“We Are Presbyterian” And “We Are PC(USA)”

Yesterday was the anniversary of the birth of Ebenezer Erskine in 1680. He would become a respected figure in the Church of Scotland but later in his life he had a disagreement with the Kirk leading him to renounce jurisdiction and help lead a group that would secede and form the Associate Presbytery in 1733.  This was the second division in the Church of Scotland, the Covenanters having divided from the established church a bit earlier.

So where am I going with this?  The point is that even in the earliest days of American Presbyterianism to say that you were a Presbyterian did not necessarily mean the same thing to everyone.  At a minimum, and this is simplifying things a bit, there was a tradition from the established church that would become the mainline, but also the Covenanters of the Reformed line and the Seceders of the Associate line.  And I probably don’t need to tell you that over the last three centuries the complexity has increased and not decreased.  (As a physicist I could point to increasing entropy, but that is not the purpose of today’s post.)

Yesterday also saw the launch of a new project led by the Rev. Bruce Reyes-Chow, Moderator of the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). I was glad to see it launched because there has been some build-up to it around the Internet and I was interested to see what would come of it.  One thing I was particularly interested in was the different names for the project and how that would affect the focus.  For example, the Twitter account has the handle @WeArePCUSA but the long description is titled “We Are Presbyterian.”  If you go to the launch site the title is also “We are Presbyterian” yet in the narrative below it refers to the videos coming from a “diverse group of folks from across the Presbyterian Church (USA).”

Maybe I am being too picky here. Am I just splitting hairs with this one? As I spend my free time blogging on global Presbyterianism I am well aware that the PC(USA) is just one local manifestation of this broad and diverse ecclesiastical form. Having watched these videos the We Are PC(USA) title is very applicable, but remember this is one small slice of a bigger fellowship.

OK, soapbox mode off…

In these 16 locally-produced videos submitted to Bruce and his crew we have a great representation of the PC(USA).  If you have a spare hour I would suggest watching them. In the ones featuring individuals, each person comes across as speaking from the heart about their church and their vision and passion for it. The group ones are also interesting, particularly to listen to the individuals and where they agree and where they have different perspectives.

Bruce issued an open invitation to submit videos (with a video invite as well) and asked that they answer five questions:

  1. Who are you and how are you connected to the PC(USA)?
  2. What about the PC(USA) are you most thankful for?
  3. What about the PC(USA) are you most disappointed in?
  4. What do you believe that God is calling us to be in the next five years?
  5. What is one ministry, organization or hope that we should pray for today?

It is interesting that about half of the things mentioned regarding the second question could apply to Presbyterianism in general and are not specific to the denomination: connectional system, joint governance on the boards of the church, confessional nature of our faith, priesthood of all believers.  Likewise, the third question had some more general responses as well: could do better with racial ethnic diversity, need to do better with youth and young adults.

I was also impressed that the spectrum of viewpoints were represented, but while the full spectrum of the theological diversity in the PC(USA) was represented in these videos, progressive viewpoints were more likely to be presented.  In particular, several presenters specifically mentioned that they were thankful for the increased inclusivity in the denomination from the passage of Amendment 10-A.  On the other hand, several of the videos stayed completely away from the polarizing issues in the church and spoke of other bigger-picture issues without having an explicit leaning left or right. And some of the videos did not answer the questions at all and one is almost half promotional for a group. But all-in-all an interesting hour of watching.

Bruce has also scaled back his plans for this project which was originally to be focused on an Internet marathon of sorts. Now he has posted the videos and is considering how much time and energy he has for another phase of the project.

Personally, I may post my own “Why I am Presbyterian” two-part blog post later in the Summer.  Two months ago I finished up a post with my conviction that if we prefer the Presbyterian form of church government we need to let people know why. Having issued that challenge I have now outlined my response and within the next month or two hope to have it ready for prime time.  But don’t expect anything focused on one particular branch – I do intend to make it a “We Are Presbyterian” presentation in the broadest sense of the word.

3 thoughts on ““We Are Presbyterian” And “We Are PC(USA)”

  1. Colin Carmichael

    No, I don’t think you’re splitting hairs here – it’s an important distinction to make. There is a difference between “We Are Presbyterian” and “We Are PC(USA)”. The former implies ALL Presbyterians (including those of us across your northern border) while the latter is exclusive to a single “version” of Presbyterianism. This isn’t to say that a “We Are PC(USA)” campaign isn’t valuable. I think it IS important to understand, or at least explore, why a Presbyterian identifies with PC(USA) but not EPC or PCA, etc.

    I mentioned this in the comments on Bruce’s blog, but it’s worth sharing here as well: the YARs of the 137th GA of the PCC produced a video during Assembly that fits nicely with the “We Are” campaign – even thought it doesn’t exactly answer the questions. It can be found here and is worth the few minutes:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A1jwNblsSk

    Reply
  2. Steve Salyards

    Thanks Colin.

    I have not done my GA reviews yet, but as usual I enjoyed the YAR’s report at the PCC GA.  And I had not thought about it fitting in, but yes, their video would be a contribution of sorts to this “We Are” campaign.  Thanks for providing the link.

    Reply
  3. RevK

    Thank you for mentioning Ebenezer Erskine! He has been long forgotten by many Presbyterians, but not among the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (ARP) who are still very active here in the United States!

    On another note: Acts 14:4 “But the people of the city were divided; some sided with the Jews and some with the apostles.”

    Divisions are the stream of history. The important task is to identify with and navigate the right stream. In time, some of those streams come back together; but there is always a day to “make a decision” about where God is leading His people. I pray that many who sense “a leading” might inquire into the stream known as the ARP. Thanks,

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *