Category Archives: NWAC

More reaction to the New Wineskins Convocation

Leave a reply

Since the New Wineskins Association of Churches Convocation about a month ago now I have commented on the response from other bloggers as well as the articles from the Network of Presbyterian Women in Leadership about the role of women in leadership and the response it drew from the NWAC and the Witherspoon Society.  There have been some other comments, reports and analysis coming out that I’ll point to now.

The first official response was a follow-up letter from NWAC co-moderator Garrit Dawson.  In this letter he sets forth his summary of the convocation, the action taken, and a list of “what’s next.”

There was also official comment from Dr. Jeremiah, the State Clerk of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church who was part of the delegation the EPC sent to the convocation.  In his message Dr. Jeremiah emphasizes the global mission emphasis the two groups share.

There has not been official reaction from the PC(USA) to the NWAC Convocation.  It was covered in two articles from the PCUSA News Service (Feb. 9, Feb. 14) and mentioned in passing in the recently published interview with Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick.  There was also the letter from Rev. Kirkpatrick and General Assembly Council Executive Director Linda Valentine that came out before the Convocation that has the appearance of a preemptive strike.

The most recent comment is a series of articles posted on the Witherspoon Society web site that provide news and analysis of the gathering and the NWAC organization.  (From the frequent references to the Presbyterian Outlook article by Leslie Scanlon it would appear that none of these writers were at the convocation.  But neither was I.)

The first article by Gene TeSelle is a brief summary of the meeting and some brief analysis that includes the following:

When there is talk about withdrawal by anyone – right, left, or center – there will be at least the passing thought that it would be “good riddance.” But this is likely to be followed by the feeling that, no matter how much we disagree, we have grown accustomed to each other and may even like each other. Departure is always interpreted as a sign of failure – somewhere, somehow.

But let’s notice that departure to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church would not be to a group that is alienated from the PC(USA) to the extent of anathematizing it. The EPC is in communion with us. We might think of those who withdraw to it as being in a “holding tank,” an interim situation while they think things over. They might even decide to return to the PC(USA), especially if the EPC gets tangled up in debates over women’s ordination. When you think you’re escaping to a purer and more homogeneous communion, you may find that you are only increasing the number of disputes to be worried about.

The second article, also by Gene TeSelle, looks at the NWAC theological heritage and the church order that they have outlined.

The third article, “New Wineskins or Simply Whining?” is an opinion piece by John E. Harris.  In it he takes the NWAC to task for being a very small but vocal minority that is now concerned with ordination issues for women when they deny the same arguments for sexually-active homosexuals.

Finally, Berry Craig, a history teacher, has a commentary likening the NWAC transitioning to the EPC with the secession of the Confederate States.  He said that just as northerners had varying opinions in the 1860’s, so PC(USA) liberals are similarly split between “good riddance” and “the union must be preserved.”

So far I have seen a response to the Witherspoon articles from one person, Bill Crawford, who was at the NWAC Convocation.  Mr. Crawford’s comments can be found in his blog Bayou Christian in an entry titled “Feel the Love.”

A couple of comments of my own:
   When Mr. Harris talks about how small the NWAC minority is he uses a percentage of congregations in the PC(USA).  While I do not deny that the number is small, I suspect that the number of members is actually higher.  The membership numbers for NWAC are not published (that I know of) but I would suspect that the average NWAC church is larger than the average PC(USA) congregation.  I know it is for this corner of the world (Southern California).
   Second, Mr. Harris talks about the progressive organizations never advocating departure from the PC(USA). That to my knowledge is true, but I do know that high-profile progressive congregations have discussed it.
   Finally, several of these articles in the end seem to reduce this discussion to money.  That is, are the big churches trying to leverage or force governing bodies to do certain things under threat of losing giving, and the churches that are leaving wanting to take their property with them?

We will see what else gets published and posted in the coming weeks.

NWAC responds to the NPWL

Leave a reply

In my previous post I reported on three articles the Network of Presbyterian Women in Leadership (NPWL) posted on their web site discussing the transition of churches to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC) and their polity that ordination of women is a local option.  The New Wineskins Association of Churches (NWAC) has responded in their web log to the first two articles posted on the NPWL web site.  The entry, titled “Advancing Biblical Truth: Women in Leadership and the Proposed New Wineskins/EPC Transitional Presbytery“, begins with the statement that the NWAC:

The New Wineskins Constitution
makes no explicit distinction between men and women serving in roles of
leadership in the church, embracing the biblical declaration in
Galatians 3:28 that in Christ “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave
nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Women
have always been, continue to be, and will always be an integral part
of the New Thing that God is doing through the New Wineskins
Association of Churches (NWAC).

(If you followed the New Wineskins Winter Convocation you know that there was a question from the floor asking why the Strategy Team was all male.  The response was that no women had asked to be on it.)

Further on in the NWAC response where they discuss the Rev. Anita Miller Bell’s article about the glass ceiling for women in the PC(USA) there is an interesting observation that I had not previously thought about:

To Rev. Anita Bell’s credit, she admits that the experience of women pastors within the PCUSA has not been all it should be. However, both NPWL articles fail to examine underlying causes to the “glass ceiling” in the PCUSA other than a pastor’s gender. There are at least two other realities that should have been discussed. The first is the promotion of feminist and womanist theologies by the denomination. This has not helped orthodox and evangelical women pastors in finding a call. Pastor nominating committees are understandably concerned about the possibility of nominating a pastoral candidate and then later discovering the candidate does not uphold an orthodox or evangelical theology.

The NWAC  article goes on to discuss eight reasons that evangelical women pastors should consider moving to the EPC.  These include the fact that the NWAC will have its own transitional presbytery in the EPC where they will get to decide if women can be ordained and the fact that if you are an evangelical Presbyterian women looking for an alternative to the PC(USA) than the EPC is the only game in town.

The take on the PC(USA) to EPC transition from the Network of Presbyterian Women in Leadership

Leave a reply

The Network of Presbyterian Women in Leadership (NPWL) is posting a series of articles on the transition of churches from the PC(USA) to the EPC. The issue of course is that the ordination of women is not accepted across the EPC but is a “local option.”  As Becce Bettridge, the Director of NPWL, put it in the first article titled “Has Anyone Asked the Women“: “My question to the EPC is: Why would I want to be part of a church that overwhelmingly now views my leadership with suspicion?”

The second article in the series, “Where will the Women be Welcome,” by the Rev. Anita Miller Bell asks a broader question:  “Are ordained women treated as equals in the PC(USA)?”  She writes:

Yet, lest we become too judgmental of our brothers and sisters in the EPC and those who would join them, we must take a moment of honest self-reflection in our PCUSA fellowship.  Ordained women, especially those called to the ministry of Word and Sacrament, know full inclusion in the ministry life of the PCUSA in name only.  After 50 years, women still face the “glass ceiling” across the theological spectrum of the church.

 Her analysis of this situation is fascinating, at least to me, and I think it contains a great deal of truth.  She writes, in part:

This lukewarm embrace of women in ministry by the PCUSA and the “local option” approach of the EPC both find their roots in the original decision made by our denominations’ predecessor to ordain women to the ministry of Word and Sacrament 50 years ago. That decision, framed by postwar emphasis on human rights and democracy among mainline churches, has often been characterized as a “simple act of fairness”.   Our debate centered more on the social correctness of opening the door to women in ordained ministry than on the Biblical
witness of the essential nature of women’s ministry within the body of
Christ.

Such well-intentioned “social correctness” has not transformed the heart and mind of the church to embrace fully the leadership of the sisters in our midst.

She goes on to discuss the “Body of Christ” and how an individual’s gifts and talents are intended to be used for the building up of the body and how a person’s calling should not be a matter of fairness but a response to their place and role in the body.

There are presently three articles posted and in the third seminarian Janice Krouskop discusses her perspective on the transition and what it may mean for her call and career.

The EPC does have a Position Paper on the Ordination of Women where they say:

…while some churches may ordain women and some may decline to do so, neither position is essential to the existence of the church since people of good faith who equally love the Lord and hold to the infallibility of Scripture differ on this issue, and since uniformity of view and practice is not essential to the existence of the visible church, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church has chosen to leave this decision to the Spirit-guided consciences of particular congregations concerning the ordination of women as elders and deacons, and to the presbyteries concerning the ordination of women as ministers.

Now, a couple of comments where I’m about the stray into the more controversial and may raise the blood pressure of some of my readers…

Returning to the first NPWL article, it contains echoes of arguments that I regularly hear.  In one line  Ms. Bettridge asks: “Why would I want to be part of a church whose denominational culture does not view me as an equal partner in ministry, gifted and called to serve the Body of Christ?”

What caught my attention here is that this is essentially the same question that my friends and family who support the ordination of practicing homosexuals ask.  The progressives in the PC(USA) and other denominations see no difference between these two ordination questions.  If a person has been given these gifts for leadership by God, why should they not be ordained?  Does Rev. Anita Miller Bell’s argument apply here as well?  It is not a matter of fairness but a matter of gifts and call.  And appealing to scripture is not the clear-cut way out since we are all probably familiar with the exegetical arguments on all sides of both of these issues.  It comes down to how you read scripture and how you understand officers within the church.

Now, I do acknowledge that the two issues are different and I see differences in the scriptural support for the two issues.  But, the PCA and other conservative Presbyterian branches do not recognize either ordination, and the PC(USA) recognizes one and is arguing about the other. We need to be aware that for many people these two issues are linked and each of the NPWL articles could be quickly and easily rewritten to focus the same arguments on the issue of homosexual ordination.

My two cents worth from my background and experience.  Now back to our regularly scheduled politics.

New Wineskins Winter Convocation – Blog entries

Leave a reply

Well web sites are getting updated and the Layman Online was better at ferreting out blog entries than I was.  In addition to A Classical Presbyterian, which I followed, they also point to blog 137 by Dave Moody and John Foreman’s What is he thinking? (They also link to Noel Anderson’s Anderspeak but in that post I don’t see specific commentary on the work of the Convocation.) 

These posts, as well as Toby Brown’s all have similar descriptions of the event and discuss the gravity of the meeting and the decision:  A line has been crossed, there is no turning back, God is doing a new thing. 

One more I follow is Bill Crawford at Bayou Christian.  His latest was written before the vote in Orlando but clearly and concisely sets forth why he is in favor of leaving the PC(USA).

As I have said before, I personally don’t agree with this action at this time, but regarding this matter I am taking my approach from Gamaliel who said to the Sanhedrin in Acts 5:38,39

(38) Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. (39) But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.

New Wineskins Winter Convocation – Day 2

Leave a reply

Well, last Friday was the second and final day of the New Wineskins Winter Convocation and I have been surprised by how little information has come out about the meeting.  The best so far is Toby Brown’s post “Day Two: No Looking back” on his blog A Classical Presbyterian.  He recounts the standing vote to accept the recommendations of the Strategy Team Report (links still broken at the NWAC web site by the way) and the general Spirit-filled atmosphere of the meeting.  It is also interesting to read his reflections on the generally positive atmosphere of the meeting and the fact the those making the decision were well aware of the implications and were “counting the cost.”

I expect over the next few hours, as a new work week begins, that more will roll out.  We shall see how others interpret the meeting.  But for the moment, it appears that many of these churches will find a new spiritual home in the EPC.

More from the New Wineskins Convocation

Leave a reply

In the last hour or so the Layman Online has posted four stories from the NWAC Convocation in Orlando.  Two are about comments from the Evangelical Presbyterian Church representatives, one from the Moderator and one from the State Clerk.  Another article is about the speech from the keynote speaker Rev. Sameh Maurice a pastor in Cairo, Egypt.  Finally, there are the comments of Rev. Dr. Gerrit Dawson, one of the Co-Moderators of NWAC.

New Wineskins Winter Convocation

Leave a reply

The New Wineskins Association of Churches (NWAC) Winter Convocation began yesterday in Orlando, Florida.  The main text of these meetings has been “are we called to remain faithful within or apart from the PC(USA)?”  For this meeting the sub-text is whether the churches that feel called to leave the PC(USA) are called to transfer to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church.  This story developed in both the EPC and the Strategy Report that the New Wineskins Task Force prepared. (Note: The link to the Strategy Report is broken and it has apparently been removed or moved on the NWAC web site.  I will leave the link in the hope it returns and will fix it if I find the correct current link.)

At this time I have not found too much about the meeting that has been written.  Toby Brown of the blog “A Classical Presbyterian” is at the meeting and he reports on the good spirit and the power present in the convocation.  I don’t see anything yet about decisions at the business sessions but he is enthusiastic about the convocation’s business of worship, nurture, and prayer and promises much more after today’s session.

The PC(USA) has just issued a press release but as of this moment their news page does not list it.  (Their lead story is still the ecumenical gathering in Pasadena, CA, on Wednesday.)  The PC(USA) press release has gone out by e-mail and has already been picked up by the Worldwide Faith News.  I am a bit disappointed that Toya Richards Hill, the author of the piece, refers to churches at the New Wineskins Convocation as “dissident Presbyterians.”  It must be remembered that while many in the NWAC are considering leaving, there are still many, like Toby Brown, who are looking at remaining faithful in the PC(USA).  This is mentioned at the end of the article however.  Much of the article contains historical background and the EPC and Strategy Report news that I have discussed previously ( Strategy Report and EPC Transition plans).

I will post updates as more news becomes available.

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?