What will the next year look like in the PC(USA)?

At
the PC(USA) General Assembly in the hours following the Assembly passing another proposed amendment to change G-6.0106b, the
question that moderators, clerks, and executives seemed to be asking
one another was “What does this mean for your presbytery?” With the
passage of the overture to send the modification of G-6.0106b back out to
the presbyteries again there was concern for what the next year would
look like in their body. And this was from leaders who themselves and
their presbyteries were across the theological spectrum. This was not about the issues, this was about the health of the Body of Christ.  The executives were concerned enough about this that they gathered in prayer and reflection on this issue.  It was almost
as an afterthought that anyone asked the question “Will it pass?” (In
case you wonder, the consensus is probably not.)

For those who care about this issue, and many do, this is an important issue.  Whether you see this as an issue of justice or an issue of Scriptural authority, either way these are things that the church should be about.  But we must conduct our discussions and hold our debates and interpret to our wider church in ways that witness to Jesus’ “High Priestly Prayer” where He says “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.
May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.” [John 17:20, 21]

Amendment B was
passed in 1996 adding G-6.0106b to the Form of Government. Now, in the
following ten General Assemblies its removal or modification have come up at virtually every GA,
and twice, in 1997 and 2001, sent out to the presbyteries for modification or removal. Is it any
wonder that the “people in the pews” are getting tired of it. We polity
wonks and GA Junkies have an insight into how God, through the Holy
Spirit, works in our covenant communities through these governing body
meetings and our connectionalism. We need to recognize that the roughly 2000 people here at the
General Assembly represent about 0.1% of the PC(USA). Suppose we say
that there are twenty times that number who are polity wonks and care
about this stuff as a polity exercise: That means that 98% of the PC(USA) does not really
understand the process. (Note: I chose twenty times because that gives
twice the number of ministers in the PC(USA) so we will say that for
every minister there is an elder, or a member like Mark, who also understands.)

The point is that this issue keeps coming back and most of the PC(USA) either doesn’t care, doesn’t really understand why, or thinks there are better things to be spending our time on.  And again, this cuts across the theological spectrum.

How will this situation in the PC(USA) change? I see a few possible pathways to accepting the status quo or the removal or modification of G-6.0106b.

The first is the movement of the Holy Spirit.  I do not discount the power of the Holy Spirit and prayer to bring the church together enabling us to settle this or set it aside.

Another is generational change. If what appears to be the current trend continues, as the younger generation comes into fuller leadership in the church  they, if the YAAD vote is any indication, will be more amenable to passing these changes at the presbytery level.  This may be complicated if individuals, with more experience  and exposure to a variety of ideas, change their theological leanings with age.  It is also a call to all of us to provide sound theological and Biblical teaching to each generation so they are prepared to move into leadership and make these decisions.

Maybe the most likely avenue to acceptance of new ordination standards by the denomination will be attrition.  As the discussion and disagreements continue the evangelical side is finding it more faithful to depart than dispute.  The ultimate end member of this is that the PC(USA) will be left as a smaller, throughly progressive denomination that can then adopt these ordination standards.  With enough departures this would effectively result in a de facto schism.  Of course, the disagreements could rise to the level of creating a full-scale rapid parting of ways at some time in the future.  Or, the outcome could be two churches under one roof if flexible presbytery membership, similar to what has been proposed at the last two GA’s, is adopted.

The most unfortunate path for change would be apathy:  enough people on one side get tired of the dispute and just give up while remaining with the denomination.  Schism is preferable to apathy?  From a practical standpoint apathy would be the most convenient — no more dispute over polity and property while keeping as many people and places on the books as possible.  From a Reformed perspective it would be bad news because it means that we as a denomination have given up on working in community to be faithful to our Biblical heritage by being “always reforming according to the Word of God.”

So what does the year hold?  I hope and pray that as this comes to our presbyteries there will be a working of the Holy Spirit and that we may be open to the Spirit’s leading so that we may be faithful to what we are taught by Scripture concerning both qualifications for ordained office as well as glorifying God in how we discuss and decide on it.