This past week the Presbyterian Church (USA) (PCUSA) issued a formal response to the New Wineskins Association of Churches (NWAC) document that details their perceived problems with the PC(USA).  The New Wineskins Strategy Team Report, A Time for Every Purpose Under Heaven, was adopted at their Winter Convocation in February.  While there was some general response at that time, this week the PCUSA sent a letter from Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick and General Assembly Council Executive Director Linda Valentine to all the middle governing bodies promoting new materials from the Office of Theology that directly addresses the NWAC concerns (the PCUSA letter calls them “mischaracterizations”).  The Presbyterian News Service has issued a press release on the letter and materials and the letter, a one page summary, and the four page detailed commentary can be found as a single PDF file on the PC(USA) Middle Governing Body Connect site.  (The titling of the file as “wineskins-letter-brief” had me looking for the long version but as best as I can tell that is the whole thing.)

The material is basically what many of us PC(USA) watchers would have expected out of Louisville:  It is well written, contains numerous references to the confessions, particularly the confession of 1967, explains in detail the actions of the General Assembly with respect to different reports, like the Trinity Report, and overall is a great rebuttal to the NWAC document.  There are however two problems.

The first problem is that it will have difficulty getting into the hands of the members in the pews and when it does it is written at a level that will put the average person asleep faster than a slow sermon on a hot day.  There is an obvious reason for sending it to Middle Governing Bodies and that is because that is the place that it will be used and understood.  I can’t see this getting much “trickle down” from there the way that the NWAC strategy report got distributed.

The second problem is the persistent one in the PC(USA) about our words matching our actions.  As much as the NWAC is a relatively small percentage of the churches in the PC(USA), there are also a small number of churches on the progressive side whose theology and actions, when they become known through the media (including this blog), seem to contradict the nice words in this document.  (If you want examples I refer you to my blog posts of Sept. 28, 2006; Nov. 11, 2006; April 19, 2007)  This is not helped by actions at the national level which include the infamous “Re-imagining Conference,” the “Louisville Papers,” and the publication of “Christian Faith and the Truth behind 9/11.”  I realize that there is a rational explanation behind every one of these and I am lumping three very different issues together.  But that is the way that many of the PC(USA) members view what has been happening in the denomination over the last couple of decades.  In their minds all these things can not be separated!

This is not to say that there are not good things coming out of Louisville.  In particular I point to the Director of Evangelism and Church Growth, Eric Hoey’s comments in the June Perspectives where he realistically assesses the declining rate of adult baptisms and membership decline and says:

This tells me very clearly that Presbyterians do not know how to share the “Good News” of their faith and welcome people into our churches through baptism… If we continue down this path of not being able to share our faith, the apple of the PC(USA) will soon fall apart! (emphasis his)

This almost seems to reinforce the NWAC contention that the PCUSA has lost its missional interest.

Anyway, I’ll get down off my soapbox now, but it is important to remember that the PC(USA) operates on several levels and it has been my experience that what happens at higher governing bodies has little day-to-day importance or visibility to the “member in the pew.”

We will see what will happen with this document.  In my experience, it will get a limited circulation to people who already know this material.

In the mean time there is serious action with NWAC leaving the PC(USA) in favor of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church.  While several churches are moving in this direction, I will highlight two.

The first is Signal Mountain Presbyterian Church in Signal Mountain, Tennessee.  This departure is notable because of the size of the church and the amicable way in which it happened.  It is a church of 1800 members and following the congregational vote of 1,082-10 on January 28 the Presbytery of East Tennessee established an Administrative Commission to review the situation.  The report of the Commission in the presbytery meeting packet (report begins on page 7) is interesting, if for nothing else than it’s generally positive and friendly tone.  For example, from the forward:

We wish to acknowledge the cooperative spirit and non-confrontational approach evinced by the Session of SMPC, and especially the Clerk of Session, Steve Frost, in their interactions with the ARC. Every request from the ARC to the Session for information and records were met in a timely and gracious fashion. The character of conversations moved quickly from cautious to cordial to trustful. This alone distinguishes the current situation with most other dismissal requests in the denominations, which have been characterized by hostility, distrust and, oftentimes, aggression. The ARC has tried to find a different way that, while recognizing our obvious differences with the members of SMPC, emphasizes our commonality resulting from being a part of the Body of Christ. If we have succeeded, it is due in no small measure to the like-minded approach taken by SMPC’s Session. Indeed, the letter of January 10, 2007, was notable for its pastoral and gracious tone, and made a pastoral approach by ARC possible. We thank God for these, our brothers and sisters in Christ.

In the action items the recommendation is:

That Signal Mountain Presbyterian Church be dismissed from the Presbytery of East Tennessee, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), with property, real and personal (i.e., all assets), to the Presbytery of the Southeast of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, effective immediately upon receipt by the Stated Clerk of PET of notification of acceptance of SMPC by the Stated Clerk of the Presbytery of the Southeast of the EPC; said dismissal being contingent upon no other conditions.

So the church got to leave with their property and name.  In addition, the church agreed to continue to support the presbytery mission budget for another five years and the two parties agreed to a transition support structure for any Associate Pastor that wanted to remain in the PC(USA).  The Presbyt
erian News Service has a press release on the departure as do other media sources.

The second high-profile church to vote to leave the PC(USA) is Memorial Park Presbyterian Church in Pittsburgh Presbytery.  On June 3 the congregation voted 951 to 93 to request the presbytery dismiss them to pursue membership in the EPC.  This action is probably not a surprise since the church called the Rev. Dr. D. Dean Weaver in 2005 to serve as senior pastor.  Rev. Weaver is co-moderator of the NWAC.  The yes vote exceeded a threshold that the church set with the presbytery so now negotiations over the details of the departure, including the property, will begin.  According to the PC(USA) press release another church in Pittsburgh Presbytery has reportedly reached an agreement with the presbytery to pay the presbytery $250,000 over 10 years.  The Memorial Park Church has issued its own press release about the congregational vote.

In addition an opposition blog was established last Saturday June 9.  I am a bit hesitant to mention it since it contains one entry with strong language and accusations against the way the meeting and vote was conducted and I do not see an e-mail address or name for contacting the author.  I won’t link to it but if you use “memorial park church blog” in your favorite search engine it should come right up.

And finally a reminder that the General Assembly of the EPC meets next week where they will vote on establishing a special transitional presbytery for NWAC churches that wish to transition to the EPC in that way.