Share this
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Slashdot
Furl
Yahoo
Technorati
Newsvine
Googlize this
Blinklist
Facebook
Wikio
Print
E-mail
In the midst of divisions in our denomination, we see churches that are growing and thriving. How do pastors of those congregations handle the challenges of serving in a divided denomination? ReNEWS editor Jim Berkley interviewed three pastors from very different parts of the country.
George Cladis is pastor and team leader of Noroton Presbyterian Church in Darien, Connecticut, a 1,600-member congregation in Southern New England Presbytery. He is author of Leading the Team-Based Church (Jossey-Bass, 1999).
Heidi Husted is senior pastor of Columbia Presbyterian Church in Vancouver, Washington, a 1,200-member congregation where she has served since 1995. Columbia is in Cascades Presbytery.
Scott Weimer has been senior pastor of North Avenue Presbyterian Church since 1997. This 900-member, multi-cultural congregation is located in the heart of Atlanta, part of the Greater Atlanta Presbytery. Twenty-eight nationalities are represented in North Avenue's diverse membership that includes rich and poor, urban and suburban.
Many observers feel that the PC(USA) has become a house divided against itself. Do you agree?
George Cladis: In the Presbytery of Southern New England, and generally in the Northeast where I am, it feels divided much of the time. Certainly there are some common mission goals we rally around, but I don't sense any real passion of the church in our presbytery, or in the courts above that, either. Because there is no uniting passion--because we're not a movement for Jesus or the Reformed expression of the faith--we are reduced now to legal squabbles and constitutional battles. Consequently, theological differences are emphasized, because there is no other passion point for us to rally around that would render those differences less relevant.
Scott Weimer: Squarely divided is what I experience in the Greater Atlanta Presbytery. We're squarely divided on all the major issues when it comes to voting.
For over five years I've been a part of a "common ground" group. Five of us tend to fall out on the right on theological issues, five on the left. We've discovered that we do have common ground on many issues, but we're divided on some important issues. For example, on the role of Scripture we all believe it's authoritative, we all affirm it as one of our ordination vows, but we have significant division in what it means and the role of Scripture in our lives together.
Heidi Husted: I think the view that the PC(USA) is squarely divided is perpetuated at times by our polity--when we line up at microphones and aim our words at a moderator, voicing opinions that are either/or, pro or con, instead of talking face to face with one another. Certainly there are differences--folks beyond the pale on the left, and on the right, I might add. Are we a mixed bag? Yes. Are we confused at times? Yes. Theologically divided in terms of Christology or sexuality? Yes. But I'm not so sure we are squarely divided. I think it makes the situation sound more black and white than it is.
George: As I see it, conservatives want to rob the liberals of biblical faith, and the liberals want to rob the conservatives of compassion. For those of us who huddle around the middle, it is so painful. I vote more traditionally (conservative), but I don't like to be labeled doctrinaire, legalistic, or uncompassionate. And some of my more liberal friends who are just on the other side of the line don't like to be called unbiblical or without a theological basis for their argument.
The way the questions are framed divide us at the heart. Your vote--either yes or no--puts you in one camp or the other. Within the conservative camp where I usually vote, some of my more conservative brothers and sisters don't quite trust me, because I feel sympathetic to the moderate liberal's compassionate concerns. Because I'm not leading the charge to "chase these heretics out of the church"--because I'm not a crusader--sometimes I feel more camaraderie with my more liberal friends.
Where do you find the major divisions?
Heidi: It's not so much a questioning of the authority of Scripture, although some on the far left do. It's more a disagreement over the interpretation of Scripture: What is the Word saying in this time and place, in this context? The line falls across our struggle with biblical interpretation. The more voices you bring to the reading and interpretation of Scripture--even evangelical voices!--the more challenging it gets! But that's good. In the absence of a Pope, that's how we Reformed folks do biblical interpretation. That's why at my church I've experimented with a "Partners in Preaching" group, in which various members of the congregation have studied a sermon text with me to help discern the meaning together. We stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before us, and we listen to the Word, for this time and place together. Nobody ever said it would be easy!
George: Yes, interpretation, but also application of the text. Some who vote differently than me on, say, the human sexuality issues, do so because they are either aware of their own failing or the failings of those around them, sometimes close family members. They want to vote in a lenient way--they see it as compassionate--even though they are quite aware of what the Bible says about sexual ethics. They vote contrary to a clear reading of Scripture because of their sense of personal weakness or sympathy toward those who live lifestyles Scripture clearly opposes.
Scott: It was fascinating to me in Atlanta Presbytery as we worked on strategies to defeat Amendment 01-A, that in trying to persuade those who might be in the middle, the most effective arguments were nonbiblical. In one debate I was ready with what we thought were well-thought-out biblical interpretations of texts dealing with sexuality issues. But when the person on the other side of the debate started off with "You know, I've never really studied much about what the Bible says about sexuality," that gutted our position. They weren't even trying to make a case from Scripture! I was sad that we weren't really talking about the most important issue: What does the text say, and what does it mean when we differ in interpretation? How do we find consensus about biblical interpretation? The divisive discussions have a lot to do with the role of Scripture.
George: Extremes on both sides make it difficult to stay to the point of the biblical and the theological issues involved. On one side folks say, "I'm voting this way because I have a gay son or daughter or aunt or uncle whom I love." The vote is how they express their affection for that family member. Or they feel that a family member has been rejected, so it's an opportunity for them to make a statement.
On the other extreme are those who say, "Those homosexuals are just a bunch of pedophiles!" or something like that. They're voting on anecdotal information, prejudice, or bias. Certainly the real stories of people are important, but not when they become the driving force--our anecdotes versus your anecdotes, our horror story versus yours.
Scott: After our "quasi debates," what I found most affirming was that people appreciated the tone of the discussion. The debate came through as loving, compassionate, and respectful. The same argument with a judgmental or condemning or non-compassionate tone would fall flat. We need to be mutually respectful and humble, not so convinced that we have all the right answers, yet firm in articulating what we believe to be true.
Heidi: I really resonate with that. How we believe what we believe is just as important as what we believe. In my view some very Christ-centered evangelicals have got the biblical interpretation right, but their style is very un-Christlike when they're angry, mean-spirited, holier-than-thou. Sometimes they can be more discouraging to me than the so-called heretics they decry!
Amendment A appeared to be the presenting problem. Is it really, or are we using the whole sexuality issue to fight over something else?
Heidi: We're always going to be disagreeing over something, trying to follow Jesus Christ and understand and obey God's Word over some issue. It's the nature of the church. Much of the Pauline literature is addressing problems, challenges, issues of the day, not the least of which was church people not being able to get along together! So we're always grappling with God's timeless Word, trying to interpret and apply it for this particular time. That's why we have confessions, because a changing historical situation requires fresh understandings and articulation of the Word.
George: I agree. Some say Christology is the real issue. Certainly we have a wide spectrum of convictions on these critical issues, particularly issues that deviate from our historical confessions. However, it seems that a lot of our theological controversies are really a problem of not having passion about anything positive.
If we had a goal that seized our imagination and energy--such as "the United States needs Jesus!"--then these theological issues would be less interesting and less dividing. We wouldn't see ourselves as an institution. We would be a movement focused around the Savior.
Scott: I'm with you on that, George! In our "common ground" group we have worked hard to explore common ground, and we've found a significant amount of common ground. I think that it is a reason that our debates here in Atlanta have been civil and respectful. People leave thinking, I may not have won, but I feel like I was heard. I was respected, and I have hope for a church that can deal with issues in this manner. That's no small issue!
We try to find points around which we have passion. We entered into a capital campaign that was all about the mission of the church--about new-church development, about supporting a pastoral institute in Kenya, about supporting a conference center. I was on that capital-campaign committee, and it was wonderful to stand up before presbytery and not talk about sexuality issues, but talk with passion about something that will call us together and send a message of hope to our denomination. We in a divided presbytery can unite around something that's even more important than sexuality, and that's the mission of Jesus Christ.
Are there other ways you have chosen to operate, say, within a presbytery, that you have found to be helpful?
George: I had an interesting experience in my presbytery just prior to the sexuality debates. We were asked to sit around a table with other pastors and elders and discuss "Can we get along together?" and "Is it possible to be united in diversity?" At my table were elders and pastors representing three sessions that had sent unanimously passed overtures to the presbytery to support amendments favoring ordination of gays and lesbians. I said, "You are from three large churches whose sessions sent unanimous overtures to presbytery, and you're wondering why a pastor like me can't be content with diversity? I couldn't get a unanimous vote out of my session on anything, let alone something controversial like this! How can you in good conscience tout being united in being diverse when I know for a fact that the people in your churches are not unanimous on these issues? Your sessions are not representing church members on very sensitive issues."
I had them backed into a corner. Finally one said, "Well, I don't think it can work for churches to be diverse, but we need to have diverse churches in the presbytery." I found this comment to be disingenuous and harmful to their cause.
Scott: I'm grateful to be in a presbytery that is alive and vital. I think of it as my extended family, so I've got to contribute to the health of the family or I'll be part of the dysfunction. I've worked at building bridges within our presbytery by being involved. I've built relationships with people who disagree with me theologically, because they are part of the family and we've committed ourselves to living together. That's been challenging, but also reward-ing. We love each other as families do, but we've fought as families do. We've had some wonderful moments of grieving with each other over personal losses. We've come around each other in prayer. Our lives are linked in mission and in relationships.
How many hours do you spend in presbytery matters?
Scott: Oh, about six to nine hours a month, not counting the presbytery meetings.
George: The lines of connectivity are drawn differently for me. I made a vow as a Presbyterian minister to perform duties related to my vocation, and I find some value in presbytery relationships. But I find a greater support and resources by connecting with Presbyterians not in my presbytery--or with other mainline Protestant churches--that face issues similar to those in the congregation I serve.
Heidi, how does it work for you out West?
Heidi: Cascades Presbytery is huge. It runs from the southern border of Oregon into the southern part of Washington, and from the Cascade Mountains west. We meet three times a year, so imagine if you miss a single meeting! It is challenging to have any kind of connection. And it is not representative of the Presbyterian Church because retired folks are the only ones who have time to take a Friday and Saturday to travel some distance and attend meetings.
The way that I connect in the presbytery is informal, such as meeting regularly with a lexio divina group. Most are to the left of me, theologically, but it's very refreshing. We share our lives together, we read Scripture and pray together, and for me, that's a big part of what a true presbytery ought to be--fellowship and prayerful support.
Scott: In our compact Greater Atlanta area, there's no excuse not to be involved. I think it is helpful for our congregation to know that I'm involved in the presbytery. And beyond that, our church helps bring together like-minded Presbyterians, not just for fellowship, but also to discuss how we can be proactive in presbytery issues and debates. It's a pretty heavy involvement, but it helps me stay healthy in the denomination.
But does it really change anything in your presbytery?
Heidi: I think it's good to know people on "the other side" of a debate as real people, not as caricatures. I have tried to do that with a group of pastors from across the nation, convened by the Office of Theology and Worship. But after two years of interchange and debate, our stand on an issue is pretty much the same as when we started. We have a greater measure of trust and caring. We like and respect one another--and that's good. But we still disagree.
George: We are like people arguing on a beach. Meanwhile a tidal wave of cultural change--what Leonard Sweet calls a soulTsunami--is ready to crash on the shore and wipe us both out. The macro forces of changing culture are huge, and they render our theological divisions somewhat irrelevant. The truth of the matter is that our denomination has lost touch with people culturally in America. We are still trying to do an old European-based tradition of Presbyterianism. We desperately need to become mission focused toward the culture around us that has become foreign to the church. That doesn't mean we change the gospel to accommodate the culture, but that we become missionaries to the culture.
Heidi: I couldn't agree more. We need a unifying vision, a passion for Christ, a desire to share the Good News. But typically Presbyterians are lousy at this. We aren't good at talking about our faith.
I think I'll teach a class at my church, and I won't call it evangelism, but "Sharing Your Faith: For People Who Don't Know How, and If the Truth Be Told, Don't Really Want To."
George: Thriving churches are diverse if their focus is on the transforming power of Jesus Christ. They are passionate about the change that Jesus can make in a damaged and broken world.
What concerns you about your future in the church?
Scott: My concern, if some evangelical meetings are a reflection of what the church might look like, is that we're not very diverse in race, in gender, in a number of ways. I feel I wouldn't have a home in a split-off denomination, nor would our congregation.
Heidi: That's why I'm uncomfortable with talk about being squarely divided. I look at my congregation, and we're a mix of people, a mix of theologies and ideas. The people are growing. Some are passionate about a particular issue; some are not. We're just not an either/or congregation. We're both/and. If forced to choose, which denomination would we be a part of? The notion of "gracious separation" doesn't make sense. A split would rip us apart. There's no simple answer. I'd rather keep trying to work it out together.
Scott: I am thankful for my friends with whom I have disagreed on sexuality issues. They have taught me invaluable lessons about faith, about Christianity and other aspects of the Christian walk. The day we voted on the recent Amendment A, I talked to a friend of mine who left for the PCA, and he said they were fighting, too--about science versus creationism. And I thought, I'm glad we're in a denomination where we can talk about very difficult issues that are relevant. I would like Presbyterians to have the courage and the ability to talk about these difficult issues, which, in itself, provides a gift to the modern church, a model of how we can work through these discussions in a positive way.
Heidi: I signed up for a "wheat and weeds" kind of church. It's not so cut and dried. A pure church? A church without fighting? I long for it, but I'm pretty sure that kind of church doesn't exist, and if it did, it just might become an idol! The Lord, and the Lord alone, is our unity. If someone says, "What's the big deal about Jesus?" that, for me, is hugely problematic. But people who dearly love Jesus Christ and seek to be his disciples do not always agree with one another, much less with my position. What am I going to say, "Sorry, you have to get out of the church, because you're messing it up!"? No. Besides, in truth my life is a mix of wheat and weeds. That's where the true line between sinner and saint runs--right through my life! I thank the Lord for not pulling me up and tossing me out.
So how do we live together in a divided church?
Heidi: We still have to face the issue of whether or not the church has a passion for Christ. Interestingly, not all conservatives do. They think they do, but it's evident they don't, because the church exists for them, for their needs, period. (You know, "Stop singing our music, and we're outta here!") We still have to figure out how to be the church of Jesus Christ, understanding that the church exists for those who are not yet a part of it, reaching out creatively and effectively with the Good News of the gospel.
Scott: What if we could gather around local and international missions, supporting missionaries at home and in all parts of the globe? Their numbers now are actually decreasing, when they should be expanding. Why not rally together as a denomination on the Great Commission?
George: The denomination ought to help congregations fulfill their mission, rather than the local church serving the higher courts and getting mired in constitutional squabbles, spending hours of time fighting in denominational wars rather than advancing the gospel. The denomination needs radical reconstruction, beginning with the question: How do we do all we can to help our front-line congregations thrive in ministry? Everything else we do in the higher courts should relate directly to that focused goal.
Heidi: A presbytery that exists to serve congregations, and congregations doing mission--wow, what a concept! I love it! I've always felt a call to revitalize mission in a local congregation by getting connected with an unreached people group. That has led our congregation to Senegal, West Africa, and the Wolof people. But there are no Presbyterians there, so we're in partnership with World Vision and a small evangelical Senegalese church, witnessing by action and words to a federation of sixteen Wolof villages. We're funding deep-borehole wells, health huts, and classrooms, and sending a team once a year, because for the Wolof, it's all about relation-ship. But I've taken some heat. Presbyterians back home sometimes look at us like we're not loyal. It's not Presbyterian enough, because what we're doing is not denominationally based. But we're there, and we're Presbyterians!
George: I'm also on the board of the Outreach Foundation. We're wondering if we can pick up some of the ministries the Worldwide Ministries Division can't continue to fund.
How much do you tell your congregation about these denominational issues? Do you keep them in the dark, not wanting to upset them? Or, do you fully inform them?
Scott: We don't focus on denominational issues. We stress the Gospel, the transforming power of Jesus Christ. But our leadership is aware of what's going on. After General Assembly we have a forum for the congregation to learn what happened. It's important with the congregation to keep things in perspective, to help them work through the issues and come to informed opinions.
Heidi: People are interested in the issues. Our session determined that they really wanted to discuss the recent Amendment A together with the congregation, so I taught a four-week class at Columbia, and condensed it into a two-week class for another church, to grapple with texts and help facilitate the discussion. But it's scary, because I have people on all sides of any given issue. My point is this: How we believe what we believe is the key. How did we get there? How do we treat people who believe differently? Do we do it with careful thought and constant love?
Scott: Moderating the session is challenging when part of the church knows your stand and doesn't agree.
George: In the churches I have served, we have held special forums on controversial issues. We invited articulate speakers from competing perspectives to give their views in an environment of respect for get-ting at the truth.
I don't preach about it very often. When I do talk about human sexuality, however, I present it in a biblical light, because many people look at it emotionally or socially, not biblically. Nonetheless, I make sure I bracket the sermon or teaching with the grace of Jesus Christ, which covers us all.
So is there hope?
Heidi: The Presbyterian church, while I love it, is not the Church. The Church is the Church of Jesus Christ, and that Church is indestructible. Echoing the words of Jesus: "I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it." So the Lord is more than up to the challenge we face. And besides, let's not forget it took three or four (some say six!) centuries for the church to figure out Christology, so anthropology (what it means to be human) could take awhile too!
I think people who say "I'm tired of talking about this" are awfully shortsighted. I'm not tired of talking. Debating, yes. But not talking. And I pray that the Lord will give us grace to proceed with conviction and humility.