A Brief “Discussion” on the Workings of the 219th
General Assembly of the PCUSA
Held July 3-10, 2010
Prepared by Kirk McCormick
Minister Commissioner to the 219th General Assembly
Senior Pastor - Grace Community Church, Boca Raton
Note: This “Discussion” is meant to be informational for forums held for the benefit of the family of Grace Community Church, Boca Raton. It is the reflection of the writer, only. Opinions expressed are not the official position of Grace Community Church’s leadership at the time of the writing.
Many first-person reflections and opinions are given to simplify the presentation and as a way to inform our church family on the critical issues facing our denomination. I am not trying to be completely objective. In fact, I hope to be influential and persuasive. I’m telling my sense of how the GA has responded to the Word of God…either faithfully or not.
I appreciate the summary resources from Presbyterians for Renewal which I used to prepare this Discussion.
A Discussion of the Events of General Assembly
** To understand the actions of the 219th General Assembly of the PCUSA, we must understand the history and development of the issues facing the denomination.
** To be able to discuss and respond to the issues and actions of the GA, we will need to simplify some of the underlying background that brought those issues to the forefront.
Preamble
** The following presumptions are mine…you don’t have to agree with them but, for discussion sake, they are my attempt to simplify the material.
** Like any outlined material, this resource can be picked apart for argument. Please remember it is designed to give a “40,000 foot” overview of what took place at the General Assembly (GA), it’s not intended to give a detailed timeline of events or actions. Please use it as you wish, but use it appropriately.
** Admittedly, I run my life through a Scripture grid. I am not concerned about political correctness when it contradicts the clear teachings of God’s Word. Also, I am not a lifelong Presbyterian. Although I am loyal to the denomination since I took ordination vows to serve well and although I have a a deep appreciation for the “presbyterian” form of government, I have no emotional investment in the PCUSA. So this discussion aide will reflect my preference for submission to Scripture versus deference to secular guidance. I do not feel compelled to be completely objective in this resource as if it were a textbook. Rather, I am compelled by my calling as a pastor to help my sheep understand the issues facing our local congregation given what is happening on the national level.
My Underlying Approach to and Presumptions for this Discussion
1. Though there are many people involved in the debate, there are two basic groups represented at GA who are enabling the
advocacy of differing sides:
a. “Liberals” who have a more culturally-driven understanding of the role of the church and how to interpret the Bible.
b. “Evangelicals” who have a more historical view of Biblical teaching and the work of the church. They tend to be more conservative.
c. Both sides say they are striving to fulfill the Scriptures…but they do not agree on what those Scriptures say.
i. By the way, many say (which I heard so many times at GA), “Well-meaning people on both sides of the fence can honorably disagree.” In my opinion, that may be true… but that also means that one side or the other holds to and teaches an errant teaching. This also means that somebody is misleading the church to some significant degree.
**Full disclosure: I am an Evangelical who holds to the traditional Biblical beliefs and positions as expressed for generations in the Confessions of the church.
2. These two groups have different core values
a. Liberal core values focus on fairness for and inclusion of all persons since God loves all people equally, that God’s revelation changes as cultures change or to meet the needs of those cultures, and that the church’s mission is to be prophetic even when that prophecy contradicts formerly embraced teachings and practices.
b. Evangelical core values focus on the supremacy of the Bible as the only standard of right living before God and with humanity, that God does not change His mind on matters of faith and how to practice faith, that there is nothing prophetic about false teaching.
3. These core values are at fundamental odds with each other.
My Conclusion: The two groups will likely never agree since their fundamental core beliefs and values will never mesh, and each side has an agenda which the other is against.
A Brief Description of the Background of the Issues
1. Items with Theological Overtones and Implications
A. “Justice”
· Liberals view Biblical “Justice”, essentially, as equal rights for everyone. This was, perhaps, the most often repeated defense for action from the Liberals throughout the Assembly.
· Evangelicals say that Biblical Justice is an ideal that is expressed through programs/efforts that connect people with God and help them become all that God wants them to be and do all that He wants them to do.
· I hold to the Evangelical view that Justice does NOT mean that everyone has equal rights. If that’s the case, virtually every home in the world is not “just” since parents have more authority and privileges than children.
· In fact, I believe it is unjust, even ungodly, for the church, specifically Liberals, to cloak a political ideology in a religious agenda when that agenda is destructive to the eternal condition of persons who are either living outside of God’s prescribed way of living or will begin to live apart from God’s way due to that agenda.
Note: Rarely mentioned, though, throughout the Assembly is the theological sibling or twin of Biblical Justice: Righteousness. Righteousness is the ideal and practice of demonstrating our “rightness” with God through obedience to His authoritative Word. Discipleship cannot happen without one or the other of these siblings.
Conclusion: For Liberals, religious practices are a combination of civil rights and Biblical teaching which create a form of “justice” even if they contradict the historical teachings about Biblical righteousness. They wrongly invoke a Reformed presupposition that the church is “Reformed and Always Reforming” as having Biblical equivalence and, therefore, authority. It is true that this phrase is common among Reformed theology, but I believe that “Reforming” for Liberals effectively means “conforming” to cultural norms rather than the Biblical promise of being “transformed” into the likeness of Jesus when we are Reforming according to God’s plan and purpose.
B. “Inclusivity”
· For Liberals, Inclusivity is the Biblically necessary byproduct of Justice. They believe that all persons, especially those of the monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam), are equally “Children” of God and that all who seek God, by whatever means or religion, will be saved.
· Liberals present inclusivity as if it were a right of every person. I believe they practice religious Universalism (ie: the belief that all people are saved without regard to beliefs, and none go to Hell.)
· Evangelicals believe that, by definition, the Kingdom of God, as revealed by Jesus and the Scriptures, is not “Inclusive” (according to the Liberal definition of “Inclusive”) since some persons will be excluded.
o See the Parable of the Sheep and Goats (Matthew 25:31-46)
· In this parable, Jesus describes the Final Judgment. After welcoming the faithful (the “Sheep” in the story), the Judge says to the unfaithful (ie: the Goats), “Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” (verse 41)
· The point: Not all persons will enter the Kingdom
o To understand the current condition of or situation in the church, see the Parable of the Wheat and Tares (Matthew 13:24-30). The Wheat and Tares (analogous to Believers and Unbelievers, respectively) grow in the same field (ie: the church) until harvest (ie: Judgment). In the end, the Wheat and Tares are separated, the Tares are condemned through burning. This is not in sync with the “Inclusivity” of the Liberals, but it is the Biblical teaching.
Conclusion: By the way, the Parable of the Wheat and Tares is not support for a hyper-Calvinistic view that God creates some to be damned. The Bible is clear, God does not want anyone to perish apart from Him, so he remains patient that all would come to salvation (see: 2 Peter 3:9). I mentioned the parable only to say that the Liberal teaching/understanding of “Inclusivity” may make some feel good, but it is not Biblical. Genuine “inclusivity” in the Bible is the celebration of Jesus’ words, “You did not choose me but I chose you” (John 15:16). In other words, we are included in God’ kingdom because it is Jesus choice, not our right. We simply respond to his invitation.
C. Biblical Interpretation (“Hermeneutics”) and Inspiration
· The two “sides” of interpretation:
o The basic questions are… Is the Bible primarily a human book that God inspires or blesses those who read it, allowing it to be applied significantly different in different times? Or is the Bible a revelation from God whereby He inspired people to write the Word according the desires and purposes of Holy Spirit?
o The former, the Liberal position, believes that the Bible is more of a human-oriented book…the latter (or the Evangelical position) upholds more of the divine side of interpretation.
o Personally…
· I do not believe that the Bible was dictated to humans by God. (This “Dictation” theory of inspiration is typically not held by Evangelicals or Liberals. It tends to be more applied by Fundamentalists.)
· I do believe, though, that the whole of the Bible is inspired (called “Plenary” inspiration) making it the Word of God regardless of how we respond to it or feel about it
· I do not believe that God changes His mind about morals and/or ethics given each generation
· I do believe that we are to adapt our lifestyles to fit His Word rather than changing the Word to fit our lifestyles.
· Directly influenced by these two understandings of interpretation is the discussion on sexuality, specifically if “gay” rights are more of a Biblical mandate or a civil rights cause.
o In the case of gay rights, Liberals set aside the historic teachings of the church and invoke a new interpretation on things pertaining to homosexuality, marriage and ordination standards. They often draw analogies to the civil rights issues of slavery and the right of women to vote.
o Evangelicals maintain an “Ontological” argument… ie: that God, from the beginning of creation and before the Fall, defined human sexuality as male and female. In fact, the male/female relationship is the perfection of humanity. Therefore, any expression of human sexuality is restricted to and experienced between men and woman. Any deviation from that is a corruption of God’s original intent. This has profound impact on the aforementioned issues of homosexuality, marriage, ordination standards and the properly revealed practice of sexual intercourse between a man and a woman in marriage.
· Also influenced by these approaches to interpreting and, therefore, understanding of Scripture is our stance on Israel.
o Liberals do not see the historic covenant as necessarily valid, giving Palestinians as much right to the land as the Israelis.
o Evangelicals are split.
Some believe that the church has replaced Israel as God’s chosen people. This is aptly called “Replacement Theology” or Supersessionism.
Some believe that the covenants issued by God are his to rescind or maintain. Since God has not revoked his covenant with Israel even when Israel was defiant, then Israel is still the chosen people of God and the land still belongs to them by God’s decree.
o I believe in the latter Evangelical position. I am not a Supersessionist for I believe that the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable (Romans 11:29). I believe that God gave Israel the Holy Land (Genesis 12:7) and, therefore, it is their right to live in it today. The land is not only a place to live but, more importantly, a place to fulfill their covenant relationship with Yahweh. With that privilege comes responsibility (see, for example: Deuteronomy 4:40 16:19–20 30:15–20). Part of that responsibility is to treat the inhabitants of the land in a kind and generous way (eg: Deuteronomy 29:17.) But, by and large, the land belongs to God who set it aside for Israel.
My Conclusion: We do not read the Bible to change it, we read it so it will change us. God gives clear warning to those who would mislead others through willful, erroneous doctrine (see James 3:1 2 Peter 2:1-2). Yet no one has a monopoly on God’s Word or prophecy. We know whether someone is teaching God’s Word by testing all teaching according to the whole of the Bible.
2. The Church/Culture Relationship
· What drives the Liberals, as was repeated throughout the Assembly, is the notion that the church should respond to cultural practice, specifically civil rights.
o Example: Here is part of the rationale given that asked the GA to allow pastors and churches to perform same-gender marriages in states that allow them…
“Because of the integral connection between civil and Christian marriage, the church must contend with the fact that states are now passing legislation or operating under judicial rulings that make legal marriage equality an option for same-gender couples. Long-committed, same-gender couples (including Presbyterians whose civil unions may have been blessed by their Presbyterian pastors in their Presbyterian congregations) are choosing to take on the additional commitments and responsibilities of marriage. In these situations, pastors and sessions find themselves facing urgent pastoral decisions about how to provide the same ministry to them that is offered to other members. The issue comes to a head in the decision about whether ministers of Word and Sacrament will officiate at marriage ceremonies of legally-licensed couples and whether the session will permit the use of church property for such ceremonies.”
· What drives the Evangelicals is the belief that the church is “set apart”1 to transform culture. Wherein the two conflict, the church is called to be prophetic and holds God’s ground rather than equivocating to become like the culture. Yes, the church should be in the culture, but not of it when the culture is pushing an agenda that is contrary to the historically held teachings of the church.
o 1 The very name of the “Church” in Greek means, “The Called Out Ones” (ekklesia: “ek” = a preposition that means “out” + klesia, a derivative of the verb, kalew, = “to call”)
My Conclusion: The church is called to be a witness for God that is set aside for God’s purposes. If we are so indistinguishable from the culture, what “heavenly” good are we. As Jesus said, “You are the salt of the earth but if salt has lost its taste, how can its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything, but is thrown out and trampled under foot.” (Matthew 5:13). The church needs to be in the world but not of the world if we are to honor God.
3. Ecclesiastical Relations and Realities
· Historically, Presbyterian practice is that GA relates to the local congregations through the presbyteries. Both sides would agree on this.
· Currently, Liberals have a majority influence over the national-level government (ie: the General Assembly and its offices/divisions). Evangelicals have majority influence over the local churches and presbyteries.
· Liberals and Evangelicals have differing values regarding what it means to be the “church”
o Highest value for many, Liberals and Evangelicals, is “Connectionalism”…the idea that, by our denominational ties, we are inextricably connected, and this is the fulfillment of Jesus’ prayer in John 17 (see below)
o Highest value for Liberals is that the church is a change agent for Justice, as they define Justice (see above)
o Highest value for Jesus vis a vis the church is “Oneness”
John 17:21 – Jesus prays for us so “that they may all be one. As you, Father, 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.”
“Oneness” is a character quality whereby we connect with the Father to glorify the Son with a common purpose of helping others to connect with the Father.
The question is, “Can anyone who is disobedient to God’s revelation (the Bible) be connected with the Father?” Another way… “What fellowship does light have with darkness?” (2 Corinthians 6:14).
My Conclusion: I believe that the Liberals are not seeking Oneness as Jesus intended it. They are misleading the church and guiding her into disobedience. Evangelicals and Liberals cannot be “One” in our current states since one side or the other is not honoring the Father through its teachings and agenda.
Summary of Key Actions
I. Positives
1. The GA upheld the Biblical teaching that marriage is defined as a relationship between a man and a woman.
2. The GA denied the request to allow local churches and pastors to perform same-gender marriages.
a. This is significant as one overture was asking for an “Authoritative Interpretation” of the Constitution to allow same-gender marriages. That would allow pastors and churches to perform these “marriages” immediately, without waiting on the vote of the Presbyteries.
b. The GA did vote to send for study two papers…one on the historic practice of marriage the other on the new understanding of marriage as a so-called “justice” issue.
3. The GA affirmed Israel’s “right to exist as a sovereign nation within secure and internationally recognized borders.”
a. This is the result of the shredding of a paper from the Middle East Task Force that would have declared Israel an “apartheid” state, the cause of all of the problems in the Middle East, and a rogue nation according to United Nations resolutions. GA removed all such reference to Israel as an apartheid state from the document.
b. Thankfully, the GA and its committees affirmed Israel as God’s people who have not been replaced by the church, and their right to be in the Middle East on the land given them by God.
c. The paper did call on Israel to subsist from future settlement development in the West Bank. It called for Israel to work on a two-state solution. But this outcome is something no one thought would happen given the paper’s clear bias against Israel and favor for the Palestinians.
Note: There was another study document that was even more strongly in favor of Israel. I happen to be on the committee that dealt with it, and we sent it back for some tweaking. But I introduced a comment on that paper that said, “The committee endorses the intent of ‘Christian and Jews: People of God’ of enhancing Christian and Jewish relationships. We also encourage PCUSA congregations to employ ‘A Theological Understanding of the Relationship between Christians and Jews’ (1987) as a resource until a better resource is perfected.”
My Conclusion: In all, the Assembly was wise in its deliberations by rejecting the Middle East Task Force and amending that paper to be much more balanced and even, to a degree, pro-Israel. Combined with the “Christian and Jews: People of God” study, the PCUSA definitely called for solidarity with Israel even while asking her to treat the Palestinians fairly in the midst of maintaining its security.
4. To accept the Evangelical Presbyterian Church as a valid partner in ministry.
a. There was a motion at the last Assembly (2 years ago) to bring charges at the National Council of Churches against the EPC because they were allegedly “stealing” congregations
b. This was born out of the fact that many PCUSA congregations, hoping to remain “Presbyterian” in a changing PCUSA, have transferred into the EPC
c. After a two year study, it was determined by those on the study group that the EPC did not recruit these former PCUSA congregations. It was further noted that those congregations left because of the liberalization of the PCUSA.
d. This is encouraging because we have a tendency to demonize the “competition” rather than taking a look at ourselves to discover why some believe the PCUSA is broken and, likely, irreparably damaged as a denomination for Evangelicals.
II. Concerns
1. The GA, once again, resent the question about ordination vows to the presbyteries.
a. Liberals are trying to remove the so-called “Fidelity and Chastity” requirement… faithfulness in marriage and chastity in singleness.
b. The good news is that our current standards are still intact for two more years. The troubling news is that this issue is not going away.
2. GA is asking presbyteries to adopt a new Form of Government.
a. The concerns are the number of loopholes that could allow congregations to “do their own thing” when it comes to ordination standards. This is going to the presbyteries for vote.
III. Problems
1. Without a doubt, the motion that passed that brings the most concern is the GA’s directive to the PCUSA Board of Pensions to give health and death benefits to “domestic partners and their children.”
a. This is, without a doubt, the first step toward legitimizing same-gender unions as normative and acceptable. It is a subtle, if not disingenuous way of condoning “gay” marriages. I believe it is only a matter of time IF a significant shift does not occur.
b. Ironically, the very “justice” people hope for in this measure may lead to the dismissal of certain pastors. Since pastors are mandated to live in marital faithfulness or chaste singleness, should a pastor ask for benefits for his/her same-gender partner, it is admission that they have committed an offense that may lead to defrocking. This so-called act of justice may lead to a pastor losing his/her job.
c. By the way, you and I will be required to pay for these benefits given our polity. Each church will be taxed approximately 1% on their pastors’ total annual effective salary to pay for this new benefit. This is mandatory, no way to opt out.
Also, the deepest concerns revolve around the spirit of the Assembly more than the votes. For instance, the number of liberal activists is growing. How do we know? They identify themselves at GA by wearing a rainbow-colored stole/scarf. It was clear that there were many more stoles than ever before. Also, the vast majority of the youth delegates is regurgitating the Liberal arguments.
Many Evangelicals and others who care are sticking their heads in the sand pretending that there are no problems. I kept thinking,
· “When will people wake up?”
· “When will we value God’s teachings over political correctness?”
· “Am I so disconnected from the PCUSA that I’m the one out of touch with where the church should be on the issues?”
· “If this is the future of the church, how can God bless it?”
I must do some soul-searching, too, to see what God wants me to do next. For now I am confident that I am called to be the pastor of Grace Community Church.
Finally…
We have a choice…either fight to save our denomination or seek alternatives. We cannot pretend that there is not a cancer growing in the body that will, if left unchecked, destroy it one day. Liberalism is that cancer…pretending it is not so or that it doesn’t matter is neither loving nor faithful. Many in our particular church have helped to build our denomination. Will we sit idly while others now intend to take it down a path that does not honor God?
Oswald Chambers once wrote,
"Thank God that he does give us difficult things to do. His salvation is a joyous thing, but it is also something that requires bravery, courage and holiness. It tests us for all we are worth… God’s grace produces men and women with a strong family likeness to Jesus Christ, not pampered, spoiled, weaklings. It takes a tremendous amount of discipline to live the worthy and excellent life of a disciple of Jesus Christ in the realities of life. And it is always necessary for us to make an effort to live a life of worth and excellence."
—My Utmost for His Highest, devotional reading for July 7th
As for me, I have spent nearly 30 years fighting this fight. I am not a denominational loyalist who will blindly sit by and give tacit approval to the sin of the body. Nor do I, however, want to spend one more ounce of effort on something that others are allowing or encouraging. I would like to spend the next (and last) 15 years of ordained work in a body that affirms God’s Word and does not want to change it, but, rather, have it change us.
My Conclusion: So we have a choice to make…either fight the good fight before us or accept the blame for acquiescence. I will be talking with our Elders to discern how our church will address the issues. But I do not want this to become the focus of Grace Community Church. No matter what the denomination does, we will remain faithful to God and His Word. We will love others even when they are living unwisely in God’s eyes, but we will speak the truth in love with humility so God can use us to mend the broken. We will be mission minded, seeking new and creative ways of sharing the life-changing Gospel. We will Celebrate God, Change Lives, and Grow Disciples at Grace Community Church. And we will not support (financially) any institution that endorses practices that are clearly contrary to God’s Word.
The General Assembly began with the following and I will end with it as an encouragement for us all.
“Rejoice in the Lord always. I will say it again: Rejoice! Let your gentleness be evident to all. The Lord is near. Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.” (Philippians 4:4-7)
God bless our church. And may the PCUSA be a blessing to You!
|
