whether that section of the Book of Order is essential for that particular candidate. This was the intention of the members of the PUP Task Force. As amended the AI says that higher governing bodies, through their permanent judicial commissions, retain the right or review of the decisions of lower governing bodies. Wyatt refers to the Stated Clerk's Constitutional Musing #11. Unfortunately constitutional musings are just that: musings. Until a the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission receives a case in which someone scruples a mandated section of the Book of Order and makes a decision we will not know whether the Clerk's musing is correct or not. As to whether conservatives and evangelicals have actually won or not is also open to interpretation. Sessions and presbyteries have disobeyed G-6.0106b with little consequence. And as I said the final verdict on the Authoritative Interpretation is still out. Should conservatives and evangelicals leave the denomination at this point? In my opinion, no. I'm one of those, "I'm going to stay until they kick me out" guys. Certainly from a political point of view to leave at this point weakens the probability that G-6.0106b will be retained in the Book of Order in the future because those who leave take their votes with them. As to Wyatt's observations about the work of Satan, I stand befuddled. Wyatt says, "In 1978, the two Presbyterian denominations had 3.4 million members. Today: 2.3 million. In 1965 we had 1,675 missionaries across the world. Today: 497." Are conservatives and evangelicals responsible for the fact that the denomination has lost 1.1 million members? Are they responsible for the fact that we have almost 1200 less missionaries than we did in 1965? The drop in membership has a variety of causes. Yes, conservative congregations left and joined the PCA and the EPC. But there are other factors that have had much greater effect. The PC(USA) is an aging denomination. We have failed to retain our children. Denominational loyalty is not what it was. People move and join a Methodist or Baptist congregation. Worse, people move and join no church at all. And yes, we have many less missionaries than we did in 1965. This happened in part because the way we do mission work has changed. We now partner with churches in other countries. We have chosen to send out fewer missionaries. And yes, we give less in unified giving. But we give more in directed giving. Congregations across the political and theological spectrum choose to have more of a say in what mission they support. It is a sign of the time. Wyatt also says, "Once, PC(USA) developed premier curricula used in many other denominations. Today it's common for PC(USA) congregations to use other curricula." This also is a sign of the time. Denominationalism is fading away. Congregations do not choose curricula on the basis of denominational loyalty. They choose curricula on the basis of what they believe fits their needs. And, while my Session choose to use denominational curricula for Church School, we could just have easily chosen another curriculum because it fit our needs better. This is reality in the world of the 21st Century Church in America. The PC(USA) unfortunately has not yet caught up. To blame these changes on conservatives and evangelicals, particularly while naming Satan in the process, is the worst form or demonization. Simply naming a particular group, quoting statistics, and then blaming that group for problems fails to take into account the complex nature of the problems. As to whether Wyatt is correct in his conclusions about the effect of the recent Authoritative Interpretation remains to be seen. Blaming a particular group for the ills of the denomination is never in order. Is Wyatt correct that we should stay together as a denomination? I believe so. As long as we affirm one Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, we ARE one in Christ. Should we continue to fight over the ordination of self affirming, practicing homosexuals? That will happen no matter what Wyatt or I might want. Robert Campbell Pastor Tully Memorial Presbyterian Church Sharon Hill, PA

wrote on February 14, 2007

Title: Pastor, Eastminster Presbyterian Church Thank you, Dick, for saying the clear and obvious truth. There is clearly a move abroad to destroy the PC(USA). There may be all sorts of problems within our denomination - and perhaps even some good arguments against denominationalism in the 21st Century - but our 'conservative' brethren are being used by the Accuser in an effort to destroy a vital and valid part of the body of Christ. Even the most recent theological pronouncements from Santa Barbara end with proposals that are nothing more than veiled support for schism within the church. There's little to disagree with in the Santa Barbara theological statements - although modelling them on Barmen is a bit pretentious - but I can accept the basis of their theology without ever reaching their concluding recommendations. Why not propose a multi-year moratorium on all talk of economic protest and departure from the denomination to allow the Spirit-led reform that is just begining to do its work in reviving the PC(USA)?

wrote on February 14, 2007

Title: Pastor I read Mr.Wyatt's article with interest. I am not sure what the PUP report means for the church and ordination standards in the long run. No one has been able to explain such to me and that may be the unsettling factor in some congregations considering separation. They just don't trust the process over the long haul. I believe that institutional trust is the crisis and how to mend it is a complex but not impossible feat. The ordination standards seem intact to me as they have always been. If people wish to leave over that lack of trust, they will anyway. There is no civil law that says they have to stay and attend a PCUSA church on Sunday. Many have left our churches and the PUP report was not afactor in their decision. I beleive that they are looking for the most likely place to experience God, grace, and meaning for life. Whether the confusion is Satan's aim or not, I really don't wish to comment. I sense that it is more own lack of intellgence, imagination and devotion that leads to this wandering about regarding the church and its future. Regardless I am staying for better or worse and for Jesus sake.

wrote on February 14, 2007

Title: Pastor Richard Wyatts article makes great sense to me. I speak as a conservative when I say that my fellow conservatives put themselves into a blind frenzy. The story of Machen's defection and what it accomplished is really a tragic series of events. He sought to creat a 'pure' Presbyterian denomination that would become a major player in the culture wars of his day. This did not happen. His followers may have been more comfortable in their self segregation, but the church and the culture, as a whole, did not benefit. The same lessons will prove true, today. Leaving is an act of deluded self-destruction. It is not an imitation of Christ. Dennis Evans Pastor, Washtucna Community Presbyterian Church

wrote on February 14, 2007

Title: Pastor It is not Satan who continues, year after year, to press an agenda for the ordination of unrepentent homosexually inclined persons. It is not Ol Shewfoot who aids these determined revisionists; but rather those in staff positions (whose salaries are paid by mission and per capita dollars) at all levels of the Presbyterian Church (USA). It is not Satan who supports this efforts through the twisting of the clear meaning of Scripture, but the majority of the professors teaching in our Presbyterian seminaries. Your delineation of the events occuring over thirty year period makes it obvious that even those who win every major battle for thirty years might grow tired under the prospect of having to fight it for another thirty years. I for one is weary of having to fight for a principle that ought to be unquestionable in the mind of any Christian with half a brain and a heart for the Lord.

wrote on February 14, 2007

Title: Pastor, Grace Covenant The AI says, in part: "c. Ordaining and installing bodies, acting as corporate expression of the church, have the responsibility to determine their membership by applying these standards to those elected to office. These determinations include: "(1) Whether a candidate being examined for ordination and/or installation as elder, deacon, or minister of Word and Sacrament has departed from scriptural and constitutional standards for fitness for office, "(2) Whether any departure constitutes a failure to adhere to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity under G-6.0108 of the Book of Order, thus barring the candidate from ordination and/or installation." The plain language of paragraph c. (2) indicates that each ordaining body now has the authority, presumably exercised by a simple majority vote, to decide that "any" departure from the standards does not bar a person from ordination. The task force did not meet for four years in order not to change anything. How long must we listen to people say that nothing has changed? And why must we now be accused of coming under satanic influence? That hardly rises to the level of outdoing one another in honoring one another.

wrote on February 14, 2007

Title: may it be so . . . I have read many statements on the topic Richard Wyatt covers in this article but none as thorough as his. While there are other issues than the ordination of self-affirming practicing homosexuals (SAPHS) causing orthodox evangelical types to consider separation with the PCUSA to be united with another Presbyterian/Reformed part of the Church, the attack on the authority of scripture, which the debate on the ordination of SAPHS centers on, is a biggie. I hope Richard Wyatt is correct in his understanding on what was not done with Recommendation #5 at the GA in 2006. I have saved his article with some others who argue for the same understanding. I save those to help fight against any PJC ruling that supports another view that may come. Wyatt's call on the 'conservative and evangelical members' . . . 'to accept the responsibilities of leadership in the denomination' is one that stirs me up as it concerns a very key of our problem. If you were to take a theological snapshot of the make up of our denomination and then compare that to the make up of the General Assembly Council and other GA level committees, etc., what you would find is a great under-representation of the orthodox believers. This is true, despite the fact that our polity requires fair representation on the basis of theological viewpoints within Reformed theology. I fought this battle for a long time and yet there has been no effort to correct such prejudicial actions. I have been told by those on the GA Nominating committee that there is nothing we can do because identifying theological viewpoints is too difficult. But I know research groups do this very thing often and I am certain our own Prebyterian Panel could perform this service if they were asked. It is an empty objection and yet it continues. While I am staying in the PCUSA I do not in any way reject the path others feel God is leading them down to separate from the PCUSA to join with another Reformed part of the Church because I know they have faithfully sought God's will in the matter. When a progressive or orthodox church faithfully discerns God's leading elsewhere we should not stand in their way or hold them hostage over property or finances. Instead we should bless them on their way as they will still be our brothers and sisters in Christ and will still be part of the Body of Christ, the Church. It is not wrong for the Governing Body over them to make sure they have come to such a conclusion prayerfully / faithfully, but to do any more than that would be wrong, even sinful, on our part. I do not use the term 'sinful' lightly. Again, I want to thank Richard Wyatt for his thorough work. I pray that his words are proven true. God's blessings to you, Matt Ferguson, pastor First Presbyterian Church Hillsboro, IL

Name

Email

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (Registered users only)

I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment