Seven Men with Six Ideas

Jim Singleton is a pastor of a congregation in Colorado Springs.

He is one of seven core members of a group called “The Fellowship.” It is unclear as to how this group is structured. They have not declared how decisions are made within this self appointed committee. They have added advisory members but one gets the sense that the seven core members make all final decisions. Dr. Singleton seems to be a spokesperson for that group. In a recent presentation to a PFR meeting in North Carolina he lays out the vision of “The Fellowship.”

The Fellowship, or Mr. Singleton as an individual, lists the following options for our future. Before I list those it is important to understand what idea drives this group. Jim Singleton indicates that they are looking for a new mission pattern entirely. They claim that they are not supportive of renewing the PC(USA) by changing it slightly. It almost seems that they have given up on the PC(USA) as a viable structure. They want a new start, a new way of being a Church. I don’t believe this “new” start is entirely new because it is does not entirely break its ties with the PC(USA). Singleton uses a folksy example. I am assuming it is to be taken with a slight smile and a wink envisioned. He wants to divorce the PC(USA) but he likes his in-laws so he would like to stay in contact with them. What he means by the “in-law” status are things such as, the missionaries he likes, the pension plan he benefits from, and the continued possession of Church property which is understandably important to congregations. The “spouse” I suppose is the all the rest – the left wing political causes we support with our mission dollars and our voice, the progressive social engineering efforts we join, and all the dubious theology we teach through our printed materials and from many of our pulpits.

The Fellowship is in favor of, as I count them, five courses of action. A given congregation may freely adopt any of these or customize their own. I added a sixth, remaining in the status quo, because it is the one that is always there but rarely addressed.

1.      A Non-Geographically defined presbytery or synod. This would mean that the congregation I now serve would join a new presbytery with congregations in the surrounding states. Other “Evangelical” presbyteries would form and belong to a 17^th Synod and remain within the PC(USA). They would send commissioners to the General Assembly but call pastors and organize programs to support one another. This would mean that the geography of evangelical and non-evangelical presbyteries would over lap. The earliest this could happen is 2013.  

2.      A solution, suggested by the GA’s Stated Clerk, addresses the recent change allowing homosexual pastors. This would allow for two Committees on Ministry within a progressive presbytery. One committee would examine a minister and presents him or her to the presbytery under the new rules, while another would do so under the old rules - using fidelity and chastity as a standard for fitness. One would examine homosexuals and find them suitable and the other would examine those opposed to the same homosexual candidate the other COM found suitable. (Yes, my head is spinning with this twisted logic.)

3.      New Reformed Body: Currently, about 80 congregations have left the PC(USA) and joined the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC). This New Reformed Body is an option for congregations who do not wish to join the EPC. This looks like the option of “leaving in mass.” It is where a large block of congregations leave together and try (as much as possible) to leave under the same terms. These terms would be negotiated with some agency within the PC(USA). I would assume, it would be with the office of the General Assembly – the Stated Clerks office. These terms could not be imposed on a presbytery but if they came from the General Assembly the terms would, I gather, influence a given presbytery. Currently, the cost of leaving a presbytery with your real and liquid assets is anywhere from zero to a 25% surcharge. (typically $200,00)

4.      Requesting to be dismissed to another existing Reformed Body such as the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) or, most popularly, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC). The problem the Fellowship has with this option is one of control. If you start with a clean sheet, you can write whatever you want on it. If you sign onto someone else’s formerly clean sheet, you will, at least initially, endorse their vision and submit to their boundaries. It seems the two reservations held by the Fellowship (remember seven guys) is that (seemingly) they are uneasy about the Reformed doctrines taught in the Westminster Standards and they want a uniform standard for women’s ordination. In the PCA women may not be ordained as Ruling or Teaching Elders. In the EPC this is a matter of liberty. A presbytery may or may not ordain a woman as Teaching Elder and a session may or may not approve the ordination of a woman as elder or deacon. In the PCA and the EPC the Westminster Confessions define “right belief” for Teaching and Ruling Elder. As always, the Calvinism of Westminster is not binding on those who do not seek office. The difference between the PCA and EPC lies in the severity of what is defined as “essential and necessary tenets” of the Confessions. One may defer from the belief of some tenets of Westminster and remain a faithful minister. Of these two Reformed Bodies, the PCA has a bit stricter view of what tenets of Westminster may be “scrupled” or set aside as non-essential.

5.      The Affiliate Member option. Some presbyteries, like San Diego, are conservative, and others, like Redwood, are liberal. If, you are a congregation within the bounds of Redwood presbytery (Northern California) and find your conscience injured by the actions of your presbytery, you can (perhaps) choose to affiliate yourself with San Diego Presbytery. This would require an amendment to our Form of Government which would not take effect (if passed) till 2013.

6.      The Status Quo Option. There is, in every situation, the option of passivity. We can become or remain, more or less, detached from every other congregation, presbytery, synod and the General Assembly. We can simply take care of our own backyard and let all our neighbors do the same. This is, I suspect, the status of most of our congregations currently. While many will occasionally speak out against the offensive statements and actions of the past General Assemblies, while many will nod their heads in agreement when some protest the latest offensive statement or action of a congregation or presbytery, most will simply let the dust settle and go on with business as usual. The Fellowship (those seven guys) have declared that doing nothing is not an option. On that, we agree.

These options will likely be discussed at the Fellowship’s meeting in late August, where 2,000 ministers and elders have registered their attendance. I’ll be one of the 2,000 and perhaps others will have this same comment in their minds – namely, “This better be good.” Three of the six options seem to be too little too late. The dismissal to the EPC and the brand new denomination are live options. The fall back position, which speaks to our spiritual lethargy is the Status Quo Option.