Beaver-Butler is sending an overture to GA to allow "theological, non-geographic" Presbyteries, in order to promote a greater flexibility in government and to stem the tide of congregations leaving the denomination.
In January of this year, the Presbytery of the Pacific defeated a similar motion.
I've thought long and hard about this, and I said to the proponents, "I'd be willing to vote favorably on this if you were willing to send an overture to GA for the removal of G6.106b, thus allowing both groups to proceed with their agendas.
If we are to be a church truly flexible, then let's go for it.
But my friend said, "Oh no, the evangelicals would never go for the removal of G6.106b."
In other words, putting it crassly, they want their cake, but won't let me have mine.
As I thought about this, it occurred to me that allowing for non-geographical Presbyteries could well allow for the formation of a half-dozen new Presbyteries, each able to send overtures to GA, vote on overtures sent down, and POSSESS THE POWER TO DISMISS CONGREGATIONS!
Am I being cynical?
Perhaps, but I've learned to be cautious - for years now, I have felt that leaving the denomination is a high priority, and similar in priority is crafting devices to keep their property.
A non-geographical presbytery, once formed, could hold but one meeting and then dismiss, carte blanche, all of its churches to the EPC, or whatever status they so desire.
I believe the assertion of theological interests is less than honest here. It's not about theology, but about practice, and for the majority of evangelicals in our ranks, it's about denying ordination to GLBT persons.
Even as I seek a change in our constitution to grant ordination to whomever gives evidence of a calling and can pass the tests leading to ordination.
We've all done our theological work; now, it's a question of practice.
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Jacksonville, NC
But how can one remain in a denomination whose functional tehology is rapidly becoming what one cannot, in good conscience, live with? Once upon a time, we had the concept of mutual forbearance in our Form of Government. That Form of Government is being rewritten and will be presented to the next GA--and is that concept still there? I do not recall seeing it.
The very distrust which I see in this blog is the presenting symptom of the problem that we face--a deep theological impasse with deep distrust on both sides of the aisle.
Cranberry Twp, Pa
I am responding to your note about the "Flexible Presbyteries Overture". The overture does not create any new presbyteries without any geographic limits. It simply allows churches to move to a presbytery that already exists today within a reasonable distance. So the presbyteries will be geographic in large part with some churches that are from outlying areas. The reason to allow moves is because of the theological impasse that is the reality of the PCUSA. You will note that not only will evangelicals who are in a minority be able to move, but so will progressive liberal churches who find themselves in a minority and at odds constantly with a conservative presbytery. The goal is to bring a measure of peace on at least the presbytery level. This new overture does not allow for the formation of any new presbyteries!
The overture also restricts churches from leaving the denomination for at least 4 years if they take this option. It is not an exit strategy. It is not meant to be.
With regard to ordination. I am an evangelical and deeply opposed to changing any of our ordination standards. Having said that, it appears that the authoritative interpretation from PUP and last GA's overturning of the PJC decision may have opened the door that you desire opened. It appears to be up to the ecclesiastical courts at this point. Even if ordination standards are held in place and I hope they are, then I still think flexible presbyteries overture is still needed for a whole host of other issues.
Please read the full overture at Beaver Butler presbyteries web site.
Greg Wiest
What does it say about our understanding of connectionalism and denominationalism when the only thing that imprisons congregations is the polity?
There is a much deeper rooter problem than "allowing" certain churches or presbyteries to release churches into other denominations. If the only thing imprisoning and binding churches to the PC(USA) is the polity, instead of congregations choosing to be a part of something because God is alive and well and because of the vibrancy of the Christian faith, then it won't matter what we do. Such a denomination is totally irrelevant.
James Kim