Archive for the ‘PCUSA’ Category

PCUSA: Do we need a spin doctor?

Wednesday, October 4th, 2006

In a story on the just-concluded GAC meeting in Louisville, the Layman Online reported this little nugget:

After the issue of communications was raised, one council member suggested the denomination needed to hire a press secretary to make sure the news is positive. Council members have frequently complained that news stories – even some from the denomination’s Presbyterian News Service – have given the council and the denomination a negative image.

This was a joke, right? Surely this unidentified council member didn’t mean to suggest that a PR flack could alter reality and “make sure the news [of the PCUSA] is positive.” Surely he or she didn’t believe that squandering the denomination’s shrinking funds on a spin doctor would be responsible stewardship – or be likely to succeed. Surely this council member wasn’t serious.

Alas, the unidentified member probably was serious and simply reflecting a common knee-jerk reaction to published reports that the denomination has once again done something dumb. This blame-the-press/control-the-press mindset is well-established in the PCUSA.

Oscar McCloud of the New York City Presbytery tried the same tactic at the 217th GA with regard to the divestment debacle. Rather than just admit that trying to punish Israel for the actions of Palestinian terrorists was a bad idea, he offered this language instead: “We regret any reporting that has caused any misunderstanding of the PCUSA’s commitment to peace and justice in Palestine and Israel.” [emphasis added] McCloud seemed to be saying “We’re fine with beating up on Israel; we just regret that it was accurately reported.” A few others climbed on the same tired, old bandwagon but, in the end, the GA wasn’t interested.

[In the same story, McCloud was credited with a brutally frank and accurate assessment of how the PCUSA responds when the GA's actions cause members to suffer: "I don't believe we have a tradition of apologizing when what we do pains Presbyterians." Indeed.]

Those of us who have been around for a while remember 1993 when the Louisville bureaucrats thought they could manage the news of the original Re-Imaging God conference. But the news was too awful and too widespread. It eventually cost one staffer her job and was very likely the reason long-time Stated Clerk James Andrews lost his bid for re-election in 1996. [At the time, given his efforts to paint a happy face on the hideous paganism that permeated the conference, I thought Andrews got what he deserved. Looking back over the reign of the man who defeated him, I'm not so sure.]

These folks remind me of Amity mayor Larry Vaughn in the movie Jaws. He had to deal with the arrival – just before the lucrative Fourth of July weekend – of a man-eating shark off the town’s beach. His solution to the problem was spin control. Ignoring the obvious danger to both swimmers and the long-term welfare of his town and its merchants, he tried to manage the news and minimize the threat.

He was living in a dream world, of course; no positive word, however skillfully spun, could deter the great white shark patrolling the waters crowded with bathers. But Larry tried, fully prepared to sacrifice both people and Amity’s future for a profitable holiday.

We shake our heads at Larry’s lack of integrity. We wonder at the blind self-interest that leads people like him to think they can change the harsh realities they face by trying to “make sure the news is positive”. But the truth has a nasty habit of leaking out despite the best (or worst) intentions of those who would like to mask or hide it.

The PNS isn’t going away; we hope it won’t be compromised any more than it already is.* The Layman isn’t going away; neither are the readers who find it – with all its flaws – more trustworthy than the denomination. The secular press that reported the GA’s stealthy implementation of local option and the PPC’s publication of David Griffin’s trashy book isn’t going away. The truth isn’t going away.

If the PCUSA wants to “make sure the news is positive”, it should make positive news.

——————————

* For example, the PNS story on the “Hope of the Church” conference in July simply gushed with enthusiasm and good vibes over the optimistic assessment by “this unprecedented body of PC(USA) heavyweights, including 16 general assembly (GA) moderators and nearly all of the 11 PC(USA) seminary presidents.” Curiously absent was any mention of former moderator David Dobler’s sober assessment that the PCUSA was already in schism.

Posted in PCUSA | 7 Comments »

PCUSA: Is it time for Davis Perkins to go?

Saturday, September 30th, 2006

Davis Perkins first came to my attention (and many others’) as the result of his scathing attack on the Confessing Church movement. This entirely gratuitous assault appeared in his introduction to a pamphlet about contradictory statements in some of the confessions the PCUSA purports to embrace. He wrote:

The term “confessing church” has come to mean something altogether different in the current Presbyterian context … as right-wing organizations seek to use confessional statements as theological sledgehammers to bludgeon Presbyterians into a rigid orthodoxy ….

Give Perkins credit for one thing (and only one thing); he came out of relative obscurity wearing his colors for all to see. His terminology identified him as a left-wing ideologue. Centrists seldom use the term “right-wing” while radicals always use it to describe centrists.

This terminology usually signals that the writer views theological differences primarily as political disputes – the term “right-wing” is, after all, a term from politics. People who see the Christian faith primarily as a political tool usually believe that “everything is politics” and tend to express themselves accordingly. There are many of this sort in the PCUSA; former moderator Rick Ufford-Chase is a high-profile example.

“Progressives” like Perkins have no use for orthodoxy. As he noted correctly in his mean little diatribe, orthodoxy is somewhat rigid, not pliant and accommodating like these folks want the PCUSA to be. And like many in PCUSA leadership positions (Clifton Kirkpatrick, Elenora Giddings Ivory, and Jack Rogers come easily to mind), he is not reluctant to use his bully pulpit to “bludgeon” those with whom he disagrees.

If I thought about Perkins at all after reading his cheap shot, I probably figured that he would just fade back into bureaucratic obscurity. It never occurred to me that, as a publisher, he would invest (misappropriate might be a better word) the resources at his disposal to promote the ultimate radical cause. But no; as president and publisher, Perkins decided to drag the Presbyterian Publishing Corporation (PPC) into the weird la-la land of David Griffin’s silly fantasy, Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action.

I was shocked and angered by this dumb decision, not only because of the content of the book, but because of the sort of crackpots the author chooses to hang out in cyberspace with. But there was something more troubling than that, more troubling than the lame excuses PPC offered for this bonehead play, even more troubling than the denomination’s rush to peddle this trash on the official PCUSA web site. I discovered that, like the PCUSA itself, Perkins was betraying the mission entrusted to him. According to the PCUSA, this mission is as follows:

Building on the Reformed tradition, the Presbyterian Publishing Corporation seeks to glorify God by contributing to the spiritual and intellectual vitality of Christ’s church. To that end, PPC publishes resources that advance religious scholarship, stimulate conversation about moral values, and inspire faithful living.

Um, right. Let’s see if stamping Griffin’s goofball conspiracy theory with the PCUSA’s imprimatur furthers this “mission”:

I think not.

Perkins, however, must believe the answer to these questions is yes. That being the case, I suggest that he move with all possible haste to get the PPC into the highly profitable supermarket tabloid business. He would be comfortable with the product and would probably find the frantic pace of new “scholarship” quite stimulating. And I’m sure the PCUSA would be happy with the enhanced revenue stream.

Occasionally, the PCUSA recognizes a failure of judgment so monumental as to require action. On rare occasions, the PCUSA moves decisively when a staffer allows professional judgment to be overwhelmed by personal prejudice. After the notorious Re-Imagining God conference, Mary Ann Lundy, the staffer who secured the PCUSA’s participation, was fired. After the world learned that the PCUSA was visiting Hezbollah terrorists and praising them, the responsible staffers – Kathy Leuckert and Peter Sulyok – were also fired.

With the PCUSA turned into a laughingstock, at a time when its reputation as a hotbed of anti-israel bigotry has been slightly diminished by backtracking on divestment, it’s time for PCUSA leaders to take a moment to focus on something other than their cumbling empire.

Is it time for Davis Perkins to go? I think the answer is obviously yes. Sadly, the obvious is all too often an impenetrable mystery to PCUSA bureaucrats.

Posted in PCUSA | 3 Comments »

PCUSA: Is it worthy of our love?

Saturday, September 23rd, 2006

In a word, no.

From the run-up to the 217th GA until now, there have been countless expressions of “love” for the PCUSA and endless concerns for “our beloved PCUSA”. Many of these sentiments have been expressed by Task Force members, perhaps trying to justify their unity-at-all-costs recommendations. Many more have come from hand-wringing renewalists, perhaps trying to explain why they continue to cling to a failed “stay, fight, win” strategy.

But I can’t find much to recommend this sentimental regard for the PCUSA simply because it is the PCUSA. As Christians, we know whom we are called to love. “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters – yes, even his own life – he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26) Jesus isn’t telling his disciples that they can’t love anyone but Jesus, only that they – and we – can’t put anyone ahead of or even on a par with Jesus. Not even our church or our denomination.

So what else does the Bible tell us we should love? Here is a short list – God the Father (Matthew 22:37), neighbors (Matthew 22:39), enemies (Matthew 5:44), other Christians (John 13:34), spouses, children, and parents (Colossians 3:18-21). These are all persons. Truth – emobodied by Christ – also shows up on the list, but I find no mention of earthly organizations, no matter how noble their intent may be – or once was.

The Bible doesn’t address denominations directly, but perhaps Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 1:10-15 are instructive:

I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into[b] the name of Paul? I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name.

Are we so different when we say “I follow John Knox”; “I follow Martin Luther”; “I follow John Wesley”? There is only one body. There is not a Presbyterian body, a Lutheran body, a Methodist body, or any other body. Just one.

(Among the PUP report’s many errors was the implication that unity with the PCUSA somehow equates to unity with the body of Christ. I don’t know why they made such an absurd claim. I get the impression from the report, their selling of it prior to the GA, and their defense of it afterwards that they were simply blinded by their love for the denomination. Maybe it was just hubris.)

And what are faithful Christians to do when our denomination turns into John’s vision of the church at Ephsesus, when the denomination that once persevered and endured hardships for Jesus’ name forsakes its first love and falls from its once-great height? (Revelation 2:3-5)

What are we to do when the PUP report tells to be like the church at Laodicea – neither hot nor cold but lukewarm – for the sake of superficial unity; when our money, property, influence, and prestige (all dwindling but still great) have blinded us the to the fact that the PCUSA is “wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked”? (Revelation 3:15-18) Should we love this human enterprise?

Again, in a word, no.

Perhaps those who believe that they can bring about renewal with their own efforts or who believe that God will yet do the job himself should persevere, but not for “love” of the PCUSA. To them I say, do it for love of the people who are being misled. Do it for love of the people who are being shown the wide way to destruction. Do it for the love of the one who is worthy of our love. These are persons worthy of love.

But here is the dilemma for the renewalists: Which is better? To try to protect the people from falling debris in case the building collapses? Or to get them to a safer place and just let the dilapidated old building go?

When I think about leaving and staying, my thoughts turn to a different metaphor. I imagine myself as a passenger on the Titanic. I imagine myself as part of a large family, scattered around in different cabins on different decks, some asleep, some running around looking after themselves, some paralyzed with fear.

I ask myself if this mighty ship has been irreparably damaged by its captain and crew. Is the damage so great that no human effort can save it? I imagine myself going below to examine the vast tear in the ship’s hull and asking God if he will somehow close the wound.

If I believe that the damage is beyond repair, that pride, arrogance, sin, and love for the world have doomed this ship to its deserved fate, what should I do? Proudly stay and go down with the ship? Tell my family to do the same? Tell them do decide for themselves?

Or should I try to round up as many as I can, tell them of the dangers, point to an available lifeboat, and implore them to board it with me? As an elder in the PCUSA, these are questions I cannot ignore. They are questions I cannot answer without discerning God’s will.

I can’t let the Titanic metaphor go without making this observation: It seems that to our captain, Clifton Kirkpatrick*, the anguish of the passengers is of no concern. He seems to want to hide the lifeboats and tell the passengers to either jump in the water or go down with the ship. All that matters is that they leave their possessions on board.

* Yes, I’ve demoted him from emperor to captain in successive postings.

Posted in PCUSA | No Comments »

PCUSA: The return of the Jedi

Saturday, September 16th, 2006

After blowing up the planet Alderon with his secret weapon, the Death Star, Emperor Palpatine believed he had crushed the Rebel Alliance and imposed peace on the Galactic Empire. From his capital in Coruscant, Palpatine deployed his vast army of storm troppers to root out the remnant of the Alliance and consolidate his iron-fisted rule. But the Alliance came back even stronger as Jedi knights – long suppressed, persecuted and sometimes compromised by the Empire – came forth in the power of their ancient faith and defeated the Empire.

Now Jedi-like presbyteries are striking back against Emperor Clifton* and the empire wannabes in his capital of Louisville. After blowing up the constitution with their secret weapon, a phony Authoritative Interpretation of G-6.0108, the PUP task force and a compliant GA thought they had imposed peace too.

Their ploy of evading the process for altering the constitution seemed to have circumvented the presbyteries altogether. Armed with a pair of lawyers, Emperor Clifton has set out consolidate the PCUSA empire by acquiring either the loyalty or the property of every church and member. But he didn’t count on Presbyterian knights of the ancient and orthodox faith to rise up to oppose him.

All along, there have been members, churches, and organizations that have resisted the worldly drift of the PCUSA. But for the first time that I know of, administrative bodies of the church itself are defying the denomination’s imperial directives – Central Florida and Sacramento have done so. Others (Whitewater Valley, Pittsburgh, Mississippi, even San Francisco) are being asked to seriously consider defiance. Still others have taken different approaches to saying to the PCUSA “enough is enough!”

It’s encouraging to see that the PCUSA empire has some cracks in its fortress. Blowing up the constitution was not the clean kill that blowing up Alderon seemed to be. Both empires were wrong about where the heart of their opponents lay and from where they drew their strength. But when we ponder the future of the PCUSA, does the Star Wars metaphore hold up?

A different end for this empire

I don’t think so. Courageous presbyteries are to be admired and supported. They can slow the empire’s onslaught and ease the pain for Presbyterians who stay, if only for a while. But even if Kirkpatrick were to be removed, the rot and corruption in Louisville are pervasive. The power and influence of the modernists and humanists are greater than even what Kirkpatrick imagines he can wield.

There is a fundamental structural flaw in the PCUSA, a flaw that seems to be common among all constitutional democracies of any size, of which the PCUSA and USA are both examples. These polities contain the seed of their own destruction – a complacent citizenry (whether members of the PCUSA or voters in the USA) that allows power to escape from its hands into the hands of politicians and bureaucrats at the highest level. With their own vested interests in mind and with the power to implement their personal ideals (which are often lofty in their own way), these powerful insiders lose sight of the original mission of the entity they lead.

When that happens, the constitution that was created to further the original mission becomes a hindrance to the current one and must be circumvented in any way possible. As constitutional democracies, the PCUSA and the USA provide eerily parallel examples of this flaw. The difference, of course, is that the mission of the USA was not given us by God and we are not accountable to him for its completion. (Interestingly, of all the PCUSA renewal organizations and denominational branches, the NWAC is the only group that has addressed this flaw.)

The PCUSA cannot be saved by human effort. It appears to me that God has turned his attention to faithful Presbyterian churches in Asia and the Global South. He seems to have given the job of renewing the American church to denominations and independent churches that remain faithful to him. Those are the places faithful Christians should be laboring. We should be following God, not imploring him to follow us.

The end of the PCUSA empire is not in defeat but in departure.

* Some commentators have likened the Stated Clerk to a pope, but I didn’t want to risk offending our Catholic brothers and sisters. It’s been a long time since a pope in Rome has behaved as reprehensibly as our emperor in Louisville.

Posted in PCUSA | No Comments »

PCUSA: "I am not ashamed of the gospel"

Sunday, August 27th, 2006

As a Christian, I am not ashamed of the gospel (Romans 1:16-17). Jesus taught his disciples to expect ridicule, even hatred because of him. I’m Ok with that. It’s part of counting the cost of being identified with him.

But here’s what I am ashamed of and what I’m not Ok with. I’m ashamed of my denomination. I’m not Ok with the cost of being identified with an organization that brings ridicule and condemnation on itself – not for Jesus’ sake but for the sake of accommodating the culture and wallowing in political correctness.

I am not ashamed of the gospel. I am ashamed of the PCUSA.

Posted in PCUSA | No Comments »

PCUSA: Word games, part 3

Thursday, August 17th, 2006

Click here for Part 1, here for Part 2

In their thirst to conform to the culture, many in the PCUSA saw the campaign for acceptance and endorsement of homosexuality as a bandwagon worth jumping on. But there was the small matter of ordination standards, particularly G-6.0106b. Through the prescribed constitutional process, G-6.0106b had been approved by the presbyteries and added to the Book of Order, mandating that ordained officers live in monogamous heterosexual marriage or in chaste singleness. Two efforts to persuade the presbyteries to delete G-6.0106b had failed. Many attempts to amend it into meaningless babble had failed. It was obvious that a majority of presbyteries were satisfied to keep the standard in place and that by 2002, the General Assembly had no stomach to try again. Efforts to invalidate the Definitive Guidance of 1979 (establishing the theological foundation for G-6.0106b) had never even made it to the presbyteries for consideration. This was the situation into which the Theological Task Force (TTF) stepped.

In their headlong pursuit of unity at any cost, the TTF realized that they had to find a way to accommodate incompatible world views. The progressive Covenant Network and their political allies had made it clear they would allow no peace in the PCUSA as long as ordination standards remained in place (even if enforcement was selective and largely ineffective). The renewal crowd, the “right” who held Scripture and the Confessions to be utterly authoritative in matters of faith and practice, made it equally clear they would not cave to political pressure and abandon orthodoxy for cultural accommodation. The TTF apparently made the “middle” (who seemed to support G-6.0106b, but might lack commitment to it) the target of what turned out to be a massively deceptive word game.

The be successful, the TTF had to find a way to

  1. retain G-6.0106b to placate the right,
  2. enable ordaining bodies to safely ignore G-6.0106b to mollify the left, and
  3. bypass the constitutional process altogether lest those pesky presbyteries derail their scheme.

What to do? How to retain a standard and make conformance to it optional? Perhaps the TTF looked to the presbyteries, churches, and officers who were already claiming to honor their ordination vows while simultaneously ignoring constitutional provisions they had promised to bound by. In their defiance, they mostly sang the same tune – it was a matter of “conscience”. Could it be that the Book of Order would actually allow candidates and governing bodies to ignore G-6.0106b? Well, no; it wouldn’t, not as written. But maybe if we all pretended the words meant something other than what they say….

In their masterpiece of doublespeak and misdirection, the PUP report, the TTF found a way. They injected the necessary ambiguity into – not G-6.0106b (a tactic which had also been tried before without success) – but G-6.0108b. Huh? Yes, Alice, said the Caterpillar, they made compliance with ordination standards a matter of conscience. They applied the concept of “scruples” to the enforcement of standards. As detailed here, the TTF borrowed some convenient language from the Adopting Act of 1729 while leaving the substance (adherence to the Westminster Confessions) behind.

The concept of a “scruple” (i.e. a matter of conscience) is addressed in G-6.0108a which calls for adherence “to the essentials of the Reformed faith and polity as expressed in The Book of Confessions and the Form of Government” [emphasis added] and adds “So far as may be possible without serious departure from these standards, without infringing on the rights and views of others, and without obstructing the constitutional governance of the church, freedom of conscience with respect to the interpretation of Scripture is to be maintained.” G-6.0108b goes on to establish the limits of freedom of conscience: the candidate’s conscience “is captive to the Word of God as interpreted in the standards of the church so long as he or she continues to seek or hold office in that body.” [emphasis added]

All those smart folks on the TTF understood the unbroken chain of orthodox doctrine that ran from Scripture analyzed and interpreted in the Definitive Guidance to limits on individual conscience defined in G-6.0108b to the Biblical standard embodied in G-6.0106b. There is nothing in that chain – including freedom of conscience – that can be said to grant a candidate or governing body the privilege to unilaterally decide whether or not a standard is applicable. The constitution is not ambiguous.

But the TTF’s unscrupulous word game with “scruples” created the false impression that the constitution was ambiguous and then resolved the ambiguity in a way that accomplished their objectives. Specifically,

  1. By attacking G-6.0108b, they left the words of G-6.0106b unchanged,
  2. By altering the interpretation of G-6.0108b to mean something vastly different from what it says, they left everyone free to depart from G-6.0106b (or any other standard) by declaring it “non-essential.”
  3. By creating this Alice-in-Wonderland situation with an Authoritative Interpretation that required only a simple majority on the GA floor, they froze the presbyteries with their bothersome months of study, prayer, and deliberation out of the process completely.

As expected the TTF’s illusion of peace and unity lasted about as long as their self-satisfied celebration at the GA. The TTF’s word games sowed cynicism and deception. The PCUSA is already beginning to reap a rich harvest of division, distrust, and fear. Interestingly, it is obvious from the publication of the “Presbyterian Papers” that the denomination was also prepared months in advance to receive a harvest of church buildings or ransoms paid for them by departing congregations.

Indeed, the most disgusting aspect of the TTF, the PUP report, and the GA’s embrace of it all is the fact that Clifton Kirkpatrick, Eric Graninger, Mark Tammen, and every synod and presbytery executive knew that no peace or unity would result from the TTF’s deception. They knew that members, churches, and perhaps whole presbyteries would flee. They knew that the financial windfall would keep the PCUSA (and their jobs) afloat a while longer.

But as a dynamic witness to the power of the Gospel in the world, the PCUSA is dead, the victim of its own word games.

Posted in PCUSA | No Comments »

PCUSA: Word games, part 2

Tuesday, August 8th, 2006

[This second part was delayed by the news that the PCUSA had gone into the conspiracy business and by my reading of the Schori interview in Time magazine. I hasten to add that I read the interview in the dentist's office. I do not subscribe to Time.]

Click here for Part 1.

So why did the 217th General Assembly ignore the constitutional process? First, we must look at the long-standing battle waged by homosexual activists for acceptance by society. There is no question that one objective of this fight was basic human rights – economic freedom, freedom from violence, and so on. The ultimate goal, however was – and is – much more than that. It was nothing less than to have their lifestyle and sexual practices considered normal, even noble or desirable.

The most rudimentary examination of human anatomy reveals that we are constructed for heterosexual relations. It is hard to make the case that homosexual relations are in any sense natural or likely to be considered the norm. The activists understood that when you want to impose a new social structure or attitude that is contrary to human nature, you have to capture key institutions. Since medicine considered homosexuality a disorder and a largely church-going culture considered it immoral, the targets were obvious – medicine, the church, and popular culture.

Medical societies and mainline Protestant denominations were particularly appealing because they are hierarchical in varying degrees and because they base their behaviors on established bodies of knowledge. (The assault on a pop culture lacking these characteristics is not relevant here.) Hierarchies were attractive because they provide a concentration of powerful and influential leaders to be lobbied. Reliance on an established body of knowledge is the perfect playground for – what else? – word games. If the literature can be made ambiguous, re-interpreted, or otherwise manipulated, new “knowledge” can be manufactured and used as a new foundation for a new structure or attitude.

Through a systematic campaign of lobbying members of the American Psychiatric Association and disrupting their meetings, homosexual activists conquered the medical establishment by winning a word game. In 1973, they convinced the APA’s Committee on Nomenclature to abandon 70 years of science and declare a change of wording in the Diagnostic and Statistics Manual. With no new data, no new studies, no scientific basis at all, the committee caved in to purely political pressure and declared that homosexual behavior was not evidence of a psychiatric disorder. The members (the motivated one-third who voted) followed suit and two years later the American Psychological Association fell into line.

It is worth noting that four years after the activists’ political victory, a survey revealed that fully 68 percent of psychiatrists still considered homosexuality a disorder. See Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth by Jeffrey Satinover, M.D. for a detailed history of these events.

In Part 3, we will examine the political forces that led the PCUSA to abandon its own constitution and theology in order to achieve the same political result within the church.

Click here for Part 3.

Posted in PCUSA | No Comments »