My previous post was just concerning the title of this article and what I consider the divisive nature of it in the present climate in the PC(USA). Having now read the full article a couple of times, here are some comments about the article itself…
Presbyterians and Separatist Evangelicals: A Continuing Dilemma
by Rev. R. Milton Winter, Pastor, First Presbyterian Church, Holly Springs Mississippi
published in Perspectives, On-line publication of the Office of the General Assembly, PC(USA)
January 2007
[Note: Between the time I downloaded my copy of the paper and the completion of writing this the on-line PDF file has changed. My reference to page numbers and content are to my original copy. It appears that in the version currently posted about one half page of additional content has been added to the section on page 21 titled “Gay Ordination.” Therefore, my page numbers beyond this may be slightly off with content possibly pushed onto the following page.]
On Friday, January 26, the editor of Perspectives, Sharon K. Youngs, added a note to the Perspectives web page indicating 1) That she had gotten a lot of reaction to this article and 2) That, as the name of the magazine implies, this is Rev. Winter’s personal opinion. Further, next month an article will be published from the opposite perspective. Well, it is now next month and the new edition of Perspectives is out with a quickly prepared Response and Invitation by the Rev. Winfield Casey Jones, pastor of First Presbyterian Church, Pearland, Texas.
Much of my concern about the original article is echoed by Rev. Jones. While the invitation for him to write the response included the request not to do a point-by-point rebuttal, he does answer several of the more general points, and with a knowledge of the literature on evangelicalism that I do not possess. In particular, Rev. Jones points out that Dr. Winter draws very heavily from a single source that is three decades old and was criticized even when it was published for its inaccuracies. Because of the short lead time he had to meet publishing deadlines, Rev. Jones’ article is brief and not as scholarly with all the footnotes, but still provides a valuable response to Dr. Winter’s original article.
It is also interesting to note that the Presbyterian Lay Committee on its Layman Online site has published an excerpt from Parker T. Williamson’s forthcoming book Broken Covenant: Signs of a Shattered Communion. This excerpt contains a great outline of the history of American Presbyterianism in the 20th Century from an evangelical viewpoint. While intended to compliment the New Wineskins Convocation beginning tomorrow, it also provides a timely alternative viewpoint on much of the historical background that Dr. Winter covers.
From my readings of Dr. Winter’s article I appreciate his opening with an account of his own experience growing up in the “Southern” Presbyterian church. I firmly believe that our personal experiences provide a filter through which we see the present situation in the PC(USA), and American Presbyterianism in general, today. The following comments and observations of mine are highly influenced by my extensive experience in both liberal and conservative PC(USA) churches. And while Rev. Jones avoided a point-by-point rebuttal, I will be addressing some specific points.
As I had previously commented the title implies a dichotomy: If you are a separatist evangelical you can not be a Presbyterian. This impression is validated in the paper and furthermore, this seems to be the central thesis of the paper as expressed in footnote 12:
12 It goes without saying that conservatives and evangelicals in their tens of thousands have happily subscribed to the Presbyterian form of government and that the Presbyterian church is entirely cordial to the membership of those who embrace its doctrines wholeheartedly. This paper takes issue only with those who hold an un-Presbyterian theology, namely “separatism,” and seek to exploit the church’s form of government to lead others away from the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). All of the smaller Presbyterian denominations founded in the 20th century have established membership in presbytery as a purely voluntary affiliation. That is, ministers and churches may leave at any time for reasons sufficient to themselves.
So clearly, in this paper if you are a separatist, you are not Presbyterian.
I have two general problems with this paper beyond the title and thesis. The first is that evangelicals are painted with a very broad brush. Rev. Jones addresses this in his response and I will let his comments about the paper grouping various lines of conservatives together stand as a better response than I could give.
My second problem is the way in which Dr. Winter criticizes various evangelical or conservative practice while similar activity on the liberal side goes unmentioned. In particular, on page 6 a discussion begins on “How evangelicals recognize fellow-believers.” While there is a valid comment about a tradition of “spiritual intuition” in some conservative lines that borders on gnosticism, Dr. Winter applies the broad brush and places most (all?) conservatives in this category, something that is not true in my experience.
The paper goes on to say:
Discernment of believers from unbelievers is achieved by recognition of accepted words and phrases, Bible translations, styles of prayer and praise, and the acknowledgment of common friends and institutions–as one observer has remarked–“a sort of tribalism by cliché”–what psychologists identify as “the language of a subculture.”
Dr. Winter does qualify this a bit at the end of the paragraph by saying:
All religious organizations are likely to develop a recognizable technical jargon, but not all organizations draw radical spiritual conclusions based upon the use of common “code words” or Bible translations.
Here is where my experience with both ends of the theological spectrum in the PC(USA) makes me strongly disagree with the one-sidedness of this characterization. There is a great deal of truth that conservatives have their technical jargon, their preferred Bible translations, styles of worship, and seminaries. But this is equally true of the liberal Presbyterians. Having served as a COM liaison to several pastor nominating committees I have read hundreds of “Personal Information Forms” (PIF’s) and seen the code words of both flavors. Also in that capacity I have helped churches see in their “Church Information Forms” (CIF’s) the jargon they have inadvertently used. I have sung the doxology to as many different words as I have melodies. There are churches where you are frowned upon for carrying an NRSV Bible and ones where you are frowned upon if you are not carrying one. You see a range of outward signs and symbols proudly worn at General Assembly from PRRMI crosses with doves to pink triangles and multi-colored ribbons. I have one friend who was almost not granted inquirer status by his presbytery when they found out he wanted to go to Fuller Seminary and know of another Fuller student who transferred from a “conservative” presbytery to a ”
liberal” one and had to virtually start the CPM process all over again. I have enough experience to know that these things happen on both sides of the theological spectrum in the PC(USA) and that harsh words and have been spoken at presbytery meetings by both sides.
At times in reading this paper I was not certain that Dr. Winter considered there to be a spectrum. It seemed to frequently have an “us versus them” feel, heightened by the broad brush characterizations of conservatives. And while some of this is correct in particular instances, my experience has been that it is a small minority and that Presbyterians can be at many different points on the spectrum on many different issues and theological doctrines.
Dr. Winter even addresses this spectrum in the section on “A question of numbers” on page 20. Here he compares the 1316 PC(USA) churches that have endorsed the “Confessing Church Movement” with the 54 “More Light” churches. I will grant that theologically this is the probably the correct comparison, but as a practical comparison of numbers I think that it is flawed. To declare yourself a More Light church is more along the lines of civil disobedience, a public statement of a stand directly at odds with section G-6.0106b of the Book of Order and the Definitive Guidance of 1978 before that. While taking a stand as a Confessing Church does affirm fidelity and chastity and goes beyond certain other sections of the Book of Order on conscience and setting standards, it is much less of an act of civil disobedience. While not quit theological opposites, a more practical comparison may be More Light churches with those currently withholding per-capita. On that basis my presbytery is evenly split with one of each, although the withholding church has a far greater membership.
I will say that in the next paragraph on page 21 Dr. Winter gets the analysis right. The PC(USA) has been in decline for more than the three decades of the gay ordination debate and there is more to blame on the church’s response (or lack of it) to societal changes than our own politics. And in many cases the conservative churches are declining right along with the liberal ones. As for leaving the denomination, I do know that about 10 years ago at the time G-6.0106b was adopted two churches, one a founding church of the More Light movement and the other a sponsor of the Book of Order amendment that resulted in the “fidelity and chastity” language, were at nearly the same time looking to separate from the PC(USA). Neither did.
While much of my concerns about the central body of the paper can be described in the criticisms I have talked about, I do think the paper makes an important point on page 24 in the section “Towards a different polity.” Dr. Winter expresses one of the paradoxes I have not been able to understand, that of stressing “fidelity and chastity” while arguing out of the “property trust clause.” Our polity can be interpreted to provide ways around both of these, as we regularly see, but since both are in our polity I still see it that if you accept one than you accept the other. But this applies to both sides: If you insist on the trust clause be prepared to accept fidelity and chastity, and vise versa.
The paper begins its conclusion at the bottom of page 27 with “Theology matters” (an intentional play on the conservative newsletter?) and while from here to the end it still suffers to some extent with the one-sided view and the broad application, the writing becomes more positive. I can agree with Rev. Jones that this section can form the basis for a discussion between Presbyterians at different places on the spectrum about how we view the church and our common life together. Dr. Winter rightly points out that American Presbyterians have been arguing over some of these related issues for over a century and we have a history of division and, in some cases, reuniting. A comment on page 31 is quite relevant:
Past history shows that it is virtually impossible for the Presbyterian church to confront major change in policy without a hemorrhage from its right flank.
Now, the paper does not really provide a resolution, just the observation that if you are a “separatist” than this is how you think, what you do, and you are not a Presbyterian.
However, what is provided as the “answer” echoes the thesis of the paper:
An answer for Presbyterians is to remember that the ground of our calling in the church is not agreement in doctrine or even participation in mission, but the mysterious calling and election of God. Since God’s gifts and call are irrevocable (Rom. 11:29), as I see it, our unity in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is not a choice. Christ said, “You did not choose me, but I chose you, and appointed you that you should bear much fruit and that your fruit should abide” (John 15:16). We are together, not because we agree, but in answer to a divine summons. In spite of ourselves, we may have some role to play in God’s kingdom. Let us hope that this may be so, and that the fruit we bear may abide.
In the larger context of this paper I have trouble affirming this, but as a stand-alone statement I would agree that as Presbyterians we must affirm that God has chosen us, not the other way around, and the church exists at His call. The church is not ours and we all, throughout the theological spectrum, must be continually in discussion about where God is leading us.
