From the Coalition Gathering
"Gracious separation" gets serious attention
by Doug King
[posted 10-7-03]
Portland, Oregon -- October 7, 2003 - As Tuesday's
sessions of the Coalition Gathering unfolded, the tensions among various
"renewal groups" became increasingly clear, and sometimes increasingly
bitter. Some groups have clearly come to the conclusion that separation
(gracious or otherwise) from the PC(USA) is now a necessity. As Rick Wolling, pastor of Beverly Heights Presbyterian Church in Pittsburgh,
concluded his portion of the morning's survey of views on separation, "I
used to think it would be disobedient and unfaithful to leave. Now I think
it would be disobedient and unfaithful to stay."
A little observation from your WebWeaver:
There was mild applause after Wolling's statement that the time has come
for separation. I saw three people standing -- presumably in
support of his statement. One of them was the Rev. Mr. Parker
Williamson.
At other points in the day this view was underlined
strongly by
attorney Bob Howard, former chair of the Lay Committee. In a workshop on
the topic of "gracious separation" he said that evangelical Presbyterians
made "a strategic blunder" when they said repeatedly that they would not
leave the church. This was taken seriously by "the entrenched bureaucracy,
who are tied to the extreme left of our church." They took the assurances
to mean that they (specifically Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick and
former moderator Jack Rogers) could accuse the Confessing Church Movement
of being "biblical zealots," while doing everything possible to serve the
interests the "left, the liberals, the progressives ... whatever you want
to call them," out of the fear that those on the left would split the
church.
With all his harsh words for "the left," Howard
emphasized that his choice to separate was not an easy one. "When I talk
about gracious separation," he said, "I do it with no joy. This is not
joyful, but a realistic assessment." Like many other speakers in the
conference, he described the state of the church with a business analogy.
In this case he pictured the church as a "dysfunctional corporation,"
whose owners have lost the vision of the founders. The company is becoming
less efficient, less productive, less profitable - and is losing the
loyalty of its customers. The only thing to do, he said, is to divide the
corporation, so that at least one part of it can do its job.
Such a division, said Howard, is "a new way to end the
culture war in our church. Let's recognize that we'll never get total
victory, so let's say to our adversaries" that it's time to separate for
the sake of both sides.
After Howard presented some of the details of his
proposal for "gracious separation," Rick Wolling describe the "decision
tree" by which he himself arrived at the decision to support separation.
He commended it for use by others, as individuals and in their
congregations. At the end of his presentation he added an interesting
note: All of the talk of gracious separation, he said, may not succeed.
But it provides the "foundation for a secondary option," by which he
seemed to indicate the formation of some kind of "parallel church," along
the lines being developed by the New Wineskins group. He looks to them to
fill in the picture of a new church structure, which people can examine to
see whether that "looks like a church they would want to be a part of."
Like Howard, Wolling emphasized that this approach would
avoid an attitude of condemning "the other side," even while it would
provide "a real way out."
One member of the workshop audience made a comment which
seemed to some up the attitude of many in the room, noting that he was
bothered by Terry Schlossberg's talk in the morning, in which she espoused
the need to keep fighting within the church for true reform. Her approach,
he said, "lacked respect. Let's respect the liberals and in our
denomination, acknowledge that we are following very different ways, and
move to work together for a separation."
In another workshop, the Rev. David Henderson, pastor of
Covenant Presbyterian Church in West Lafayette, Indiana, along with the
Rev. Doug Pratt, Co--Moderator of the Presbyterian Coalition, presented
their evolving New Wineskins proposal, which they call the "emerging
denomi-network of the future." Along with Dean Weaver, they had described
the basic idea in the morning forum, but now they gave a more detailed
picture.
Pratt described the genesis of this effort as a response
to "the time of turbulence in the PCUSA in 2001. Actions of the 2001
General Assembly, along with other developments, convinced them that the
evangelical groups needed to agree on a "final destination" - some picture
of a new, faithful church toward which they could all work, rather than
simply responding to immediate crises.
Henderson explained that the New Wineskins proposal
really is a positive effort to articulate a vision of "what God would have
us do." A
major
question, he added, is whether this new and faithful church could possibly
be built within the PC(USA). Since a major foundation of the proposal is
the creation of a theological consensus to be expressed in a "Statement of
Essential Tenets" along with a "Declaration of Ethical Imperatives," it
would be hard to see how "half of our people, who haven't been faithful to
what Scripture teaches us," could possibly be included.
Clearly linking the New Wineskins group with the other
separationists, Henderson acknowledged how Bob Howard has influenced his
thinking, especially "after all Bob's years of fighting to stay." Other
workshop participants echoed his assessment, with one of them saying that
"the Coalition started losing steam three years ago, when they refused to
consider to possibility of separation." This person went on, "I think
there's a huge groundswell out there, people desperate for someone to step
forward with a plan."
Someone asked when this new church might come about.
Henderson responded that "we're trying to follow God's will, so we don't
want to set a timetable." But he said that now the Task Force on the
Peace, Unity and Purity of the Church is acting as a "stopper in the
bottle" of conflict, but I don't think they'll solve anything." When the
report finally comes to the church, he said, "that's when an eruption will
happen. But we can't wait for that, so we're actively working at
implementing this right now."
In conversation after the workshop was finished, your
WebWeaver suggested the notion that the New Wineskins proposal, with its
emphasis on communication, minimal structure, no hierarchy or top-down
control, looks a lot like the World Wide Web or the Internet. Yes, said
Henderson, with one important difference: You can participate in the Web
with no conditions, no discipline, no agreement on basic beliefs, no
covenantal commitment. And all those things are vital to what is being
proposed here.
A note from your WebWeaver:
We also have a report on some
discussions of
the "stay and fight" side of the argument. We'll also provide details of
the "gracious separation" proposal and the New Wineskins idea.
