Committees of Correspondence

Prior to the American Revolution, the patriots who dissented against the economic oppression of Great Britain formed themselves into Committees of Correspondence. There purpose was to correspond with groups throughout the colonies who were planning a new nation that was independent of Great Britain. These committees were formed to petition for satisfaction of various injustices. They were apparently the political wing of the more militant Sons of Liberty.

Various Committees of Correspondence are being formed within the Presbyterian Church (USA). They consist of persons and congregations opposed to the recent changes in the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA). What shape will these committees take in the months ahead?

If past patterns are a predictor of future outcomes, the Committees of Correspondence will have the same effect as the Confessing Church Movement, New Wineskins, and Global Fellowship. They each remind me of the time when the lady in charge of games didn’t show for our after-school program. I was faced with twenty five wired up children. I asked another worker what we should do, she said, “Get them in a big circle.” After I did it, I said, “What now?” She shrugged and said, “I haven’t the slightest idea.” Much effort is expended in gathering signatures or gathering attendees for a one or two day meeting. My experience with such gatherings is, when you get there it is obvious the planners have no idea what to do with you other than tell you what they think is happening and what they believe we might want to do about it. Only the New Wineskins actually took actions after they formed. About fifty of those congregations formed a non-geographical presbytery that associated with the Evangelical Presbyterian Church for a five year trial marriage.

Those of us outsiders, who are interested in any plan that will lead us into a better future, hope against hope that this plan will succeed. My problem is that I am not clear how success is defined. Is a revolt in the works, as the name would suggest? Is this the prelude to the “leaving in mass” option often considered in the list of possibilities? The benefit of this has always been the belief that we can better negotiate the terms of withdrawal for a large number of congregations instead of one at a time or we could negotiate presbytery by presbytery the dismissal of the congregations belonging to the Committees of Correspondence. That makes more sense given the nature of our government and that the property is (supposedly and disputably) under the control of the presbyteries.

 Another possibility, I fear is all too likely, is that this move is a step toward an anti-denominational (more fluid) organization of congregations. This notion comes from the Emergent Church Movement where congregations are self contained mission units who find common cause with other congregations only to improve their missional (buzz word) aims and only as long as their aims are being processed.There is a dream that the Church of the Future has no geographically defined boundaries, no confessional boundaries, and no denominational definitions. This missionology is based on the notion that “mission unites and dogma divides.”  If you ask some folks in the evangelical camp if we they want a new denomination, their answer would be, “No, one denomination is too many.”

Personally, I would like to see a denomination with clear confessional boundaries and one where congregations are both supported and held accountable by the more inclusive structures. If we want a denomination without strictures, we might as well support the PC(USA).