217th General Assembly

At one point during the Spring I entertained the idea of attending the 217th PC(USA) General Assembly which was to be held in Birmingham, Alabama in June. I needed to study Presbyterian polity and a course is typically offered at the GA. Also, as many of you might know, a report seeking to point the way toward “Peace, Unity and Purity” in the denomination was to be presented for acceptance. As I am in the process of seeking ordination as a Presbyterian minister with the PC(USA), it seemed a good idea to be present for these discussions and see what kind soup I’m getting myself into.

Our plans for ministry in Estonia this summer eventually derailed the Birmingham trip and so I’ve been scanning the net and various Presbyterian sites in order to get the scoop on what happened at the GA. For those who are interested in reading responses from a significant presbyterian voice calling for renewal in the denomination, I would recommend a site sponsored by Presbyterians for Renewal at www.ga2006.com. I’ve only just begun reading the content here but it seems quite good to me.

I know that in the past, my affiliation with the PC(USA) has raised some eyebrows, especially surrounding the denomination’s divestments from their holdings in certain multinational organizations in Israel and the ongoing debates regarding homosexual ordination. If you’re among those who seem confused as to why a fellow like myself would stay in such an apparently troubled denomination, I’d like to offer a few thoughts that are important to me and have informed my decision to stay.

1. First of all, it is vitally important to realize that the PCUSA is a denomination of churches. One of the reasons our debates have lasted so long in this denomination is that our system of government generally shares decision making power between the national governing body (the General Assembly) and local presbyteries. What seems to be the majority voice at the GA is in actuality the minority voice among the presbyteries. For this reason, past attempts to open the door to homosexual ordination at the GA level have failed time after time when sent to the Presbyteries for ratification. My own Presbytery is morally and theologically conservative/moderate and missionally progressive: a mix which has helped to form my own identity as a Christian minister and missionary. I have found no reason at all to doubt that they are indeed very concerned about sticking to biblical and confessional standards in regards to ordination, Christology, biblical interpretation and other key issues.
2. The fact that our presbytery is embedded in a denomination that seems to be moving in a more liberal direction does give cause for significant concern, but I for one would prefer to get at the hard work of standing against idolotry and reforming the denomination from the inside out rather than breaking away to form the next version of “the faithful church”. Where liberalism chips away at the Church’s foundations, schism sends each room floating off on its own. Can so many disjunctive rooms be called a house? In the long run, schism even serves to amplify idolotry in the Church rather than call it to repentance because in effect we allow it to take on a life of its own, free from the opposition we would otherwise provide. We dupe ourselves into a false sense of purity when we refuse to confront the idolotry and false teaching that arises within the larger body of Christ.
3. The Old Testament gives us plenty of examples of prophets who suffered for holding a minority position when Israel as a nation was deep in unrepentant idolotry. It seems to me that those of us who hold to what seem to be becoming minority views ought to align ourselves with this vocation of the suffering prophet rather than attempting to create a new and holy nation. Likewise, much of the New Testament speaks of a Church composed of the weakest in society, a Church with little if any political voice or sway. It seems to me that standard Christian protocol in all of these situations was and remains to spread and enact the gospel in every circumstance. Before I divert from this norm, I must be sure beyond any doubt that my motivation is based on God’s command and not on my own desire for self preservation.

In a time when many historically faithful denominations and local congregations are struggling to understand how to deal with the social and theological issues that face us, it is in fact cowardly for us to disengage from the debate, in the same way that it was cowardly for the would-be prophet Jonah to flee from his call to preach repentance to the Ninevites. The book of Jonah is clear to emphasize that Jonah’s cowardice was nothing less than fleeing from the face of God.