The New Wineskins Association of Churches (NWAC) has published their strategy document for encouraging congregations to seek dismissal from the PC(USA)[1], including a sample "Open Letter from the Session to the Congregation." The letter makes several claims regarding theology, biblical studies, and the polity of the PC(U.S.A.) that, as I read them, seem deeply problematic and inaccurate.

The New Wineskins Association of Churches (NWAC) has published their strategy document for encouraging congregations to seek dismissal from the PC(USA)[1], including a sample "Open Letter from the Session to the Congregation." The letter makes several claims regarding theology, biblical studies, and the polity of the PC(U.S.A.) that, as I read them, seem deeply problematic and inaccurate.

(1) In paragraphs 1 and 2 of the letter, the claim is made that "Evangelical churches like us believe that Jesus Christ is who He says He is.... Opposing churches differ by seeing Jesus as more human than divine.' The truth is that, since the adoption of the Definition of Chalcedon, the fifth-century statement of the Church on the two natures of Christ, all Christians affirm both the human and divine, and hold that Jesus was fully human and fully divine at the same time.[2] The issue of the nature of Jesus Christ is not resolvable into a contest between human and divine "sides" of the personality of Jesus. Rather, historic Christianity insists that Jesus is as fully and completely a human being as he is also and simultaneously God.  Discussions about whether Jesus was 'more divine than human' or 'more human than divine' are thus patently absurd. How can he be more than 'fully' either?

(2) In the same paragraphs, the letter states: 'Evangelical churches like us... believe that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God...Opposing churches... discount the authority of Scripture in some passages of the Bible, partly because it was written long ago.' The implication of this statement is that the application of critical methodology to the interpretation of scripture leads to the diminution of scriptural authority. Thus, if I am aware that the interpretation of a particular passage is conditioned by its historical and social milieu, then I am not taking that passage seriously. I would respond in two ways:

a)      In truth, the conditioning of our interpretation of a text by locating it in its historical and social context is a basic act of interpretation, and all of us who read the Bible, liberal or conservative, engage in it. To make the point simply, take Lev. 19: 27-28 ('You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard. You shall not make any gashes in your flesh for the dead or tattoo any marks upon you: I am the LORD') Do those who take this text as "authoritative" eschew haircuts and shaving? Or, perhaps closer to home, how many of us who claim to be followers of Jesus, liberal or conservative, have taken seriously Jesus' advice to 'go, sell all your possessions, give the money to the poor, and come, follow me' (Matt19:21)? We are, in fact, constantly deciding which parts of the Bible we can or are willing to take literally, which we regard as calls to an obedience to which we aspire but do not attain, and which are culturally conditioned and require careful interpretation sensitive to social and historical context.

b)      I would argue that this very process of careful interpretation sensitive to social and historical context (as well as other exegetical disciplines) is in fact upholding the authority of Scripture, often more highly than do most inerrantist readings.

Let's go back to the language about not marking the body or marring the edges of the beard in Leviticus 19:27. If you look at the entire chapter, you notice that the chapter is about holiness. It contains a number of apparently unrelated statutes about not leaving sacrificial remains over after the sacrifice is done, not stealing or bearing false witness or defrauding the neighbor, not letting animals breed with different kinds, illicit sexual relations with slaves, sorting between the fruits of trees, not consorting with mediums and wizards, not oppressing aliens, and not cheating at measures. What all these apparently disparate provisions have in common is a concern for the integrity of God's created community. Because the life of Israel is holy -- i.e., set apart for divine use and service -- its integrity must not be undermined by careless or destructive behavior. Thus stealing and bearing false witness or inappropriate sexual relationships undermine the integrity of human community, while cross-breeding animals undermines the integrity of the animal realm, and marking up the body or shaving the beard and cutting the hair undermine the integrity of the human body. In the instance of the hair and beard, however, we have different ideas about what it means to preserve the integrity of the body. We do not regard pierced ears (on women, and at least arguably on men) as disintegrative, and we regard tattoos as decorative (at least in some cases). But we argue that other acts of self-abuse (i.e., drug addiction) unknown in the ancient world would, in fact, be disintegrating of the body, and that such provisions as these in Lev 19:27-28 might appropriately be applied to them. We might also argue that a long, unkempt beard in our society might well be a sign of self-disregard and a lack of appropriate self-care.  I think that this sort of reasoning shows a far greater respect for Scripture and its authority than does a less reflective reading, because it reaches beneath the surface of the text to its heart and applies that heart to circumstances unanticipated by the writers of the text. I would thus reject the argument that those who seek to understand the social and historical context of Scripture are somehow less concerned with its authority.

(3)  Paragraph 3 begins with the phrase, 'The opposing churches of the PC(USA)...' This is insidious language, and deeply untrue. There are not 'opposing churches'  in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). To suggest otherwise is intentionally to exacerbate the division among us by creating the impression that there is a 'right' church and a 'wrong' church within the denomination, and that withdrawing only recognizes de jure separate churches that already exist de facto. I reject this argument. We may not agree, even about vital matters, but that is not equivalent to making the claim that we are two churches living in the same denominational house. Rather, there is one church, and all of us, including the elders and members of each particular congregation, have a say in what that church does. As long as any session sends commissioners to presbytery or expects the attention of presbytery to matters of concern, it affirms that truth, whether it agrees with it or not.

(4) Paragraphs 5-6; 'PUP allows presbyteries/sessions to ignore our denominational ordination standards on a case-by-case basis.... This new wording allows for the ordination or continued ordination of pastors, elders, and deacons actively involved in extramarital affairs and for singles engaged in sexual relationships outside of a marital covenant' (paragraphs 5-6): This is simply untrue. In point of fact, no one can ignore the denominational standards for ordination, least of all sessions and presbyteries. The much-ballyhooed provision for 'scrupling' permits one to declare disagreements of conscience with one or more aspects of Reformed faith and polity, but it does not permit an ordaining body to ignore declarations of refusal to abide by that polity. I can, as an officer of the church, disagree with G-6.0106b all I want to, and the body that is considering ordaining or installing me will have to consider whether that declaration of conscience departs from some essential of Reformed faith and polity. But it may not proceed to ordain or install me if I declare that I will not abide by G-6.0106b. Were it to do so, the examination would be overturned on review, on the grounds that it does not conform to the Constitution. Governing bodies do not have the right - even under the new AI - to ignore disobedience to the Constitution.

(5) Paragraph 7 states that 'The PUP report sets the PC(USA) adrift from our historic, orthodox Presbyterian values and structure.'  Again, this is simply untrue. In point of fact, the principle of conscientious objection to aspects of the Constitution goes back to the Adopting Act of 1729. The Act prevented the dissolution of the first Synod by permitting ministers to declare "scruples" regarding one or another provision of the Westminster Confession or Catechisms, provided that the scruple be "only about articles not essential and necessary in doctrine, worship, or government."[3] The same Act was the instrument by which the Old Side/New Side controversy of 1741-1758 was resolved. The provision of the declaration of objections of conscience is thus deeply rooted in our Presbyterian history and values, and it was the means by which an already-divided church reunited. It continues to be reflected in the very first historic principle of church order, that 'God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary to his Word, or beside it, in matters of faith and worship' (G-1.0301), being at the same time an affirmation of the second historic principle: 'That, in perfect consistency with the above principle of common right, every Christian Church, or union or association of particular churches, is entitled to declare the terms of admission to its communion and the qualifications of its ministers and members, as well as the whole system of its internal government' (G-1.0302).

(6) Paragraph 8 address the Trinity paper. Though the language is more careful here, the clear intent is to suggest that the PC(U.S.A.) has somehow abandoned a commitment to the classical formulation of the Trinity. This is explicitly denied in the paper itself. There is no substitute for the classical formulation of 'Father, Son, and Holy Ghost' in sacramental language. What the report does suggest is that we might profit theologically by recognizing the broad array of biblical metaphors for God in all three persons. There is nothing mandatory about this suggestion; congregations are free to use the classic formulation all they want. But how much richer would the language of worship be if we just, as an example, explored the metaphors for God explicit in the Psalms: 'Rock', 'Fortress', Sovereign,' 'Stronghold', 'Shield' 'Helper' 'Judge' (just to name the ones I can remember without looking them up).

(7) Paragraph 13: 'The PC(USA) believes that it holds title to the property of each local church...' This is, in fact, not what the Constitution says. G-8.0201 makes it clear that churches, presbyteries, and other entities and bodies of the church 'hold' title to properties they have purchased, but that they also 'hold it in trust for the use and benefit of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).' Title to the property of a particular congregation is held by the trustees of the congregation. If, however, those trustees act in a manner in conflict with the Constitution, and if the session of the church does not correct the delinquency, the session is acting in violation of its ordination vow to 'be governed by our church's polity and abide by its discipline.' Under those circumstances the denomination, acting through the presbytery, has an obligation to correct the irregularity and restore the property to the use and benefit of the whole church. The foundation of this idea is finally the notion that we are - all of us together - one church (cf. G-4.0301a) and that the delinquency of one part of the body cripples all the others. When congregations claim that they have paid for the property and therefore should command its disposition, they fail to recognize the investment of the larger church in them: in the form of the initial investment of the presbytery in starting the church, in all the hours of preparation by seminaries and perhaps church colleges to train ministers, in all the assistance over the history of the church in finding pastoral leadership, etc. To make the claim that 'we paid for it, so it's ours' is to pretend that none of that larger investment is real or has meaning.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (8)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

wrote on March 09, 2007

Title: Pastor, Ainsworth Community Church Mr. McCarty and Mr. Brown: I respectfully suggest you take a look at Mr. Hooker's letter again. There is much that you have assumed or read into it that just isn't there.

wrote on March 09, 2007

Title: ... As much as I agree with the comments of Paul Hooker above, it is hard to get around the confusion created by the last GA regarding 'scrupling'. If as Mr. Hooker suggests, echoed by Ed Koster, that 'the body that is considering ordaining or installing me will have to consider whether that declaration of conscience departs from some essential of Reformed faith and polity. But it may not proceed to ordain or install me if I declare that I will not abide by G-6.0106b.' Then the change in the AI was meaningless. If, on the other hand, it does provide for each governing body to determine whether G-6.0106b is essential and therefore require that candidates uphold its rule or that it is unessential and therefore candidates may declare or behave in a manneer that doesn't abide by the standard, then for better or worse it is a local option. I wish the opinions of Koster and Hooker were true, but given the rhetoric of the PUP commission, the clear implication was that whether or not G-6.0106b would be upheld was now no longer a denominational matter, but something to be determined on a case by case, congregation by congregation, presbytery by presbytery basis. Truth is, you cannot have it both ways. If Koster and Hooker are right the changing of the AI was meaningless, if the rhetoric of 'scrupling' is valid then we have in fact a local option. There can be no other way of looking at it.

wrote on March 09, 2007

Title: ... Is it really possible that Mr. Hooker doesn't understand the orthodox complaint against the Trinity paper? He writes: 'What the report does suggest is that we might profit theolgically by recognizing the broad array of biblical metaphors for God in all three persons. There is nothing mandatory about this suggestion...' The paper bordered on the heretical - yes, I mean that - because it failed to differentiate sufficiently between a name and a metaphor. I am, for example, 'pastor' insofar as I am like other pastors, or like the archetypal pastor. But I am John Andrew Scott. My name has meaning, to be sure, and may conjure up all sorts of associations, but it has no essential referent outside myself. Likewise, the first Person of the Holy Trinity is not called 'Father' because of any similarity to human fathers. Rather, the traditional answer has been that human fathers are called fathers only insofar as they are like God. When we abandon the idea that words - including names - have any ontological significance, we open the door to a sea of confusion. In the case of the Trinity, we throw the gates of Chalcedon and Nicea wide open, and invite Sibellius and company (who taught that Father, Son and Spirit were manifestations of a divine monad, rather than distinct persons in the unity of the Godhead) back into the fold. Persons have names. Ideas have metaphorical descriptors. That was the problem with the Trinity paper.

wrote on March 09, 2007

Title: USAF Chaplain In reading Mr. Hooker's essay and the responses, I find it striking that the division in the Presbyterian church is written as if it were not the norm. The ordination/acceptance of gays and lesbians seems to be the issue of our generation. But Presbyterians have been fighting over something in almost every generation (see Bradley Longfield's 'The Presbyterian Controversy' for a fascinating look at how we were fighting in the early 20th century and even before). The question is not whether we see ourselves as one church. The question, I think, is if we ever did. But I know this - when the Presbyterian Church did make a difference in our society are the times when we focused on sharing, spreading, and living God's Word instead of arguing amongst one another over our differences. Some will surely go in this latest conflict. But I hope we move beyond it and the PC(USA) does not let those on the ends of the right/left spectrum define our dialogue for the next fifty years. In Christ, Tom Paine

wrote on March 09, 2007

Title: ... Paul Hooker's comment #4 about the PUP report is exactly correct. The PUP report does NOT allow presbyteries/sessions to ignore our denominational ordination standards. It does NOT allow for ordination of officers actively involved in extramarital affairs or any sexual relationships outside of marriage. People can disagree with G-6.06016b all they want, but governing bodies still do not have permission to ordain people who refuse to abide by it. The passage of PUP does not give governing bodies the right to ignore disobedience to the constitution. Clark Cowden Evangelist Presbyter/Stated Clerk Presytery of San Joaquin Visalia, CA

wrote on March 06, 2007

Title: ... Where to begin? Mr. Hooker is wrong in so many different ways. He says "There are not 'opposing churches' in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). To suggest otherwise is intentionally to exacerbate the division among us by creating the impression that there is a 'right' church and a 'wrong' church within the denomination, and that withdrawing only recognizes de jure separate churches that already exist de facto." Really? No division, either de facto or de jure? The NWAC Report simply and intentionally "exacerbate the division among us?" A nice choice of words, that. Note that he did not say that NWAC created division, nor did he accuse us of fomenting division. He certainly did not deny the division exists. No, he just pronounces that it is NWAC which is "exacerbate[ing] the division among us." Look at the definition of "exacerbate: to increase the severity, violence, or bitterness of; to aggravate." Thus, by definition, he admits that there is a division, that there are opposing churches within the PC(USA), and the division is widening. Of course, in his world, it is the evangelicals who make up the NWAC that are the dividers. If only we would learn to open our Bibles and "listen for (not 'to') the word of God," all would be just fine. It is probably in there somewhere, if we just look and listen hard enough. But to declare that we believe Scripture, all Scripture, to be the word of God, that's divisive and we are increasing the severity of the division by so asserting. If only those pesky evangelicals in the NWAC would agree that Christ's miracles are just metaphors, as Rick Ufford-Chase preached in the last year or so, everything would be hunky-dory. The "miracle" of the loaves and fishes was, according to Mr. Ufford-Chase, just the fore-runner of that Presbyterian staple, the pot luck supper. By insisting that Christ actually performed a miracle, those evangelicals in the NWAC are increasing the violence of the division It is only those pesky evangelicals in the NWAC who are aggravating the division? Really? Outlook recently reported that the national board of That All May Freely Serve has named Lisa Larges to the position of Minister-Coordinator. "Lisa is the right person for us at this time," said Mary Rees, co-moderator of the TAMFS board, "As we work toward the removal of G-6.0106B at the 218th General Assembly in 2008, continue our work to nurture the leadership of youth and seminarians, provide spiritual care for Presbyterians who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender, and strengthen our witness for creating a church that welcomes ALL persons, Lisa's gifts, skills, and connection with our regions and the broader church will be invaluable in helping us reach these goals." There it is. "As we work toward the removal of G-6.0106B at the 218th General Assembly in 2008 . . .." For a decade now, we have suffered repeated attempts to amend the Book of Order (or to adopt a de facto amendment in the form of an AI) to replace a Scriptural ordination standard with one of the world. And it is not going to stop. But it is those pesky New Wineskinners who are exacerbating the situation. He goes on to say "We may not agree, even about vital matters, but that is not equivalent to making the claim that we are two churches living in the same denominational house." Really? Disagreement about "vital matters" (dare I say "essential tenets"?) is not enough to warrant realignment? What more will it take for him to admit that we are two churches living in the same denominational house? He next says "Rather, there is one church, and all of us, including the elders and members of each particular congregation, have a say in what that church does. As long as any session sends commissioners to presbytery or expects the attention of presbytery to matters of concern, it affirms that truth, whether it agrees with it or not." Wow, Louisville has a convert. Mr. Hooker agrees with the unifying, pastoral Louisville Papers that the PC(USA) is the true church. The rest of those heathens, the Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists, had better get right with God and exchange their bishops for presbyteries. Wait. Never mind. According to the non-divisive Louisville Papers, it is we who must recognize that the presbyteries are actually our "bishops." And as for those Congregationalists, Baptists and independents, and every other denomination using the word "Presbyterian" in their name, it is time to bow and kiss Louisville's ring. Having settled the question of which side of the divide is righteous and which is divisive, he raise a couple of particular complaints. Citing to his source, he says ' 'PUP allows presbyteries/sessions to ignore our denominational ordination standards on a case-by-case basis.... This new wording allows for the ordination or continued ordination of pastors, elders, and deacons actively involved in extramarital affairs and for singles engaged in sexual relationships outside of a marital covenant' (paragraphs 5-6): This is simply untrue. In point of fact, no one can ignore the denominational standards for ordination, least of all sessions and presbyteries. The much-ballyhooed provision for 'scrupling' permits one to declare disagreements of conscience with one or more aspects of Reformed faith and polity, but it does not permit an ordaining body to ignore declarations of refusal to abide by that polity." So what about the presbytery that recently took under care a self-avowed, unrepentant homosexual who seeks ultimately to be ordained a Minister of the Word and Sacrament? He was one of the authors of the PUP Report and was quoted as saying that PUP made it possible for him to seek ordination. No, Mr. Hooker, your protestations ring hollow. That old dog won't hunt. Finally, Mr. Hooker establishes himself as one who is reformed, always reforming. Unfortunately, what he wants to reform--more accurately, recreate--is history. He says, "In point of fact, the principle of conscientious objection to aspects of the Constitution goes back to the Adopting Act of 1729. The Act prevented the dissolution of the first Synod by permitting ministers to declare "scruples" regarding one or another provision of the Westminster Confession or Catechisms, provided that the scruple be "only about articles not essential and necessary in doctrine, worship, or government." But the Adopting Act and its allowance of scruples was very limited. It allowed a declaration of a scruple only with respect to Chapters 20 and 23 of the Westminster Confession of Faith, which permitted civil magistrates to be arbiters in theological disputes. In 1736, the highest governing body of the nascent American presbyterian church reaffirmed that scruples were permitted only for chapters 20 and 23. I doubt that any of the signatories of the Adopting Act ever envisioned that a scruple would be permitted to allow ordination of one of TAMFS's constituents. The bottom line is this: apologists for an increasingly authoritative, bureaucratic, worldly, politically correct denomination are free to act as they see fit. As the Strategy Report makes clear, one faithful option is to stay in the PC(USA). Those who stay will be in our thoughts and prayers. They may stay and tolerate the PC(USA)'s apostasy, they may stay and pray for a miracle (the kind that the leadership denies ever happened) that reforms and renews the PC(USA), or they may simply retreat within the walls of their respective churches until the long arm of Louisville, empowered by an amended Book of Order, reaches in takes over. We all have free will which we are expected to exercise as we are led. All that NWAC asks is the same courtesy, for leaving an apostate PC(USA) is also a faithful option. As Moses said to Pharoah on the Nile, so should those who are called to do so say to Pharoah on the Ohio: "Let my people go." The views expressed herein are solely those of the author. They do not, nor are they intended to, necessarily express the views of either the New Wineskins Association of Churches nor of the Session or Congregation of Forks of the Brandywine Presbyterian Church. Mac Michael R. McCarty Elder-member, NWAC Strategy Team Elder, Forks of the Brandywine Presbyterian Church Glenmoore, PA

wrote on March 05, 2007

Title: Elder, Nassau Pres It looks like the eye is still telling the hand, 'I have no need of you.' In 2000 years, neither Paul nor we have been able to convince these Body parts otherwise. Why are we surprised when so many people declare to Christianity, 'I have no need of you'? After all, they certainly know us by our actions.

wrote on March 05, 2007

Title: First Presbyterian Church, Cuero, Texas Boy am I glad that I read this article! After going to the New Wineskins Convocation and feeiling the impact of the Holy Spirit's movement for reform and after years of thinking that our denomination might be in real trouble, I'm glad to find out that the New Wineskins were just making it all up out of thin air! I guesss there's no problem after all. It was all just a bad dream. I guess those 50,000 members leaving were just a rumor started by the Layman or something. Sleeping easier tonight, Toby Brown

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