This is a great question, to be sure, although I didn't mean for my comments to indicate there needs to be reform from the 'top-down'. A great deal of change needs to be made at the top, in my estimation, but I think the movement for that will need to come from the bottom in a groundswell fashion.

The main suggestion I have is to guarantee your congregation has a vigorous elder training process in place. My experience is that most Sessions presently function only to conduct church business: We have an agenda that reports committee activity, we move funds from one line item to another, we approve the minister's time away, and we attempt to do it in the shortest amount of time possible. Precious little attention is given to theology and worship, which is interesting to me, because in the Book of Order, the ordination questions for ministers (G-14.0405b) and elders (G-14.0207) are the same. In other words, elders are to know their theology and polity, and be active in higher governing bodies. The presbytery in which I serve, Presbytery of the Peaks, recently had a reading and hearing on an overture from one of our member churches concerning the 217th GA AI. Almost invariably, when an elder commented, s/he would offer some variation on this disclaimer: "I'm just a regular person in the pew,
but. . . ." The vote of an elder at presbytery, synod, and General Assembly gatherings carries just as much weight as the vote of a minister. If we make sure our elders are sharp in theology and polity and active in governing body affairs, I think that will make a world of difference.

In addition to the obvious perennials of the Book of Order, the Book of Confessions, and the Holy Bible, some helpful resources for elder training include: Presbyterian Polity for Church Officers by Joan Gray and Joyce Tucker (ISBN 0664500188); Making Disciples, Making Leaders: A Manual for Developing Church Officers by Steven Eason (ISBN 0664502636); the Book of Confessions: Study Edition (ISBN 0664500129) and Christian Doctrine: Revised Edition by Shirley Guthrie (ISBN 0664253687).

It seems to me that there is a triangulatory injury that occurs whenever a split happens: A couple get divorced because they can't stand each other, but it's the children who are penalized the most; a corporation splits over leadership issues at the top, but it's the average consumers and shareholders who pay the price; a congregation divides over--what else?!--whether to play praise choruses or traditional anthems ( :) ), and the neighborhood losing a vital witness loses out. Those in our midst who chatter about leaving are perhaps missing this pivotal point. If substantial churches pull out of the PCUSA--hey, with such close polarization, even if the numbers aren't substantial--they will not affect the 'progressive' leadership; indeed, they will embolden and benefit those who are liberal-leaning. No, such a departure will only hurt those Biblically faithful women and men who are called by God to stay and labor where He has put them. Evangelical churches leaving the denomination will only further dilute the voice and vote that the evangelical caucuses possess, thereby tipping the scales in liberal favor. The evangelicals have had the votes heretofore; if churches leave, that will no longer be the case. So, if there is a departure, the separatists will not injure the PCUSA structure, they will injure most those brothers and sisters with whom they agree the most. Indeed, leaving isn't the answer. Reforming the denomination--beginning at the top--is.

The 1983 reunion between the UPCUSA and the PCUS was, among many other things, a train-wreck collision of two different organizational philosophies: One was the UPCUSA--the Northern Presbyterian church--which had a "top down" philosophy. In this philosophy, the congregations existed to facilitate the ministry and work of the presbytery. The presbytery set the goals and tenor of the church's work, and the congregations were expected to support it. The Southern Presbyterian church had a "bottom up" philosophy: The presbytery existed to support and facilitate the work of the congregations. The congregations--in a connectional and communal nature--set the missional vision of the presbytery and the presbytery structure was expected to support and facilitate that vision.

What is occurring with the fidelity/chastity clause and the A.I. is a classic elaboration of how these models conflict on a national level. The PCUS philosophy has held sway thus far: The presbyteries have voted on the issue multiple times, and in doing so, have set the vision for the General Assembly and have expected the General Assembly to support and facilitate that vision. The A.I., on the other hand, is emblematic of the UPCUSA model, as the General Assembly has made a decision that the presbyteries may or may not agree with, and the General Assembly is expecting presbyteries to move forward in support of that vision. One of the questions standing before us now (and has perhaps been unanswered twenty-plus years into the reunion) is: Which model holds sway with us? Does the denominational structure support the lower governing bodies? Or do the lower governing bodies support the denominational structure? How we answer that question may take us a long way in figuring out how this thing will end. . . .

The Kerryization of the Church

John Kerry has come under a ton of fire (does he get a Purple Heart for this?) for his now infamous comment about kids getting stuck in Iraq if they don't get a good education. Much commentary has been uttered about the slip, and some of it revolves around Mr Kerry's tactics as a politician: Mr Kerry was also widely criticized (a trend is developing here) for not responding to the Swift Boat ads quickly enough and forcefully enough in the 2004 Presidential campaign. That error is thought, in many circles, to be the misstep that foundered the ship of his candidacy. Once Republicans decried Mr Kerry's 'botched joke', he wasn't going to make the same mistake twice; instead, he fought back immediately and forcefully, with language that was borderline inflammatory. The commentary (which I am not linking because there is so much of it) is that Mr Kerry is always fighting the previous battle. He should have come out fast and hard with the Swifties and didn't. He should have apologized quickly for the 'stuck in Iraq' thing, but he applied the lesson learned of the last battle. Mr Kerry seems to always be one step behind--fighting the battle already waged and learning its lessons one engagement too late.

I wonder if the PCUSA hasn't suffered a Kerryization. Many Presbyterians were on the wrong side of slavery and Civil Rights issues. We learned those lessons--some of us a little late. Now, we seem to be of the mind that we are not going to make the same mistake twice. Having caught on to those progressive movements late in the day, we are now quickly embracing any progressive idea that comes along, lest we be proven wrong, yet again. We are still fighting the previous battle. The problem is that progressivism is not a consistent good. (What is!?) Some progressive causes are thoroughly Biblical--focus on the poor would be one example. Some are not Biblical--abortion comes to mind. The traditional agenda stands under the same criticism. Supporting the Civil Rights movement (and now racial reconciliation) is a strength of the progressives and is to be lauded and followed. Fighting against abortion is a strength of the traditionalists and is to be lauded and followed. Chasing after every action that is progressive because we're stuck in the prior contest is theological suicide. Or political, if you're John Kerry.

I have been thinking about the idea that liberals and conservatives both claim to be following Christ, but yet have such differing ideas as to what that means (or even who he is!). I have come to suspect that discipleship to Christ is more a statement of words, and less a set of behaviors. So many confess one God, but emulate another. (Disclaimer: I probably do this, too. It's just that I want to emulate Bono.) The liberals seem to me the closet Gnostics, who have a special and better grasp of faith than the rest of us: "If you only got it like we get it, you would support our cause!" The liberals act like they understand Christ and his work in a truer sense than their opponents. But if the liberals are Gnostics, then the conservatives must be Deists. The right-wingers act as though God has put everything down in a rulebook--also known as the Bible--and that's the end of it. Much like the Eternal Watchmaker who made the watch and then set it off to run in his absence. (This is not far afield of, "The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it!") This idea is devoid, I think, of the relational and sacrificial aspects of ministry. This is painting with a broad brush, to be sure, but the liberals are Gnostics, the conservatives are Deists, and those who follow Christ are. . .well. . .where are they?!

Sorry for the absence. I was away a fortnight for study leave and vacation, then I returned to a funeral and catch-up.