Share this Digg Del.icio.us Reddit StumbleUpon Slashdot Furl Yahoo Technorati Newsvine Googlize this Blinklist Facebook Wikio Print E-mail

ReNEWS turned to three Presbyterian leaders to explore the practical issues of living within orthodox boundaries in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Editor James D. Berkley managed to pull them together by telephone for a lively discussion over four time zones. They are:

Jack Haberer, pastor of the Clear Lake Presbyterian Church in Houston, former moderator of the Presbyterian Coalition, and author of God Views: The Convictions that Drive Us and Divide Us;

Nancy Maffett, Director of Outreach at First Presbyterian Church, Colorado Springs, an elder, former moderator of the Pueblo Presbytery, PFR President 1993-95, and candidate for moderator of the 213th General Assembly in 2001; and

Vic Pentz, pastor of Peachtree Presbyterian Church in Atlanta, the largest in our denomination with 9,500 members. Vic is an active supporter of Middle Eastern Christians and serves on the Committee on Ministry of the Greater Atlanta Presbytery.

Jim Berkley: Most of us have a line in the sand somewhere, where we say, "I'll go this far, but no farther." Where would you place that line in relationship to the actions of the PC(USA)? In other words, what kinds of doctrines or activities do you consider outside the bounds of Presbyterian belief and practice?

Jack Haberer: As long as the Confessions are the authority, I stay. It comes down to the first four ordination questions that focus on the uniqueness and centrality of Christ, the Trinity, the authority of Scripture, and the Confessions as reflections of the Reformed faith. If the Confessions or vows were radically changed or dropped, then I'd be gone.

Nancy Maffett: It is also important to see these carried out in action in the life of the church. The Christology issue for me is central. If we walk away from the unique and exclusive claim of Christ--the blessing that flows out of that to the whole world, and our responsibility to witness to it--then we're no longer what we say we are in our Confessions. At that point, churches must make a decision, and I must, too.

Vic Pentz: I struggle with the image of the line in the sand. The image that came to my mind was Jesus, confronted with the angry crowd and the woman taken in adultery thrown at his feet. Jesus stooped, drew with his finger in the sand, and then defined a tension on both sides of a line: "Neither do I condemn you" and "Go and sin no more."

In the church today, we are yelling at each other across a line--conservatives with a condemning spirit saying "Go and sin no more, and we'll accept you," and liberals saying "Neither do we condemn you or call what you are engaged in a sin, even though Jesus did." The tendency for us is to take a stand on the side of the line that is least challenging to us.

I think orthodoxy is based more on a balance of the paradoxes of the Christian faith than drawing a line in the sand. The heresies in the church have always been a relaxing of the tension on one side of the line.

What thoughts do you keep in mind as you attempt to draw some kind of circle around that hazy concept of "orthodoxy?"

Jack: To me, the strength of our theology is not the boundaries and the edges, but the power of the center of the Gospel. For example, the Christological controversy of the past few years is the most critical issue; it is about the center of the faith. There will always be goofy ideas on the fringes; the irrepressible creativity of heretics will always be among us. But I am becoming more and more committed to working for the center of the message and not as wound up about some of the crazy fringe ideas.

But how do you keep those goofy ideas from gaining power and then starting to displace the center?

Jack: Refute them! They do need to be addressed, but they need to be listened to first. Once in a while, a crazy idea is the right idea. They need to be heard, tested and challenged, and ultimately refuted when they are wrong. We also need to keep our own internal balance, our own equilibrium, and not be so disrupted that we think our ecclesiastical sky is falling.

Vic: A big part of our equilibrium is that we represent the tradition that has gone before us. A lot of today's goofiness is ideas that were invented in the last forty years in the Western church. Set in perspective of the great march of church history, they are not of much account. It's easy to lose our equilibrium if we don't keep our focus on the tradition.

"Heresy" comes from the Greek word hairesis, "choosing for oneself; taking one's own course." That is, different than the received truth of the tradition, the catholic, orthodox truth. I find tremendous equilibrium in knowing that what we're espousing is the catholic, orthodox faith delivered once unto the saints.

Nancy: For many years I've taught the Bethel course and a course in the content of our faith to prospective church members. I have had to work my way through this as I deal with "the culture walking in." Throughout our national conversations, debates, and arguments, I hear the culture: the desire to be nice to everybody, to be self-fulfilled, and the sense of entitlement. When we look at orthodoxy at different periods in the whole sweep of history, we see that culture always affects the church. It is always a challenge to the received tradition. We must identify what the culture is falsely speaking in the name of faith--calling itself scriptural when, in fact, it is not.

The benchmark that I have found helpful is the very nature of God, the consistency of God in all of his revelations through Scrip-ture, and certainly in Christ. Look at what is in Scripture! No human mind or heart would be capable of expressing the sweep of what is there. It is reflective of the nature of God. Therefore, we are to submit and be humble to it, which is, of course, counter-cultural. You don't hear the words "surrender" or "obedient" in the culture.

How do we deal with breaches of the boundary by our own session or congregation, especially in this day when to say "You are in error and I am right" is one of the cardinal cultural sins?

Nancy: We usually clear up any problems personally, one-on-one, before someone becomes an elder. There have been times when individuals have had the integrity to withdraw from a position when they could not subscribe to our boundaries.

Jack: I am committed to the model of Matthew 18--one person privately speaking the truth in love as we see it and, if it is not received, then going back with two or three others. If we cannot settle the problem, we turn to the Rules of Discipline in the Book of Order and make appropriate use of that part of our tradition that says there is a methodical, decent-and-in-order way of addressing error in belief or practice. Then let that system follow through.

Vic: An interesting issue for us at Peachtree is that we have 37 adult Sunday school classes each week, mostly taught by lay persons. We are struggling with a way to train the teachers theologically so we can be confident they will have gone through a process that will encourage their theological orthodoxy. That is one of the most pressing issues in our session: How do we train well-intentioned people, sometimes brilliant Ph.D.s, who have received their training in the world but who have not received the theological training that would qualify them to teach authoritatively in a Christian church? In our concern for orthodoxy, how do we keep from creating an inquisitorial environment?

It appears you're looking for theological quality control. But how do you deal with a teacher who is espousing an unorthodox view?

Vic: From time to time someone will say, "Did you realize that such-and-such statement was made by a teacher in a Sunday school class?" Ordinarily a pastor or elder who is close to the person would casually sit in on the class and listen, and then go from there. Sometimes the statement was just out of the blue, but if there appears to be a pattern of untruth, we will talk with such persons and help them see that what they are espousing is not consistent with our Book of Confessions. I've had cases where such a conversation has positive results. The person was well-intentioned but never thought of it in that way. And that becomes part of his or her growth as a Christian, and as a thinker.

What about breaches of faith or practice in another congregation? What if you see something going on in another church in your presbytery that, in all consideration, seems contrary to who we are as a Presbyterian church, and what you believe. Where do you go with that?

Jack: The old concept of the presbytery was that the pastors and elders knew one another. In the large presbytery here, it is hard even to know the names of the pastors, far less the elders. I think the Matthew 18 principle still carries, however. If you are concerned at what's going on in a nearby church, get on the phone or take the pastor to lunch and say, "I hear this is going on." It may be well received. People might be startled to know that someone cared enough to call them into account.

Vic: To me, the question of what another congregation is doing is less a threat than what is happening in my church, or what is happening in the presbytery or General Assembly. Intervening in another congregation is the most problematic. Clearly, if a congregation is doing something that is damaging to the whole church, it tends to be with the complicity of the presbytery. An isolated congregation doing something inappropriate or inconsistent with the church's teaching can only do serious damage to the whole church if the presbytery is not doing its job, either by design or by neglect.

Our system of Presbyterianism is the best there is for dealing with issues of questionable theology and practice in a fair, responsible way. There's no better way of organizing a church than the Presbyterian way to provide the means whereby a cluster of churches in a given area can be accountable to each other and to the gospel in a way that is helpful.

Nancy: The real problem is the issue of a deliberate attempt by a congregation, or a group of people committed to a cause, to challenge standards of the whole church or to violate the integrity of the system. Recently in California, there has been concern expressed that the system wasn't allowed to work the way it is supposed to. Our polity is designed to give the minority a voice and protect the rights of all. We must guard its integrity.

Let's move to the presbytery and denominational levels. When you see these bodies acting in a way you feel breaks the boundaries, how do you deal with that?

Vic: We have a system that is designed to deal in a positive way with theology and practice. The problem is that our current system has deviated from classical Reformed polity in which decisions made by the church were made by a representative assembly grounded in congregations. Today we have more of a clergy guild, where a huge percentage of people voting in presbyteries are not elected as representatives of congregations. There are profound theological implications with our flawed representative system. In a Presbyterian sense, it might even be viewed as Presbyterian heresy, because we do not reflect our fundamental beliefs in how we order our life as a church. [See box.]

Evangelically minded people in the PC(USA) are not an embattled minority voice in the church. We're a grossly under-represented majority!

Jack: Vic is right. We ought to be revisiting that formula. There have been wonderfully good motives behind most of our inclusivity--giving up power so that others could be included--but now so many have been disempowered, there needs to be a major corrective. It will be a long-term effort, to be done without apology or anxiety: overtures to the Assemblies, studies, research, working in the system of legislation, and even judicial cases if necessary, to redress an overcorrection in one direction.

Okay, you are under-represented and may feel somewhat powerless, but is there still a way to pursue remedial action through our judicatories that is fair and loving and won't automatically be perceived as hateful or bigoted? How can we pursue something in a way that is actually helpful?

Nancy: It's hard in today's culture that holds up tolerance as the ultimate virtue. There is a perception that if you don't agree with someone, then you must hate him or her. The tone you use, the care with which you go through the process, the clarity with which you define your reasons-- how you do it, say it, write it, and act on it--all speak of your desire not to attack people but to stand on an important principle.

Of course we see in Scripture from Genesis 3 on that humans have wanted to determine their own truth. That makes it hard to stand for what is essential, to address and act upon some things for the integrity of the denomination and theological tradition.

Jack: There is a difference between "restorative" justice and "retributive" justice. If our spirit and desire is to restore rather than to get retribution, it may actually turn it into something that is embraced with some appreciation. Some will always see it as mean-spirited, but if we work at our intentions and our methods and words, that's our best help.

Is there ever a place for ecclesiastical conscientious objection or disobedience?

Jack: Ecclesiastical disobedience is not equivalent to civil disobedience or conscious objection. You have no alternative government to the U.S., but if you don't like what the Presbyterian Church stands for, there are churches of every conceivable belief that you can go to. Those who find themselves truly unable to submit to a standard of the church need to seek the counsel of those in authority. I would certainly defend their right to work for change, even though I sometimes wish they wouldn't. But when those efforts are exhausted, the historic position of the church is that you either submit on the outside while disagreeing on the inside, or finally, quietly, peaceably with-draw to another fellowship.

And if a person refuses to subscribe to the standards of the church, it is appropriate for that person to face the discipline of the church.

Nancy: There have been congregations or presbyteries that have said they will not conform to G-6.0106b, or abide by it. I honor their right to speak, but I don't honor their right to disobey what is our constitutional standard. I agree with Jack: if people disagree on those shared standards, they have other options to go to.

We're speaking of "them," but what if the denomination enacts something that you have a hard time with. Is there a place for you to be a conscientious objector?

Vic: What would that mean? Withholding funds? Boycotting meetings? Not following directions? Martin Luther said: "Here I stand." He didn't say it sanctimoniously or pridefully, but trembling and in utter fear and for his soul: "I can do no other. God help me." If we come to the point of standing against the church in a posture of civil disobedience, it should not be done out of pride and self-righteousness, but as a terrifying moment.

Jack: Let me give an example from my own life. I was raised a Baptist. When I became a Presbyterian, I was fully convinced about every part of Presbyterian theology and polity except baptism. But I did what the Book of Order said: I baptized babies brought by their parents. I simply knew I needed to submit to the structures to which God had called me, and I did my best to articulate them as if I were Calvin himself (although certainly not his equal). Over time I became more and more convinced about the Reformed tradition of covenental baptism, and now I'd happily write an apologia for it. I did on the outside what the rules said you were to do, and now I am convinced in my heart.

Vic: Here's another example of someone submitting to the discipline and having her heart won over to the teaching of the Presbyterian Church. In my last congregation we had a young, conservative woman leading a Bible study for our senior highers and teaching against the ordination of women. I explained to her, "You can believe that, but as long as you are teaching our youth group, you are not to be voicing that. It is against our Book of Confessions and Book of Order. It is not within the orthodoxy of the Presbyterian Church." She said OK. I've just gotten word that she has become an inquirer under care to become ordained as a Presbyterian minister of Word and Sacrament!

What has been most effective in your personal efforts to maintain the theological boundaries of orthodoxy within your spheres?

Nancy: For me personally, it is the desire to be accountable to something outside myself, something that has proven itself to be trustworthy both over centuries and in the lives of people around me. The ultimate tragedy of our culture is to believe "I have my own truths." The theological boundaries of orthodoxy must be lived out in the community of human beings. As I talk with adults who come into my sphere, many of them "babies" in their faith, it is so important to explain limits and boundaries as gifts of grace from a God who says "I say no to you because I love you. It is my desire that you live a blessed life that I have intended for you." That is the spirit we bring into our own lives, to submit and be obedient for the right reasons, and to gently nurture others, but with clarity and lovingkindness in our spirit.

There are denominations in which I'd not feel comfortable, because they are so exceedingly narrow in their interpretation of the Bible and church practices. They've got it right, and everyone else--who may deviate only the slightest amount--is wrong. How do we keep from being obsessed with trivia as we pursue doctrinal purity?

Vic: Jesus! Jesus represents the grace and the truth that will keep us from becoming raging, angry people. He will also call us to the holiness that we need. The person of Jesus being Lord of his Church calls us to the balance we need in that area.

Jack: There is this tension, this paradox that is a healthy part of our tradition. We have had a passion about getting the essentials of theology right, but we've also allowed some latitude to one another for further exploration and testing of ideas, because we really have believed in wrestling with the faith, not just accepting it without further thought. On the one hand, we've got to work vigilantly for articulating the center of the faith--hearing Jesus and reflecting Jesus--and at the same time allow a certain amount of latitude as each of us struggles. In time we're more informed and more faithful to the gospel.

Vic: As Calvinists we have a high view of our place out in the world, and we move confidently in the spheres of culture. One reason that a lot of people move from perhaps very conservative backgrounds into the Presbyterian Church is precisely because there is a boldness here about the life of the mind, about exploring culture and diversity. We have an understanding that all of life is under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. That mindset invites us not to be overly judgmental toward other people.

Is there hope for the PC(USA)?

Jack: Absolutely! The systems and the structures are the best available, and the Gospel is so powerfully overwhelming against anything that would compete against it, that even at times when it feels like the church is going to hell in a handbasket, the sovereign power of God will prevail. The systems and structures will, in fact, be the handmaiden to support the power of the Gospel, rather than the opponent to resist, in spite of evidence to the contrary from time to time.

Nancy: The long sweep of history has had more times than we can count when the church has teetered on the brink of self-destruction, but that is simply the human dimension at work. We see God sovereign over those centuries, and over humankind. God's church doesn't die. The heart of it has never changed. We can claim that in these times. God's judgment is always informed by his love. I would pray that individuals and congregations would right now make a commitment to look to the Lord of the church for direction as we go through this together.