Monthly Archives: January 2007

Moderator designate for Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) Announced

Leave a reply

The Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) has announced that the Rev. Maurice Roberts is the moderator designate for the 2007 General Assembly.  A news article on the Christian Today web site details Rev. Roberts biography and involvement in the church.  Among the highlights are his present service in a parish in Inverness and his conversion to Christianity in 1957.  In addition he teaches Greek and New Testament at the Free Church Seminary.  His first college degree is a BA from Durhan in Classical Languages and Literature.

Separatist Evangelicals – Update

Leave a reply

Well, Perspectives must be getting heat for the article on Presbyterians and Separatist Evangelicals because the editor, Sharon K. Youngs, has posted a note on the web site indicating that the e-zine is about people’s perspectives, the article is the perspective of the author, the Rev. R. Milton Winter, and next month there will be an alternate viewpoint on the discussion.

As I have stated in this blog before, I have no objection to intellectual discussion and a recognition that we as Presbyterians are good at it and should pride ourselves on it.  However, the way that we sometimes do it, like the present example, does not always put us in the best and most helpful light for the people who are not as familiar with this intellectual exercise.

Separatist Evangelicals

1 Reply

Every now and again I post some pure commentary on how I see the PC(USA) leadership disconnected from the broader church. (For a couple of previous comments there is September 4, October 11, or October 31.)  Well, as I ponder the latest article out of Louisville, “Presbyterians and Separatist Evangelicals: A Continuing  Dilemma” by R. Milton Winter and published in Perspectives, I once again have to wonder “What are they thinking in the Office of the General Assembly?”  So here are some brief comments, and I apologize if this turns into a rant.

I remain puzzled by why the people in the Office of the General Assembly continue making it more difficult for those of us working locally.  I am a leader in a presbytery and the “Louisville Papers” were a controversy that we needed to get past.  Those were legal memos intended for internal use by a bunch of lawyers so with time that blew over.  The 9/11 conspiracy book was not a big issue here.  That was written by a Methodist at a Methodist seminary in our part of the world so to have something like that come out of there was not a surprise.  But now there is a published article, directly from the OGA, using a divisive title like “Presbyterians and Separatist Evangelicals.”  This title implies that anyone who wants to leave is not a faithful Presbyterian.  At a time when many of us are working hard with congregations, presbyteries and in our synods to keep everyone at the table, having the OGA endorse an article with this title is not helpful.  Could I go as far as to say that it does not help us in our work to preserve the Peace, Unity and Purity of the church.  I am awaiting the local fall-out.

Thanks for reading.  Now back to our regularly scheduled information.  I’ll comment on the content of that article early next week.

What is an Evangelical?

1 Reply

This discussion is a bit periphery to the usual focus of this blog, but the term “evangelical” is being used regularly at the present time, including a new article published by the PC(USA) OGA, so I decided to make some comments and reference some recent internet items.

This month the PC(USA)’s Office of the General Assembly (OGA) has published in their on-line newsletter Perspectives an article by R. Milton Winter titled “Presbyterians and Separatist Evangelicals:  A Continuing Dilemma.”  [This is a 32 page PDF file which I have only skimmed.  I will post some comments on it early next week after I have a chance to read it this weekend.  However, I suspect that the title alone will raise the blood pressure of many Presbyterians reminding them of the labeling of the opposing faction recommended in the OGA’s legal memos the Layman refers to as the “Louisville Papers.”]

We are also currently seeing the use of the word evangelical in the movement of churches from the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church.  The online edition of USA Today has an article today entitled “Evangelical:  Can the E-word be saved?” which references an October Christianity Today Editorial entitled “Save the E-word.”  And last week the Barna Group released a survey on “Who qualifies as an evangelical.”  But more on that later.  I would also point out that the Witherspoon Society, in responding to the USA Today article, has invited an on-line discussion about who can claim the title, including progressives.

The point is that right now the term has become fluid and has sometimes been used as a badge of pride and sometimes a label to stigmatize.  It is being used in some cases as a synonym, or euphemism, for “conservative,” (although there are “social evangelicals” like Jim Wallace and Ron Sider among progressives) and it is probably being overused so that the word is losing its particular distinctives.  Of course in Europe, particularly Germany, it is synonymous with what the American’s call the Lutheran Church.

First some definitions:
From a purely etymological perspective, it is derived from the Scriptural Greek for good news or announcing good news.

As for traditional definitions, they usually involve spreading the Gospel, a personal relationship with Jesus, and maybe a conversion experience. (cf. definitions from Google) While this usually has been associated with a conservative view of faith, the formal definitions are neutral on social or political viewpoint.  From my skimming through the Perspectives article it has an interesting discussion of its author’s viewpoint of the history and evolution of the term in American Christianity.

This brings us back to the new Barna report.  In the study on which the report is based, they do not use whether an individual is self-defined as evangelical or being “born-again.”  Instead they have nine criteria that define an evangelical.  These nine points include an individual commitment and personal relationship to Jesus that is on-going and acceptance of the Bible as accurate.  The other seven criteria are more clearly defined doctrine, like salvation by grace and not works, the existence of Satan, the sinless nature of Jesus’ life, etc.  According to Barna, about one third of the population will self-identify themselves as evangelicals while the percentage that meet their nine point criteria is in single digits.  The Barna article says that they got these nine criteria two decades ago from a belief statement of the National Association of Evangelicals.  I have not found that particular statement yet, but the NAE web site has their current Statement of Faith that you need to subscribe to for membership.  So I guess the NAE over twenty years ago set the definition of an evangelical.

For the criteria on relationship and Biblical accuracy, what does Barna mean by these two points?  We are at a disadvantage since in their survey the Barna Group may have been much more specific in the questions they asked and they only summarized them for the article.  But, at least in my mind there is some flexibility in how I could interpret them as expressed in the article.

When you look at the commitment and personal relationship, does this mean a specific conversion experience, the typical “born-again” moment, or does a general life-long faithfulness of those of us who grew up in Christian homes count, especially if we can not put a finger on a point where we first accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.  The current NAE Statement of Faith is not helpful here since since there is no clear point addressing this.  There is the point that “We believe that for the salvation of lost and sinful people, regeneration by the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential” which could come close.  (As a note, the existence of Satan is not included in the current Statement of Faith either.)

Concerning the accuracy of the Bible, the NAE does help here: “We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.”  But how closely does one need to believe the Bible to be an evangelical by either the Barna or NAE definition?  Is everything in the Bible absolutely and totally accurately correct?  While there is dispute over whether the world was created in six days or 4.5 Billion years and great effort is put into reconciling apparent contradictions between the Gospels or differences in the accounts of an event between two different Old Testament books or the P and J versions, let me ask a different question:  To how many decimal places should we consider the Bible accurate?  Consider I Kings 7:23 talking about Solomon ordering the furnishings in the Temple:

23 He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it.

If the Sea was circular in shape it is pretty clear that the diameter is ten cubits and the circumference is thirty cubits.  Based upon basic geometry this gives a value of the constant Pi=3 while if the more accurate value of Pi=3.14 is used the line around it should have been closer to 31 1/2 cubits.  So, if I have a problem with one of these numbers does that mean that I don’t accept the accuracy of the Bible and am disqualified as an evangelical even if I fulfill the other eight or six criteria?

Well, this may be a bit of an absurd example, but my point is that depending on how the question is asked or how the point in the Statement of Faith is phrased you will get varying degrees of qualification.  While I have never been contacted by the Barna Group I have been a subject in other surveys where general questions are asked and when I ask for clarification the caller just tells me to answer as I understand the question.

S
o, what or who is an Evangelical?  No surprise, it depends on who you ask.  Most people today don’t know that there was a very specific definition of “fundamentalist;”  it was someone who subscribed to the doctrines in the series of books The Fundamentals. (Although I know this is not news to my knowledgeable readers.)  However, in the case of “evangelical” there is no clear cut history and probably the best definition was a self-description by the NAE.  A bit circular?

Well, personally, I would tend to consider a person to be an evangelical if they tended towards the Barna or NAE description, with the understanding that not everyone sees the statements in exactly the same way.  Not exactly scruples, but a bit of wiggle-room for interpretation.  And when it comes right down to it, I guess I mostly like the most basic version, someone who announces the good news of the Gospel.

New PC(USA) Advisory Opinion on Honorably Retired Ministers and Validated Ministry

Leave a reply

The Office of the General Assembly has issued a new Advisory Opinion:  Advisory Opinion #20 – Honorably Retired Ministers.

The opinion has three parts: 
The first part is titled “Retired ministers are a valuable resource to the presbyteries of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.),” a sentiment I could not agree with more.  The paper mentions having them serve as parish associate, pulpit supply, or temporary pastor.  In my presbytery they also regularly serve as part-time interim pastors and as consultants or advisers for particular congregations, under the guidance of presbytery committees, particularly COM. (COM: Committee on Ministry)

The second part is about “Retired ministers may not continue or return to serve in the same congregation from which they retired.”  No surprises here.  This section draws from the PC(USA) Standards of Ethical Conduct.

Finally, the last section is titled “Retired ministers are not required to undertake ministry, but if they choose to do so, that ministry must be validated by the presbytery of membership.”  This took me back a bit on first reading since in our presbytery we are fond of saying “Honorably Retired is a validated ministry,” a phrase taken from our stated clerk.  But on second reading, and a little bit of refresher in the Book of Order, this third section does align with my understanding and the practice of our COM, at least while I have been on it.  The first problem was our usage of the term “validated ministry.”  In my presbytery that has come to mean any ministry outside the jurisdiction of the PC(USA) that we have to work through the five criteria of G-11.0403 to approve.  However, it is clear from the usage in G-11.0406a that even parish and governing body service is referred to as validated ministry.  So it is just that in those cases the criteria are clear.  After thinking about this section a bit, I am comfortable with the Advisory Opinion and that my presbytery’s practice is pretty much in line with it.  Honorably retired ministers that work in a church are approved (validated) by the COM. (Frequently they are invited by the COM.)  I don’t remember validating a ministry outside the jurisdiction of the church for an HR, but I can’t think of anyone who is engaged in that.  And HR’s need to submit an annual report just as all other ministers do, so there is presbytery supervision, or at least accountability, of even occasional work.  And maybe the having a paragraph in our validation of ministry policy about where the occasional ends and the need for validation begins is not a bad idea.

More from the PHEWA Conference

Leave a reply

The PC(USA) news service has issued two additional news stories from the Presbyterian Health, Education and Welfare Association’s 2007 Biennial Social Justice Conference.  I had previously posted on the difference in coverage of the conference between the PCUSA news service and the Layman Online.

The first PC(USA) article is on the Rev. George and Kathy Todd receiving the John Park Lee Award.

The second news service article titled “Giving it all away” is about the Rev. Robert Linthicum’s talk.  It is similar to the Layman article but emphasizing slightly different points and including a variety of other details.  His talk sounds interesting, particularly the part about change coming from the inside and those of us on the outside who try to go into a church to “save” it will probably meet with limited success.

New Wineskins Strategy Report

Leave a reply

Well, no sooner do I post my comments on waiting than a couple of hours later the New Wineskins Association of Churches (NWAC) issues their Strategy Report for their Winter Convocation next month.  The Strategy Report is available as a 155 page PDF document from the New Wineskins site. After taking a day to look it over here are my observations and comments.

Of those 155 pages, only the first 33 are report content and the remainder are “Exhibits” which I will discuss in a minute.  The report has five recommendations for the NWAC convocation to consider.

In the transmittal letter, the “Strategy Team” says they began with the question “What is the heart of the issue with the PC(USA)?”  Their conclusion is that the PC(USA) has drifted away from orthodox Reformed Christianity which culminated with the 2006 GA not repudiating the Trinity Report and adopting the report of the Theological Task Force.  As the report says: “These actions were the culmination of nearly eighty-five years of debate concerning Biblically faithful doctrine (orthodoxy) and practice (orthopraxy).”  The report goes on to comment on the current state of the PC(USA):

The PC(USA) has now embraced a de facto confessional position which encourages the worship of a god unknown in the Scriptures, a god of man’s own making whose names appeal to the sensibilities of contemporary philosophy, politics and a culture that asks the Church to validate rather than redeem that culture. It also adopted an authoritative interpretation of the Book of Order that, while affirming the existence of standards for ordination, takes the step of making the enforcement of those standards optional on the local level. This new reality allows local judicatories to determine that such departure from revealed truth is a “non-essential” for ordination.

The PC(USA) now allows ministers of the Word and Sacrament, ruling elders, deacons, and by logical extension church members, to embrace beliefs that are inconsistent with the clear teaching of the Scriptures and the doctrines from our own Book of Confessions. We now believe that the PC(USA) has eroded Reformed orthodoxy and Presbyterian practice to a point where the collective conscience of many no longer allows us to remain aligned with this thinking. This report proposes new ways to minister with faithfulness to the Gospel both inside and outside the PC(USA).

The main body of the report discusses how the churches are called to “A New Thing” (yes, you can easily guess that the report draws thematically from Isaiah 43 as many redesign processes seem to these days) with that new thing being a call to become a clearly “Missional Church.”  The “New Thing” is necessary because in the PC(USA) the churches and the denomination have lost their theological identity.  To accomplish this the report, in Chapter III, lays out “The Plan.”  In summary it is:

The Plan we are prayerfully called to endorse is a realignment by NWAC churches with the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC) to fulfill our vision of becoming a missional force for Jesus. Initially, NWAC churches will be received into a non-geographic transitional presbytery (NWEPC) of the EPC. We will immediately begin working as partners with the EPC leadership to develop a more missionally faithful new thing.

This proposed alignment includes:  A NWAC presbytery in the EPC that will have the full normal authority of a presbytery, including the ability to ordain, receive, install and dismiss pastors and plant churches.  The ministers however, must “affirm without reservation” the EPC confessional and doctrinal standards.  This presbytery and the rest of the current EPC will establish a commission, if the EPC GA approves, that will look at how to structure the EPC as a missional church.  Also, the EPC is absolved of responsibility for legal disputes that arise from a NWAC church leaving the PC(USA) and a NWAC church need not go through the NWEPC presbytery but may join the EPC directly if they so chose.  The NWEPC will be a transitional structure to be removed by 2012 at the latest.

To their credit, the Strategy Team acknowledges staying with the PC(USA) is a faithful option as well although they argue against it saying that the denomination will only get worse.  The report says that what is already a dying branch of the Reformed Church will become even more theologically unorthodox by the departure of its evangelical congregations.  But each congregation must make its own decision.

So, the five recommendations are: 1) Implement the plan.  2) Enter into relationship/discussion with the EPC as a body.  3) Those churches called to leave, do so.  4) Those churches that are still discerning God’s will continue to study faithfully.  5)  Those churches called to stay in the PC(USA) continue to be a faithful witness there.

Now, the rest of the story…
The exhibits section of the report takes up, as I have already noted, almost 3/4 of the report.  The first group of exhibits are educational resource materials gathered from a variety of sources including published articles and information sheets for congregations.  The second group are entitled “Legal Action Plan Documents” and are a set of documents providing assistance, maybe a complete road map, to handle the legal issues of leaving the PC(USA), mostly related to property.  The third group are denomination relations resources, mostly documents from the PC(USA) headquarters including the “Louisville Papers.”  And finally, there are sample overtures and letters.

So, some comments…
Well, the NWAC has now presented their side of the news that they have been talking with the EPC and from both sides it is apparent that the talks were fairly extensive.  There is also in the report, on page 9 following the Executive Summary, a great chart  showing a comparison of churches in the PC(USA), NWAC, EPC and PCA including theological and social stands.  The point of the chart, while being extremely informative, appears to be to show that the EPC is the logical body to affiliate with.  No argument from me there.  But with 148 NWAC churches and 180 EPC churches, if all transfer over to the EPC it will nearly double the size of the denomination.  However, it will still be far behind the PCA with 1300 congregations.

And finally, in discussing this transfer with a good friend of mine who is an evangelical PC(USA) minister, he mentioned that he might have problems affirming the Westminster Standards without reservation, primarily for Chapter 21, Section 8 that reads:

8. This Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due
preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs
beforehand, do not only observe an holy rest, all the day, from their
own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments and
recreations, but also are taken up, the whole time, in the public and
private exercises of his worship, and in the duties of necessity and
mercy. (emphasis mine)

Does this preclude watching the Super Bowl or World Cup games on Sunday?

Watching and waiting – Coming attractions

Leave a reply

Greetings,

No, I have not fallen off the face of the earth.  But over the holidays it has been fairly slow with the hard news in the little niche I’m interested in so I have just taken the advice of Mark 13:37 – “What I say to you, I say to everyone: ‘Watch!’ “

What are we waiting and watching for?  There are at least four big events on the horizon.

There has been a bit of recent news:  The PC(USA) Presbyterian Health, Education and Welfare Association met this past weekend in New Orleans for the 2007 “Social Justice Biennial Conference.”  I found it interesting how much discussion there seemed to be at a social sustice meeting about the future of the denomination.  The PC(USA) news service has an article written at the beginning of the conference about the conference and comments by Bill Quigley, director of the law clinic and the Gillis Long Poverty Law Center at Loyola University of New Orleans.  The Layman Online covered the meeting and they have posted several articles about the conference on their news page.  The coverage of conference speakers includes the comments by PC(USA) Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick, comments about the PC(USA) having to face reality by the Rev. Curtis A. Kearns, Jr., General Assembly Council Executive Administrator, and two articles about comments by the Rev. Robert Linthicum, a para-church consultant, one on transformation and the other on church mission structure.