1 Samuel 1:21-2:11
Acts 1:15-26
Luke 20:19-26
Evening: Psalm 102:1-28
The Heartland Presbytery meeting this past weekend was a source of grief and anger for me - contentious and tedious in its spirit, tentative in grace, and seasoned with pain. Decently and in order, friends and colleagues deliberated whether to form an Advisory Committee of Committee on Ministry that would immediately assume unilateral power over all sessions and congregations "considering" leaving the PC(USA). This was an action initiated by Council, through COM sparked by the explicit desires of 2 congregations to transfer to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church later this month, and another church who is reviewing their bylaws. I disagree with these congregations and their leaders to leave, but I was outraged by how the body voted to handle their decision. The body voted Yes to the action.
No matter that this denomination is in correspondence with the EPC. No matter that our polity already allows for and has procedures for withdrawals by pastors and churches. No matter that one member of the proposed AC was a retired pastor and dissenter from one of the 2 churches. No matter that 10 days or so before the churches had showed hospitality and met with the executive presbyter, members of council and COM who presented this motion, and spoken openly and "gracefully" about their desires and the issues.No matter that one church assured them they were NOT leaving the PC(USA), and the COM members assured them they would work together.
The motion passed gives the new AC total power and control to discern what "considering leaving" means and which congregation and pastor were to be put on "the list" over which they would assume immediate and total control, on their timing and terms. The action now puts ALL churches potentially at risk for McCarthy-like seizures should they be only exploring the options, examining the church, speaking their mind, becoming informed of what is happening in our times. It breeds secrecy, and paranoia, when we are free in Christ.
I listened to the presenter of the primary motion "speak to it," and before any debate, he set the tone of schism, separation, and "threat" by these congregations and implied deceit and misconduct by one church, without substantiating proof to the body. His rhetoric was anything but graceful - it was arrogant and designed to influence the body before discussion, and was a 180 to the tone of the prior discussions with these churches. I was reminded of the scribes and priests trying to trick Jesus with feigned humility and rhetoric, while laying in wait for them all along.
A substitute motion was proposed to form an AC only after withdrawal was explicit and after all other means to reconcile had been exhausted with the denomination, COM and presbytery officials, and the decision by the local congregation was final. To me, this followed more the spirit of our polity and of the PUP report - bottom up power, connected in pain and suffering, prayerful discernment when we disagree, and allowing God to be the Lord of the conscience. To me, it allowed the Barnabases and Pauls to go on their own way, trusting that the "true church" would never die. But the body preferred to give the AC immediate power. By an overwhelming margin, the substitute motion failed. The PC(USA), some think, is the "true church" and now we have the AC to enforce and protect it.
But in today's OT text, Hannah had it right when she prayed:
2"There is no Holy One like the LORD, no one besides you; there is no Rock like our God. 3Talk no more so very proudly, let not arrogance come from your mouth; for the LORD is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed. 4The bows of the mighty are broken, but the feeble gird on strength. 5Those who were full have hired themselves out for bread, but those who were hungry are fat with spoil. The barren has borne seven, but she who has many children is forlorn. 6The LORD kills and brings to life; he brings down to Sheol and raises up. 7The LORD makes poor and makes rich; he brings low, he also exalts. 8He raises up the poor from the dust; he lifts the needy from the ash heap, to make them sit with princes and inherit a seat of honor. For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and on them he has set the world.
9"He will guard the feet of his faithful ones, but the wicked shall be cut off in darkness; for not by might does one prevail. 10The LORD! His adversaries shall be shattered; the Most High will thunder in heaven. The LORD will judge the ends of the earth; he will give strength to his king, and exalt the power of his anointed."
The church was faced with electing another apostle when Judas the betrayer, fled and died. Who are the betrayers in our Presbytery? It seems the new "powers that be," have branded any church who is struggling with their conscience and their commitment to a human institution led by humans, as betrayers. At the heart of the so-called betrayal is the property issue - well, I believe any of us who are truly seeking to be the "true church" could care less about property and would render to Caesar what is Caesar's and to the Lord what is the Lord's. All the Lord desires of us is faithfulness to the gospel, and to Christ alone. if we can stay connected and do that - fine. if not, some may have to leave.To the Presbytery, should my church end up on a list when we were "considering" the state of affairs in the PC(USA) today, that would be it for me. And I hope and pray I would have the courage to say to the denomination, keep your stuff and let us go.
Maybe now I'll end up on the list.
20 comments:
I was one of the Commissioners at the Presbytery meeting that Pastor Lyn has taken issue with. I fully concur with her evaluation of the event and have the same apprehension about the destiny of this denomination. Ultimately, my covenant is with Jesus Christ, then South-Broadland. Only in Christ do I trust. Lyndon Sparling-Herring
The Presbytery is third as far as my covenant goes. Lyndon Sparling-Herring
I was the other Commissioner on Saturday. I read the COM motion several times before the meeting and was concerned with the same issues as Pastor Lyn. I was even confronted in the Commissioner Training with a speech for the motion and against the churches considering withdrawal. Accusations were made without any proof, examples were sited without naming the source or giving any way to check their statements. It really was disheartening to see this measure pass.
It is not that I don't trust the COM to use their power wisely. It has been my experience that people come and go from committees and, with no limits set for time or situation, the potential for abuse exists.
This is only a small measure of what is to come. Everyone loves the ecumenical message - one body, one church - not realizing what that truly indicates. Evenutally we ALL will be FORCED to worship in only one type of church. Anyone outside of that church will have to meet secretly in order to worship as they wish. It is happening already in many places throughout the world.
And people wonder at the antidenominational message?
My best to South Broadland - you'll not find better people anywhere in the world! But beware! Trust in God only! The devil will not come with horns, but with a false GODLY facade.
A building does not make a church -South Broadland has all it needs to stand alone, bold and innocent in God's eyes! Let GOD pave South Broadland's path!
You have greatly misrepresented the action and the tone of the discussion. If reconciliation is your aim, then this posting does not seem to foster it.
The correct term is Administrative Commission. It has specific duties and powers, all carefully delineated, and many are triggered only by certain actions of congregations. Only two churches are currently included. And no one is preventing anyone from thinking, speaking, or praying about anything. I hope your own ordination vows will compel you to seek reconciliation with all, and to help your congregation see the value of an interdependent church in which the parts can not simply be severed, but rather demand covenant faithfulness to one another.
Lyn,
I (Rocky) don't have to tell you that I disagree with your evaluation of the issue; you saw me speak in favor of it twice.
The COM Moderator's speech to the motion prior to the debate reflected months of struggle with the two churches named. He (along with presbytery staff and the COM) has been misled and lied to by the pastors of those churches; any and everything that has come to light regarding the actions under consideration in those congregations has been despite a good deal of secrecy and obfuscation. The Moderator's comments sought to share with the presbytery the pains that the COM has already gone to in trying to work with these churches and their ministers, to no effect whatsoever.
Yes, hospitality was extended to the presbytery two weeks ago. And that hospitality is right in line with the "strategy" being followed by these two ministers, one of whom wrote the document for New Wineskins churches on how to leave the PC (USA) with property. The Moderator read from that document on Saturday, and we all heard about ways to "get out from under" parts of our church constitution and how congregations are to "enlist local law enforcement" to keep Administrative Commissions out of their buildings. I guess that's to come yet.
The strategy is to take the congregation far down the road to separation, so far that a congregational meeting is called to vote on it, and then--in the 11th hour--invite the presbytery to "make a presentation" at that meeting, a presentation to which the minister and any session members may respond.
It is this consideration of actions leading to separation that the AC will have the authority to respond to. To you, this "consideration" is innocent. It's the free thought of the burdened conscience. But it's not free; it's one-sided. The presbytery is not invited into the "consideration" at all. These churches are not prayerfully consulting with congregations in the presbytery who wish not to leave and seeking their counsel and accountability; they're strategizing with like-minded ministers how best to snooker the presbytery. And all the while it's a victim's rhetoric. The pastor of one of these churches spoke on Saturday about how "We just love Jesus." Yet as his brothers and sisters in Christ were sharing The Lord's Supper together later that afternoon, he and his wife were nowhere to be found. They only re-entered the sanctuary when the sacrament was over.
I support the formation of this AC because, unlike the substitute motion, it allows the presbytery to act before it's too late. The substitute motion lined out a process that would begin when once a church has decided to leave, and rests on the assumption that such a church will "responsibly communicate with the presbytery" about their intention. That's not what's happening. Churches intent on leaving are deliberately misdirecting the presbytery. The AC we approved will be authorized to act if and when these churches call congregational meetings "for the purpose of considering actions leading to separation from the PC (USA)."
Actions, Lyn. Not innocent open debate. Actions. Not tortured consciences seeking the will of God. Actions. Actions leading to separation from the body that generations of their members have covenanted with in Christ. That those previous and current members who don't wish to take those actions and that the rest of the churches in the presbytery should have no way to speak to it or prevent it is inexcusable. This AC gives a voice to those being drowned out by the angry rhetoric of separation.
I support this AC with an open conscience. I may be proved wrong, but to my mind it's the churches seeking separation who are demonstrating arrogance and a lack of Christian character. Theirs is the course of action that, counter to the love described in I Corinthians 13, is proudly seeking it's own way. And that's not the way of covenant, that "essential tenet" of Reformed faith and polity. It's the way of strategy. It's the way of obstinate and angry people seeking to win at all costs in the name of "conscience."
It's something the church must stand against.
I also attended the meeting as a visitor and was very dismayed by what I witnessed. I too, along with Pastor Lyn do NOT agree with those churches efforts to leave the presbytery, but I feel the action is draconian. Leaving it be, the worse case scenario is that they leave and the presbytery keeps the property. If they really want to go they will live with that outcome. But they should have the right to make that decision without the pastor and session being stripped of authority.
I was especially dismayed by the terminology of the "true church." As written it makes it sound as though the only true church belongs in the Heartland Presbytery. Maybe that was not the intent, but if so, the wording and tone needed to be carefully written to convey that. As it stands, the motion that carried is heavy-handed and leaves the door open to abuse. If churches truly wish to leave, which is very regretful, they should have the freedom to do so. There is no unity when people do not desire it. It cannot be forced. You let them go for the sake of unity.
Ah yes, "draconian." That appeared in the Layman article describing the proposal, thereby establishing it as a talking point for all who take the Layman as gospel.
"True church within the PCUSA" is a technical term in the book of order for those wishing to remain loyal to the denomination. I don't think anyone at the meeting thinks we can limit the true Church (in a global sense) to one denomination.
I am speaking to what this action feels like to me. I speak as a 58 year old who has been around the block: corporate world, business owner, an elder, wife, mother, and now minister of Word and Sacrament. I take my vows seriously and love the church. However, I have seen power abused many, many times by people with good intentions. I have seen the damage that follows when trust breaks down.
Again, may I say I do not necessarily agree with the decision of the 2 churches to leave us after over 12 years in this Presbytery, and am grieved by what it has come to. Both churches have vital,mission-hearted congregations that are growing, and they both love the Lord. I do know they have struggled mightily within this Presbytery with issues of conscience, held in tension with upholding the peace, unity and purity (pup) of the denomination and the greater church. They have been brash and they have been bold, and as one of them said, even irritating. They stood against some controversial actions this presbytery took in regarding per capita payments over 2 years ago. They were sustained all the way to the GA level over their stand, but this has not pleased many in this Presbytery. The GA process ruled that this presbytery had some dysfunctional issues that go way beyond these 2 churches' actions. PUP goes both ways.
I do not know all the details of the integrity issues that you and a few seem to be privy to and believe to be true in this case; COM chose not to substantiate them on the floor for the rest of us to weigh in on.
I do know these pastors, and this has not just come out of the blue. Nor have renewal groups just sprung up as clandestine organizations to subvert the pup of the PC(USA). New Wineskins has indeed been a radical voice the last 2 years, giving advice on how to leave the denomination, with whom these pastors (and others) have been in communion and dialogue. Others in our Presbytery have been too.
However, again our Clerk of Presbytery attended the New Wineskins conference at the invitation of one of these pastors. If they did not know this was coming they were blind. The new EP also has been aware of the breakdown in trust since before he came here - shared in a face-to-face meeting between him, moderator at the time and several presbytery staff and over 25 churches in this Presbytery, all who expressed the same concern over trust,false accusations, respect and listening. I was there. Assurance was given that calmed me somewhat. But having 2 churches want to leave is new territory for everyone. These same 25 or so pastors have also met with pastors of Hillsdale and Paola for several years, and labored with them in prayer, even disagreed with them, as we all remembered our covenant relations with ALL churches in this denomination.
Yes, I took vows to uphold the peace, unity and purity of the church, and work for it within my power. However, 2 things. This requires trust between all those who labor for it. It is no secret that it is broken in our Presbytery. Break down in trust brings out the worst in everyone.
And, second, the "PUP" of the church has broader implications when considering the entire body of Christ, not just this denomination. My vows are first to Jesus Christ, who had no place to lay his head - and broke down institutional walls and powers that be to get the message out. He told the disciples to go and take nothing with them except to offer peace to those who would have ears to hear. He did not tell us to take a Book of Order or a vow to a denomination as the "true church". He told us to go and make disciples of Jesus Christ. This is held in tension for me as I consider my vows to the PC(USA).
I believe (and the Book of order supports)in that context, Presbyterians in good conscience can and should be able to withdraw from this particular body with regret and yet grace. The world watches how we deal with disagreements, both sides.
As I see it, like there was for Paul and Barnabas, there's a time for everything (Eccl 3)- to speak and to listen, laugh and cry, to break down and build up, to come and to go. It takes time to discern this. Sadly, as these 2 churches and many others across our denomination have been engaged in discerning God's will for them, they have been publicly labeled traitors to PUP laboring "in secret." Again there is a time to speak and a time to be silent. And again, break down in trust brings out the worst in everyone.
Finally, my main concern over the action, is that it MAY put at risk other churches who are struggling with conscience (#5 of the ammendment). I was told yesterday that reconciliation is the goal, and not to worry,that only in extreme cases will COM and Council refer churches and pastors to the Administrative Commission's "list" and to assume power over them. But I believe this power can make people trigger happy right now. And I want assurance.
I spoke to the Rev. BE and suggested he and COM and others be proactive in assuring churches like mine they would create environments that we can debate, even dissent openly - attend conferences and bone up on options, and not be considered "a threat to the PUP of the church."
He thanked me and I look forward to hearing how this an be attempted.
I think who "they" are needs to be kept clearly in view. "They" are not a particular church, as one would think if one listened to the pastors and session members of those congregations seeking dismissal. It is simply not the case that these churches are speaking with one voice in considering withdrawal from the denomination. No, the pastors and sessions are speaking. Even where there has been a congregational meeting, and even where a majority of a congregation has voted for dismissal, it still cannot be the case that the "they" wanting to separate from the PC (USA) is the whole congregation.
If "they" want to leave, they can. Ministers can leave, and members can leave. One at a time, and without the church property. But the presbytery is seeking to prevent the pastor and session from taking drastic schismatic action on behalf of the entire congregation, both present and past, with whom the PC (USA) has entrusted certain property for the mission and ministry of the church.
It's important to be clear about that, because much of the criticism of the AC assumes a single-entity "they" who are acting as a single unified will. That is most surely not the case.
"I do not know all the details of the integrity issues that you and a few seem to be privy to and believe to be true in this case; COM chose not to substantiate them on the floor for the rest of us to weigh in on."
I'm not privy to anything that you aren't. It's just that I tend to trust the character and intent of the COM moderator when he speaks on behalf of the whole COM, with the EP sitting right there. Maybe that's the most fundamental difference.
I know you've met and prayed with the ministers of these two churches, along with several others, for several years. And I know you've not agreed with what they aim to do. You and I have personally spoken on more than one occasion about our different views, assumptions, and experiences when it comes to this question. Those conversations have been, for me, experiences in grace and growth.
Yet the way you're talking about what happened on Saturday is simply inaccurate. To speak of "the list" and to invoke McCarthy is to mislead people for your failure to read the motion as it's written. I can't understand how it continues to escape your narration that the only ministers and sessions falling under the AC have already taken actions advocating separation, and have given the presbytery little-to-no notice.
It is these actions that the AC will address. So to assert that any church may wake up one day and find itself on "the list" is to foster fear where there is no cause for fear. But it's my experience that such fear-mongering is a key strategy of those whose mind is set on separation. The only case in which your church, Lyn, would be added would be if you led your session to call a congregational meeting for the purpose of acting to leave the PC (USA). And as long as you and your session upheld the basic covenant inherent in all your ordination vows and sought the presbytery's participation in that conversation, then I can't see how an AC would have any part to play.
Agreed. Thanks PH. I understand the process and know each member is given the decision on their own to decide to go or stay. "They" are yet to be determined. However the session is representative and the action, as you say, starts there, and that's how it's supposed to work. It is a good thing that our polity allows for those who want to stay to have voice and vote and are protected and cared for.
I have been through this with my parents, who were charter members of an Episcopal Church in OPKS who left the denomination (Christ Church). I grew up there. About 10% left the church, now Anglican, and were embraced by other churches remaining in the diocese. Nevertheless, it has hurt my Mother who cannot speak about it today.
Indeed, the remaining members no matter how few need our love and care as we say goodbye to the others.
I don't know anything about the Layman, never having read it. I don't know anything about the New Wineskins either. I just used "draconian" because it is the best word I know to describe how I perceived the motion. I was only there to support my husband's certification which had nothing to do with anything else taking place. The whole process was educational, but as I said, dismaying.
I'm on the progressive side of our recent troubles. I also find this Administrative Commission to be draconian.
This is true ONLY because of the clause that allows someone other than presbytery to add sessions and congregations to the "naughty" list. This places substantially all of the power of the presbytery in the hands of EITHER of two small groups.
An Administrative Commission is supposed to have a task to do, complete it, and then be dissolved. This perpetual commission is just plain scary.
Hi Lyn, this is your former colleague in seminary John Erthein. It's good to see you join the Blogosphere.
For me, the most inappropriate aspect of the Presbytery's approval of the AC is that a former Pastor of the Paola church, one who has spoken out against the current pastor, is on the committee! That just seems like a glaring conflict of interest.
From the Book of Order: G-9.0505 a.
[Where you see the words "governing body" in this case read "Heartland Presbytery"]
"The decision of an administrative commission shall be the action of the appointing governing body from the time of its completion by the commission and the announcement, where relevant, of the action to the parties affected by it. Such a decision shall be transmitted in writing to the stated clerk of the governing body, who shall report it to the governing body at its next meeting. A governing body may rescind or amend an action of an administrative commission in the same way actions of the governing body may be modified."
Any action of an AC may be challenged by Presbytery. An AC may be terminated by action of the governing body that created it. The only reason it might be interminable is if the Presbytery allows it to be...
Jesus warned us that tactics like this would be used against his church.
Thankfully, he will use all of it to strengthen his people and bring glory to God.
We should have every confidence that, when all is said and done, the human power games of Heartland Presbytery will be shown to be what they are--a sham in the name of religion.
As a casual reader of Lyn's blog, I am quite unnerved by what I read. If any of you could step back and see the way this looks to the outside world I think you would see how shallow and foolish you appear. I think most of you are suppose to be "leaders" in the churche and it appears that you have lost sight of what is important in the world. How many lives could you collectively change by spending your time, resources and energy in doing God's work and furthering His kingdom rather than arguing rules & regulations of the "church"! Do you realize that Christians are being persecuted in the Gaza strip as you babble on and on about this nonsense? And it IS nonsense! In the end it appears to be about the mighty dollar - please tell me how this emulates Jesus and his teachings. I don't pretend to be educated and surely don't know about the ways of the presbyterian "church". I just know that the things that all of you are speaking of are of no spiritual value and will not get anyone saved. Please leave the politics to the politicians and spend your time doing what you were "called" to do. You could start by reciting The Lord's prayer.
To anonymous:
If this discussion is, as you say, "shallow" and "foolish," what are you doing reading it and commenting on it? Don't you have some souls to save?
Lyn, I appreciate your passion and concern. I guess there are some things that you are saing, though that I do not understand. At the presbytery meeting, a long period elapsed as each motion had an opportunity to be perfected. During this process no one chose to challenge the suggested members for the administrative commission, the vote seemed unanimous that the motion was perfected, and then a vote was taken. A majority approved it as it was. So what was wrong with that? If the substitute motion had passed would those who opposed it been justifide to proclaim that an injustic had occured?
Post a Comment