I am a veteran of all four New Wineskins Convocations. As a representative of the Office of Theology and Worship I attended the Visionary meeting in Minneapolis, the Angry meeting in Tulsa, the Legal meeting in Orlando, and the Moving On meeting in Sacramento. Dealing with New Wineskins Association of Churches (NWAC) puts me in an awkward place. I count some of the leaders and participants in New Wineskins as friends, but I work for the General Assembly Council and have a strong personal commitment to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). The past three years have taught me that the New Wineskins Association of Churches is right about many fundamental issues in the PC(USA), tragically wrong about others.

All Presbyterians who pay attention to national church events know that a number of NWAC congregations, including several very large congregations, are leaving the PC(USA) for the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, itself an offshoot of the PC(USA). What are we to make of their leaving? Are we an apostate church that deserves no loyalty? Are we an association of free congregations where leaving or staying have no particular meaning? Are we “the church” and the New Wineskins an organization of dangerous schismatics?

What are they right about?

In their first convocation, New Wineskins diagnosed what was wrong with the PC(USA). Clark Cowden, now executive presbyter of San Diego Presbytery, was invited to articulate a vision of what the church is called to be. Cowden suggested that Presbyterians dream of a denomination: that focuses work in a missional manner, building and strengthening local church ministry instead of hindering it or embarrassing congregations; that casts an inspiring vision for ministry — defines the core beliefs of our faith, is faithful to Jesus Christ and the Scriptures, focuses on transforming individuals and communities through the power of the Holy Spirit, and, shares the whole gospel with the whole person. Cowden further asserted that the structures that have defined the PC(USA) in recent decades are unable to realize this dream. Drawing on the work of “The Organizational Revolution” in The Presbyterian Presence series, Cowden contended that denominational structures change every forty years — and we are due. We are due because our current structures were designed to serve a very different church in a very different context. 

Most Presbyterians I have spoken with across the theological spectrum find Cowden’s dream compelling. He has not been associated with NWAC since that initial meeting; nonetheless, the initial vision he articulated has had staying power in NWAC.

NWAC is not alone in sensing that change is required and imminent. We can see a hint in the rethinking of governing bodies that is occurring in most of the presbyteries right now. We can see it in the attempt to move toward a “missional polity” in the Form of Government task force, and the push for new strategies for partnering with other congregations in close reach and across the sea. This vision is evident in spades in the Presbyterian Global Fellowship. We can see it in the considerable effort being made by Linda Valentine and Tom Taylor to make the General Assembly Council a more agile agency in the service of the PC(USA). 

If Presbyterians far and wide share basic convictions of the NWAC, why do so many within their ranks seek separation? Two arguments are set forth to justify the separation. 

The charges

The first argument is that a denomination is simply a human institution; it is not “church,” per se, so separation is simply a matter of changing “affiliation,” not schism. NWAC rightly raises the question of just what a denomination is.  We know that a congregation is church, and we know that the church universal is church, but what exactly is the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)? Few ecclesiological questions have less clarity than the question of denomination.  One of our pressing theological needs is a coherent account of denomination.

Some in the NWAC hold a very different position:  inter-congregational bonds are deeper than mere affiliation — separation is only justified when essential beliefs have been compromised.  Steeped in the Reformed tradition, they heed Calvin’s haunting words:  schism is sin. Thus they offer a quite different argument for separation: they must separate from the PC(USA) because it is apostate as the result of a liberalization of belief over the past decades. Despite the considerable work of renewal organizations, the denomination is beyond redemption. A new thing is required. 

Is the PC(USA) apostate?

Are they right? Has the national Presbyterian Church grown increasingly liberal? 

I do not think so. I know from my vantage point of a decade at 100 Witherspoon Street (may God have mercy on my soul!), the opposite is true. General Assembly statements of the past decade reflect traditional orthodoxy more than those produced by the assembly in the late 70s and 80s. Without casting undue aspersions on former staff, it is safe to say that the staff at 100 Witherspoon reflects more closely the beliefs of PC(USA) church members than did the more liberal-leaning staff of 20 years ago. 

As someone who works closely with General Assembly committees, I have seen first-hand that conservatives have done an increasingly good job of electing commissioners and organizing them at the assembly. The 2006 Assembly was the most “conservative” I have seen and the most effective at accomplishing the goals of the conservative wing of the church. After decades of work by pro-life forces, the 217th General Assembly passed a restriction on abortion; the Trinity report was only “received” not “approved”; and the PUP report was amended to ensure judicial review and only then received a 57/43 majority (I am sure a previous General Assembly would have approved it 80/20).

This reality is why I find the most elaborate form of this New Wineskins narrative so ironic. In “Broken Covenant:  Signs of a Shattered Communion” in the New Wineskins strategy report A Time for Every Purpose Under Heaven (newly available in book form), Parker Williamson recounts the precipitous decline of the Presbyterian Church as a matter of “history.”  Many of the incidents Williamson notes are indeed disturbing. But if it is a matter of “history,” why does he eschew the most basic building block of history in constructing his narrative: chronology? Williamson consistently tells his story out of chronological order and emphasizes earlier events while brushing off subsequent events that would mar the tale of decline from the halcyon days of Westminster-only to the corrupted liberalism of contemporary denominational life. 

If one pays attention to chronology, a different, more ambiguous story is told. This is a tale of course correction, almost like a sailboat in a heavy wind.  The PC(USA) often takes the right course. But sometimes the sailboat heads off course, but through skillful tacking returns to the proper one. No one can argue that the PC(USA) has not turned in the wrong direction more than once over the past decades. But the reality is that often the church has recognized this and made a course correction.

The clearest example of course correction is the Christology debates at the turn of this century.  In the fall of 2000 Dirk Ficca, executive director of the Council for a Parliament of the World’s Religions and a PC(USA) pastor, asked his famous question, “What’s the big deal about Jesus?” at a PC(USA) conference. The stark question caused many Presbyterians to wonder if the PC(USA) had ceased to confess Jesus as Lord. Responses from denominational leadership did not quell the growing firestorm. The 2001 General Assembly affirmed the Lordship of Christ, but the answer seemed weak and continued to raise questions about what Presbyterians believe about Jesus Christ. This much you will find in detail in Williamson’s account. What you will not read about in any detail whatsoever is the overwhelming response of the 2002 Assembly to approve “Hope in the Lord Jesus Christ” — a document that proclaims a thoroughly Reformed account of salvation in Christ. Reading only Williamson’s account, one would think that the church’s deliberation on Christology ended in 2001.  Williamson makes his argument in spite of history not because of it. This “history” is typical of the whole of Williamson’s argument — rhetorically powerful but consistently ahistorical.

NWAC is correct, there are real doctrinal divides in the PC(USA).  But this is not new — it has been an enduring reality. Many of the NWAC congregations have felt theologically disaffected for decades. Why leave now? Two factors contribute.

The psychology of scarcity

The past 25 years in the PC(USA) have seen a time of dwindling membership, dwindling congregations, and dwindling dollars (for many congregations and all governing bodies). Although the PC(USA) still has more than 10,000 congregations, millions of members, and vast financial resources, most congregations and the vast majority of governing bodies are experiencing the effects of scarcity. We are less than we were, our future is not secure, and it scares us. We make decisions based on a need to control the future and ensure our survival. 

Many in the NWAC, I believe, are feeling the ill effects of this psychology of scarcity. The governing bodies in which they participate feel more like an impediment to ministry than a boon to good ministry. As presbyteries sense more scarcity, their fingers grip all the more tightly on what they have now. I worry that some presbyteries, fearing the worst, may have alienated congregations. Conversely, some congregations, fearing that they are being drained by sister congregations and the presbytery, are clinging to “theirs,” making sure that everything is under their sole control.

The problem of decline

The PC(USA) is mired in a period of numerical and institutional decline.  Ironically, so are many of the NWAC congregations.  While some of the congregations in NWAC have been growing, a number have not. Perhaps they think that once freed from the shackles of the PC(USA) they will finally have the chance to grow as they should. It is discouraging when every mention of one’s tradition in the local papers is embarrassing; nonetheless, I cannot imagine that your average person who doesn’t know Jesus has avoided Presbyterian churches because of our internal squabbles or bad press. 

And we all must face the “dirty secret” that the prestige of being a Presbyterian has been as much based on cultural approbation as doctrinal fidelity. This goes for evangelical congregations in South Carolina as much as liberal congregations in upstate New York. Theology matters, but it is not entirely about theology.

It’s not all about theology?

The recent vote by the session of Covenant Church of Fort Myers to recommend that it be dismissed to the EPC is a good example of why the NWAC phenomenon is not only about theology. In a document distributed by the session to the congregation (and posted on its Web site), the session provides a rationale for their departure. They summarize where Covenant Church and the PC(USA) disagree by expressing that “many in the PC(USA) say things using traditional Christian words, but hold very different understandings and interpretations of what those words mean.” [http://www.covpcfm.com/SessionDocumentsForVote.pdf, 11/28/07] Not surprisingly, they use as an example the reception of the Trinity paper at the 2006 General Assembly. 

On this very same Web site they post the statement of faith of their new senior pastor and a preacher at the most recent NWAC Convocation. His statement uses Father, Son, and Holy Spirit language; nonetheless, any first-year seminary student ought to be able to identify his construction in terms of the ancient Trinitarian heresy modalism, “I believe we experience God in three unique, yet distinct ways. Through the Father, God establishes covenantal relationships with us. Through Jesus Christ, God reconciles us. Through the Holy Spirit, God guides and empowers us.” [http://www.covpcfm.com/ StephensBillAndrea.htm#Statement_of_Faith, 11/28/07]

It appears to me that the Covenant Church Session is not as concerned about the doctrine of the Trinity as they suggest in their rationale for leaving the PC (USA). Otherwise they would have recognized the problematic language in the faith statement of their own pastor. Now, I doubt Covenant Church’s pastor is a heretic. But I might recommend an earnest study of the first six pages of “The Trinity: God’s Love Overflowing,” to help him see his error. 

Where do we go?

We live in a church with a weak consensus on some matters of the faith. That should be a concern to us all.  While we are less liberal than we were twenty years ago, we also are mushier.  I do not hear many stories from presbyteries of candidates for ordination questioning the resurrection, the divinity of Jesus Christ, or the truthfulness of the Trinity. What I do hear are stories of candidates who articulate the faith in such an indefinite way that no one quite knows what they believe about any of these things. The 2006 GA’s adoption of the report of the Theological Task Force redresses that, calling for more rigor in the examination of ordination candidates. Many presbyteries have been putting it into practice, but sadly the NWAC’s original condemnation of that report seems to disallow any admission that it actually has been providing a needed course correction. 

Our lack of doctrinal clarity combined with pressure from the psychology of scarcity and the loss of prestige of mainline Presbyterianism have caused NWAC churches to decide that their continued affiliation is no longer a plus but a minus. Much like when members of a community decide that the neighborhood watch and community redevelopment are no longer worth the effort and move to the suburbs, many congregations of the NWAC no longer find the PC(USA) worth the effort to reform it, even if they could succeed.

We soon shall see if the NWAC congregations flourish in their new denominational reality. I have to admit that a carnal part of me wants to see the departing NWAC congregations fail as they liberate themselves from our bonds of fellowship. But this sentiment is indeed carnal, springing from my own sinful spite and is not worthy of my Savior. Thus I confess my sin and pray that each of them shine forth as beacons of the Gospel, drawing women and men to the person of Jesus Christ.  I pray in this manner for the Roman Catholic Church, so why not all the more for brothers and sisters so much closer in doctrine and relationship?

The issues NWAC raise are not going away. How shall we respond?

What we must not do is try to save the PC(USA) — institutional survival is not a worthy goal. The church, insofar as it follows its Lord, is in the business of giving its life away for the salvation of the world. If NWAC is right about anything, it is right that we Presbyterians must figure out how to be less stuck on ourselves and more focused on a world that needs Christ. This applies not only to Louisville, but also to governing bodies and congregations. We must become people so overwhelmed by the grace of God in Christ that we give to others in faithful defiance of our deeply ingrained sense of scarcity. This path will be painful, but the goal is worth it. 

I recently worshiped at Elmwood United Presbyterian Church in East Orange, N.J., and I was struck by their stewardship campaign theme verse: I will not offer to God that which costs me nothing (2 Sam. 24:24). Pastors, members, congregations, governing bodies, and seminaries in the PC(USA) must give that which costs us much, risking our very future, in order to live a life worthy of our calling.

Charles Wiley is Coordinator, Office of Theology and Worship of the General Assembly Council, PC(USA) in Louisville, Ky.