I will admit here at the onset that I am planning to move on from this discussion and look forward to following it for a while as an interested observer but not a commentator.  I was not planning to post again at this time, but the Fellowship PC(USA) steering committee released a letter yesterday and since I have been a voice in this I felt it appropriate that I should reciprocate.

The new letter titled “Letter of Clarification and Background” which begins:

Regrettably, the initial email we sent out on February 2, in which we shared our concerns and invited people to an August meeting, generated significant misunderstanding (and offense) for some, particularly in regards to a lack of diversity among the signatories. As people who communicate for a living, it saddens us to have created any misunderstanding. We apologize and take full responsibility… In our minds, the letter was intended primarily as an invitation to a gathering in August, and we should have made that clearer.

Likewise, as an early voice of reaction I would like to apologize if my words of critique came across too harshly and caused offense.  I respect and appreciate the Fellowship’s intent of adding another voice and forum to the on-going discussion about the future of the PC(USA). While I was struck by what I saw as a couple specific weaknesses in the proposal and how the proposal was initially presented, I was sincere in my comment that there are important sections of it that I appreciate and can support.

Let me try to clarify each briefly

Regarding the composition of the proposing group, I accept that it came out of a very specific fellowship group of pastors.  But in looking at the implications and impact on the PC(USA) I was concerned by the lack of, shall I say, depth.  At the heart of Presbyterian government is the working of ruling elders and teaching elders together.  To only see teaching elders in the list provoked a strong reaction from this ruling elder who has put in significant time and energy, both on and off line, encouraging ruling elders to be active in the wider church.  Thank you for the clarification that no slight was intended by that.  (But as an editorial comment, can we avoid this “clergy and laity” language which even appears in the clarification letter?)

The other point of concern was how the churches connected to the signatories were a limited subset of the congregations in the PC(USA).  Looking at the big picture, with roughly 10,000 churches and 2 million members, the congregations larger than 1000 members account for about 2% of the churches in the denomination but the churches with 50 or less members make up one quarter of the total churches and about another quarter have between 50 and 100 members. (Research Services Data ) For every mega-church in a large metropolitan area, there are almost ten small faithful ones, like Childwold, Lee Vining, or Spindale.  These churches are inherently small because of their rural location.  Three of our presbyteries each have a total size that is right around 1,000 or less members.  So not just this discussion, but all the discussions about the future of the PC(USA) need to have this in mind.  (And we are not alone since the Church of Scotland, at its last GA, debated the question of whether to remain a national and territorial church and resolved to continue that calling.)  By no means to I intend to say that the Fellowship PC(USA) does not realize this or keep it in mind, but I personally had a hard time getting past the congregation names next to the names of the signatories.  Sorry for that.

Now, as I said, I agree with several points in the white paper, particularly the passions that are listed.  The need to nurture leadership, to share in the larger mission of God’s people, to multiply healthy congregations, and the connectedness in fellowship are things that most would agree with and support.  The red flag probably goes up when we see the “united theological core” as  we all realize that the real discussion and disagreements will come from trying to define that.

It is tempting to just point to the Book of Confessions and say that is our theological core.  I’ll accept that – it should guide us in helping to understand Scripture.  But the @PCUSAResearch factoid today is “Before discussion at GA, 1 in 6 PC(USA) ministers and almost no laity were familiar with the Belhar Confession.”  Let me take that a step further, how many ruling elders know that the Second Helvetic Confession is in the BofC.  When was the last time any of us read the Westminster Longer Catechism or even C67?  I would agree that while we have a theoretical theological core we are not familiar enough with it.  I would suggest that a good place to begin is going back to our Reformed confessions and refreshing our memory.  I look forward to this discussion about what, beyond the Bible, we should be considering our theological core.

OK, I just got cynical and snarky again so I think it is time to wrap this up.  Suffice it to say that in my own analytical and researcher-like way my intent is to point out the places I would disagree and highlight what I see as weaknesses.  Please forgive me if along the way I have caused offense to any of my Christian sisters and brothers.

OK, back to our regularly scheduled polity wonk stuff and I will step back and remain just an observer of the Fellowship PC(USA) developments for a while.