"Why a New Wineskins Initiative?"
[6-30-06]

In the Spring 2006 issue of Network News, which was sent to all GA commissioners and advisory delegates, Witherspoon Issues Analyst Gene TeSelle in his survey of issues coming to the 217^thGeneral Assembly, listed some possible responses of the Assembly to the report of the Theological Task Force on the Peace, Unity and Purity of the Church.

The first response he mentioned was that some groups would likely oppose the report. And by way of example, he wrote:

The New Wineskins movement promises that, if this part of the Task Force report is approved, it will start a campaign to get congregations to sign a formal threat to withdraw from the church. The hope is to drive a hard bargain with the General Assembly, letting them leave with their property and continue to draw pensions. (This hardball strategy has been compared, not surprisingly, to that of Karl Rove and Tom DeLay in national politics.)  [Click here to find this paragraph in PDF format.  Just scroll or jump to page 10.]

That characterization of New Wineskins elicited an objection from Renee Guth, a member of the Board of the New Wineskins Initiative. And that sparked an exchange of views between TeSelle and Guth, leading Ms. Guth eventually to write a longer statement of the significance of purpose of New Wineskins.

We’re happy to share it with our constituency – whoever you may be!

A bright vision with dark shadows

by Doug King
[6-30-05]

I appreciated the chance to be at the New Wineskins Convocation about ten days ago. I have tried to offer some reports on what I saw and heard there, and now it’s time to reflect a little more on the event as a whole, and what it might mean for the Presbyterian Church.

I’ll offer my own thoughts under three headings, and then a few questions I’d like to put to the organizers of New Wineskins, in the hope that all of us might understand better their vision and their plans.

A bright vision with dark shadows

The tone of the gathering was remarkably positive. My own impression was of a genuinely warm and evangelical group proclaiming "This is what we want to be and do, because it’s what we believe God is calling us to be and do." They envision a church which will have theological and ethical integrity, will be faithful in mission to convert unbelievers, and will be structurally effective – meaning flexible, serving congregations with a minimum of structure and essentially no control. More than many such gatherings, this one reflected a clear and consistent vision for a new future for the church.

Of course there was a shadow side of the picture – all the things that get in the way of a truly evangelical (or "Christian") church. That dark shadow is cast, in their view, by the Presbyterian "denomination," which is depicted as a distant structure, exercising coercive control rather than simply serving the needs of congregations. The "church" (meaning local congregations) is alive and well, and just needs to be liberated from the dead, but still controlling hand of the "bureaucrats in Louisville." There were a few specific barbs directed at Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick and his staff, some at former Moderator Susan Andrews, but mostly the complaints were more general.

Trying to understand this attitude, I asked a number of people what the problem of "too much control" really meant. I got mostly vague responses: "They don’t understand us in the congregations." "They’re just not in touch with the post-modern culture." The clearest one was a pastor’s complaint about the Committee on Ministry in his presbytery being "too controlling." I asked for more detail, and he gave some, which suggested that he wanted more control of the call process (for an associate pastor) than the COM would allow. I asked whether that was something coming from Louisville, and he acknowledged that it seemed primarily to reflect the style of his particular presbytery.

But as the panel discussion on questions of property made clear, the real issue of control is a matter of ownership. These people are looking forward (some eagerly, some reluctantly) to the time when they may feel compelled to leave the Presbyterian Church (USA). And the church’s consistent assertion that the denomination holds property in trust for its congregations is a major problem.

Culture matters

Underlying this vision was some very insightful socio-cultural analysis. But here was one point where I sensed the deepest rift between conservatives and progressives in our church – and our society – today. At the risk of vast oversimplification, I’ll try to put it this way: For the evangelicals gathered for New Wineskins, it is important to understand our changing culture, not really to learn anything from the changes, but to find the most effective ways to get the Christian message to the people who are so heavily invested in those changes.

For progressives, cultural change tends to be seen not as something "out there" to which we are immune, but as a process by which we are all profoundly shaped, and reshaped. We seek to understand the culture because we want to understand ourselves and our world, and want to effect changes in the culture and social systems in light of our understanding of God’s prophetic to God’s people.

As an old missionary sort, let me offer an analogy that might help: Some people go to a foreign culture and learn its language and culture for one central purpose: to communicate the Gospel as they understand it, so the people they can understand and believe. Others go because they want to learn a new language, want to enter into another culture, so they can talk and pray alongside the people there. They delight in the language, the literature, the art, the whole way of living, and are enriched by the encounter. In the process, they may well learn and teach all sorts of things, including new aspects of the faith that has brought them there.

Obviously lots of missionaries fall somewhere in between those extremes, but I think the basic difference remains: Is culture a necessary tool for evangelism, or is it the rich, God-given matrix of our lives, to be respected and hopefully transformed, but not simply used?

On possible futures

The New Wineskins group listed three possibilities for the future of the PC(USA) and New Wineskins. For the sake of clarity I’ll oversimplify – and I respect the fact that they are working hard at making clear that "the cement’s still wet." (Liberals might say with some respect that the group’s leaders are being "nuanced," but they may not like that label.)

1. The PC(USA) sees the light and follows their new path into a very different future. New Wineskins plans to present overtures to the 2006 General Assembly that would open that possibility. They acknowledge that the possibility seems slim, but they affirm that God can do surprising things.
    
2. The PC(USA) continues in darkness, taking actions that they find unacceptable. (Specifically, this would be the elimination of any of the present barriers to the ordination of glbt Presbyterians, – or any significant weakening of what they already see as the enfeebled Christology of the Presbyterian Church. They would then implement their new constitution as a kind of parallel structure to that of the denomination, withdrawing not only funds but active participation, and relying on their own networks, from local to national, to carry on essential work of leadership development, discipline, and mission.
    
3. Presbyterians come to an amicable (?) divorce, as elements on the left and the right negotiate, perhaps along with the "broad middle," with each side presumably keeping part of the property, and establishing its own new and clearer denominational identity.

It was a remarkable gathering, offering many participants what seemed to be a moving vision for a new and more faithful church. The Presbyterian Church (USA) was mentioned usually with a tone of lament – a beloved old relative now dying. This group is not out to split the church or to kill it. The split has already happened, they believe; death is imminent, and it’s time to "let go" and move on.

Just what that moving on will mean remains to be seen. Our prayer is that it will be good for all, though we don't claim to know just what that might be.