Outlook Editor Jack Haberer recently sat down with PC(USA) Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick to discuss some of the pressing issues in the church. This was originally published in three parts, but the entire article is presented online here with combined reader feedback.
JH: Some churches are talking about leaving the denomination. Why do you think they want to leave?
CK: In so many ways this season of church-leaving feels like where I came in to this some 40 to 45 years ago when my own church went to the PCA. The reasons are different but they are somewhat the same. They are obviously Christians–Presbyterians–who feel deeply, who have a passionate sense of dedication to the life of Jesus Christ and the inerrancy of the Word of God.
What has upset them is not simply the report that was adopted at the Assembly, but that it was confirmation in their minds of what they long had perceived: that the larger church is not valuing their deeply-held Christian convictions. I also sense that they feel that they’ve been left out. One of the issues in the PUP report that you can critique is, I sense, that it did not deal as much with power as with the other subjects. Some people felt left out by that … There’s in some sense a loss of hope. Beyond that, there are organized groups that are trying to lead people out, and at times I think they share what’s not always correct information. So it’s the combination of those factors that are weighing on people’s hearts that has them losing hope in the PC(USA) that I love and you love really being an expression of what God intends for the church.
JH: A lot of folks who feel the most distressed and even cynical about the denomination keep citing what have been dubbed the secret “Louisville Papers,” the advice and counsel produced by the legal offices in the OGA and the GAC regarding property ownership of churches wishing to leave the denomination. What would you say about all that?
CK: First of all, there is no document called “The Louisville Papers.” This has been a part of a pejorative campaign to dub them that, and secondly they have never been secret. They were shared with governing bodies, most of them four or five years ago. And they were done, one by the GAC legal office and the other by our legal staff. They are basically manuals of legal advice on Constitutional rights, and I think they are a correct explication of the law.
But they are not fundamentally what we are advising the church [to do]. Part of it is our dilemma on how do we communicate effectively the advice we have sent to the church? Very directly from our office is this piece called, “Responding Pastorally to Troubled Churches” (link). It is urging people to start at a very different place. When you hear that there is distrust and dissent in the life of a church for the presbytery to begin with no administrative commission, no judicial process, but to really begin pastorally, trying to listen, trying to clear up where there may be misunderstandings, trying to hear where there may be calls for change that we can work on, trying to see if there is a way that an expression the churches can live out together.
Some of the conflict we’ve had–I know it’s not the only issue–things like [concerns about] the Trinity paper are really based on a misunderstanding of what the General Assembly did. So we’re seeking to reach out that way.
The second phase, if that doesn’t work and there really is disagreement, is to try to sit down with either an administrative commission or some other way to seek to see what the understanding is, to make a judgment in the presbytery. That’s the best thing that can further the witness of the whole Presbyterian Church, [including] to dismiss the congregation. That’s clearly the right of the presbytery. And to only to go in the legal process if all of that fails and there is no other way to go. But we ought not to be, as Christians, bringing lawsuits against one another to solve problems in the church.
But I do know that there’s a great deal of angst about it. I think part of it has been due to a repudiation of the trust clause in our constitution, that indicates that all property is held in trust for the PC(USA) and that the presbytery is to be the deciding body and has the legal right to do so. I don’t think that you can or should repudiate that. We have a deep understanding that we did not choose the Presbyterian Church; God chose us to be in the Presbyterian Church, and property is something that is not just a here and now, immediate thing. It is a gift of generations, presbyteries, people who have been in that church through the years. And it exists to further a Presbyterian witness.
People always have freedom of conscience to no longer continue in the church. But church buildings and properties don’t have a conscience to exercise. They’re part of this one family. And we go back to the foundational principles, that “there is one Church” of which a particular church is to be the expression of that, and that building is to be an expression of that one Church.
Maybe in everybody’s best interest where there is deep unanimity, … where there has not been trickery or deceit or misunderstanding, that the best way to further witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ is to depart from the PC(USA), to dismiss the church with blessing.
Where there has been significant investment of a presbytery within that church, by mutual agreement to dismiss it, … that church might contribute to start another new church development or whatever. But there are also times and cases where it’s not been based upon accurate information, or where there have been significant minorities. The presbyteries need to make that judgment, and that’s the kind of advice we’ve often and consistently given the church, as is found on our Web page. …
We’re not repudiating the papers [that were published]. I mean, we produce manuals for committees on ministry, manuals for everybody else, and that is a manual of how the legal issues play out in the life of the church, but the advice we give to presbyteries consistently is, again, pastorally to share accurate information with people, to seek to find wherever possible win-win solutions, to consider seriously whether or not a petition to withdraw with property is the correct one, to try to work on mutually agreed positions that will uphold that constitutional position, and only if those are violated, to look at the legal process. But we’ve got a process–which is part of why we have this thick Book of Order–with rules for discipline, administrative commissions, and the like–we do have a way to work that out in the church, and I think that’s the biblical way to approach this.
JH: Over the years you have attended lots of events of organizations around the church, particularly interest organizations of the left and right. Of late you seem to be attending a lot fewer of them and are sending staff in your place. Is there a message being conveyed in that? Or what would be the reason for that?
CK: I don’t know that I’ve been to that many (fewer). I was at the Coalition meeting in Atlanta along with the Presbyterian Global Fellowship. I met with the tall steeple pastors prior to the New Wineskins recently in Orlando. I guess I did miss the Covenant Network. There are several reasons for it. Part of the reason is some family dynamics and part is my commitments to the World Alliance [of Reformed Churches].
There is no intentional message being conveyed. But I do believe that in this job, being stated clerk, I need to be stated clerk for the whole church. It’s also probably important to not go to where you’re not invited. I’ve tried to reach out. I shortened a trip to Mexico City and cancelled part of a time with San Francisco Seminary at the last minute, in order to be with the evangelical tall steeple pastors. They seemed to think that conversation was important, and I thought it was critical. So I want to be available.
But one of the things that Linda [Valentine] and I have done together and that I did earlier with John Detterick, was to realize that … whenever one of those groups would meet I would be there doing something. Finally, we said to ourselves … while it’s very important to reach out to groups like that, it’s even more important to be committed to renewing our presbyteries, strengthening our seminaries, and meeting at those gathering places that are centered in our Constitution. [Those bodies] are fulfilling the functions not only of governance, but also of nurture and of theological reflection that strengthen the church. So we started this process of doing every presbytery consultations.
Now Linda and I are doing one–a very rich experience–where we meet with trustees, students, and members of the community of our seminaries–and are really trying to build those intentional points of encounter with those parts of our church’s ecological system whose renewal is critical to our moving forward. …
JH: Let’s talk about the Theological Task Force report and what the Authoritative Interpretation means. There obviously has been a lot of confusion and a wide range of interpretations about the effects of the AI, especially around the meaning and effects of scrupling. We have been hearing a confusing set of reports from the Office of the General Assembly on that. What would you say to those people who are saying, “Please give us some clarity”?
CK: Let’s deal first with the matter of the authoritative interpretation. There is a strong feeling in the church, a strong sense of ambiguity about that action. There’s also a strong set of convictions all around the church of what it ought to say, and anything but that and you’re out the door. So I think in this time it’s important to be very careful. …
In its own way the Theological Task Force was being the very best in consensus decision making, saying as they adopted it, that there are some better ways to focus this conversation. G-6.0108 is the key issue of how do we really do the examination process.
Some of this [ambiguity] will only be answered when we do have a Permanent Judicial Commission that may respond to specific cases. But we have tried to make clear two or three things … that I think are important to be heard.
One is that one of the greatest gifts of the Theological Task Force report is that it says to us that we have to take the examination process much more seriously. If people really want in any sense to be committed to a church that is more faithful to the gospel, more faithful to its tradition, to the historic values of this faith, they ought to rise up with huge joy and say that this is a great gift to the church. We have become far too lax both in presbyteries and particularly in sessions that simply are not examining people in terms of their commitment to the Reformed faith, the Reformed tradition, and the essentials in our Constitution.
Secondly, we’ve got to say to the church that what this does for the church is not to create a new set of policies, but to reclaim what has been the historic position of our church all the way back to the Adopting Act, to move that forward, to indicate that the use of scruples is not a new thing. We have more recently given an opinion that tried to make clear what is a core issue, [namely,] that there are mandatory ministerial practices in the Constitution, like “Will you baptize an infant,” like “Will you welcome women and men on the Session,” that must be followed. Yet issues both of faith and of practice are subject to scruples but they are never to be dealt with lightly. What a governing body cannot do is to disregard any of the standards in our Constitution — this upholds a high view of the Constitution — but at the same time, it is right to give a hearing to a candidate who holds a genuine scruple or a genuine sense of departure from the Tradition. Then that governing body must make that decision: “Is that in accord with the essentials of Reformed faith and practice?”
Now, there’s no list, and that’s why it’s complicated. People argue, well, that opens the door to people involved in the burning issue of sexual practice, but it could be any one of any other set of issues. Well, maybe it could open a door. But on the other side it makes it clearly impossible to ignore those standards as has been done before. So I don’t see any sign of a major rush, in fact hardly any that I know of, of people who are in violation of standards of the Constitution, but I do think it places more responsibility on presbyteries and examining bodies to make that decision rather than issuing a clear yes or no list.
JH: A lot of people are saying these days that organizations that have high levels of trust can have a minimum number of rules, but organizations that have low trust need to have a lot of rules. We’re at a time when the trust level is very low, and yet the Form of Government Task Force is looking at lessening the number of rules. Your thoughts about that?
CK: You’ve left out one piece of that equation. It’s true. Organizations with high trust need (fewer) rules, and organizations with low trust need more rules. Organizations with too many rules can guarantee they are going to create more and more mistrust. I think that piece needs to be remembered.
Anywhere in this country that you get an overly bureaucratized organization with rule after rule after rule, it breeds cynicism, distrust and collapse. … If we are going to have a future we can’t build it on this kind of corporate, bureaucratic model, and the time is now. …
(The PUP taskforce) didn’t say, “We have too much distrust, so we need to tighten down Roberts Rules, we ought to quit spending time together in worship and community-building in presbyteries, and we need to dedicate time so every item can be voted on in the agenda.” The learning of that task force, out of its own experience in the church, is that that approach of trying to shoehorn every possible rule into the Book of Order, in order to control the church, is not a prescription for peace, unity, or purity.
The same is true for the Constitution. What’s critical is that we really DO keep clear and maintain as much unanimity around those core, core convictions that are foundational. … This past assembly overwhelmingly adopted the theological work of the Task Force. That’s important! I think in our Constitution, and especially in those first four chapters, there is a lot of agreement about those foundations. But if we are going to be a church for the 21st century, one that’s going to have not only the ability to deal with our current differences but also to include Sudanese, and people from Burma and people from Bolivia in this, we can’t have … the current provisions in chapter 14. But we can have those core values that we do understand — what ministers of Word and Sacrament do, what’s the role of sessions, what’s the role of core standards of faith in our church.
If we’re going to be that missional church in the 21st century, what you have to do is to stand on solid ground in Christ, solid ground in those core convictions, and then give some freedom to experiment, to be a little different, and build on a sense of new relationships but also still keep some clear boundaries and clear points of reference that are core to the renewal of this church. And I think it is part of what is being brought out in the life of the church.
I would hope that even those who feel the greatest amount of mistrust, if they really would look a second time and ask, “If we really did have chapter 14 twice as long do you think we’d have more trust — or less — trust?” even most of those folks, many of (whom) chafe under some current provisions of chapter 14, many of them would say that we do need to move forward to this new form of government.
It will be hard; what is so precious to one is less precious to another. I think of the book by Bill Chapman on the formation of the Constitution; he sub-titled it, Blood on Every Page. The issue of how to find where those essentials are, and where are those points of some sense of grace, will be difficult issues. This is part of a package–four or five things–that could really be a turning point for our church to engage the 21st century world as a missional, multicultural, Christ-centered, Reformed church.
JH: Two questions regarding the ecumenical scene. First, where are the points of excitement for the World Alliance of Reformed Churches — the cutting edge? What makes you most excited about serving as president of the executive committee?
CK: First and foremost, it’s to see where God is at work in Reformed churches all around the world. We are growing. We have huge financial problems in WARC. But part of the reason why we do is that on a global basis, we are the church of the poor. About half the world’s Lutherans are in Europe and North America. The Anglicans are a little less so. But in the World Alliance now close to 70% of our members are African, Asian, and Latin American. It is clear that that’s where God is really at work, and it’s growing there. The problem is that none of them have any money, and the organization is dependent primarily upon the European Reformed churches, which are in trouble. But it always gives my faith a sense of encouragement to see that where our movement is growing the fastest and has the most vitality is in the places where the people are suffering the most and where in some ways the power and the hope of the gospel is all they have. It is a reminder of the power of Christ to help people who are in huge need.
It is a source of huge encouragement for me, and I hope it is that for the people of the PC(USA).
There are also some very particular things that are encouraging to me. We are in a process, the 75 million of us in WARC, of talking with the 8-million-member, more conservative, counterpart called the Reformed Ecumenical Council. We expect to be uniting these two in the next two or three years. While we worry here about splintering between the more conservative and less conservative branches of the Reformed community, on a global basis we’re coming together. I hope that synergy will spill off and become contagious.
I’m going to a meeting in Geneva in a couple weeks that will be focusing on two things. One of these is laying the plans for celebrating the Calvin Jubilee; 2009 is the 500th birthday of John Calvin. Recently I was visiting in Mexico at the Presbyterian seminaries there; it was fascinating to see how consumed they are with “What do the principles of Calvin mean for Reformed Mexican churches 500 years later?” I hope we can make this our focus, … [namely] those principles and vision of that Reformed movement with its focus on the sovereignty of God, the power of God’s Word, the covenant community of Christians, all of those things that we treasure so deeply.
The other thing we’ll be talking about will be a gathering of larger church pastors from all over the world to see what things are available, how is the Reformed tradition empowered. It’s a statement from WARC that the megachurch movement ought not be happening just in independent churches. We want to foster, grow, encourage, and interconnect the larger Reformed churches. Along those lines, we’ve got a meeting at Princeton this coming June for presidents of Reformed seminaries from around the world so they begin to network together between this vision of Calvin and what does it mean to prepare Reformed pastors in the 21st century.
So WARC is living out some of these network models.
I also think it has a huge contribution of calling us all on a continuing basis–at least in the Reformed community–to our primary social witness these days. It is simply contrary to our faith to have the kind of gap between the rich and the poor in the world that we have, and to see that growing every day. We as Reformed Christians need to say that standing against that in word and our living is central to our faith.
JH: The flip side of that is that any pastor who gets involved in presbytery, synod, or General Assembly, and spends time away from the local church, (faces) jealousy among the congregation. What about the concern about the amount of time that the ecumenical effort takes you away from leading the PC(USA)?
CK: This is a concern for my work, my family, and me: how to balance your life. In the positive sense, it is the encounter with what God is doing in the world Reformed community that gives me more faith and insight into the job of stated clerk that I would (otherwise) lack. And it IS a core part of what I think the call of this job is: to live out our Constitutional vision that we are not The Church but one part of it.
Since taking this on, [the leadership of WARC], I have very intentionally moved out of leadership in the other major ecumenical religious bodies (in which) the General Assembly is a member. In the past seven or eight years I have served on the central committee of the World Council of Churches, on the governing board of the National Council of Churches, in some leadership roles in Churches Uniting in Christ. I realized that if I took this on, choices would need to be made, and it seemed to me that there was a call being made by the world Reformed community and that I should be putting more time forward for the World Alliance and less so in these other bodies. Other very capable Presbyterians are serving in those capacities, and that’s a good thing, too. So I’ve tried to make those kinds of choices to maintain some balance.
That has covered half to two-thirds of the time obligations that WARC has been using. I do still struggle with how to be faithful and balanced.
JH: Any thoughts on plans for re-election next year?
CK: Obviously, the church has to make a decision as to who is called to serve as its stated clerk. I too am called to do some individual discernment based hopefully on the counsel and wisdom of many friends and much prayer. And the time I have set to do that is to take some time this summer. At this point I have not made any decision whether or not to stand for re-election. But I will seriously and prayerfully consider that in relation to all these issues of time, pressure, conflict in the church, where is my most useful role, my gifts, all those things. I have to officially tell the committee 180 days in advance [of the following General Assembly in June 2008], but I will try to do it a little ahead of that. I should be able to do that by the end of the summer.
JH: Any closing comments?
CK: This is a really painful time in the church. As I said at the beginning, this is like where I started with the split of the PCA. That was so personal in my life and congregation. I really hope and dream to not repeat that in the church.
I am being accused all over the place of being over optimistic and a cheerleader. But I have seen several signs of hope.
That Theological Task Force report, with the vision, both the piece on examinations and those first four recommendations about being a different kind of Christian community, taking those Reformed principles and asking how in our day do we discern by consensus, care for each other, study God’s Word that’s hugely important.
The Form of Government Task Force offers a Constitutional role.
The General Assembly Council is trying to lead us to a new way in a new day, and I think that’s encouraging.
I think there is a sense among our governing bodies. In a meeting that was obviously feeling great pain, leaders were asking what does it look like to be faithful to Jesus Christ, what is the role of middle governing bodies for today?
I keep finding energy in the local congregations I visit, church after church. We have far too many churches living on the survival and struggle level, but we have many churches with an amazing sense of the power of God’s love. I think God’s got a future for this church. I wish it didn’t have so many bumps in the road, but I’m convinced this road is heading somewhere that God intends us to go, and I hope a whole lot of other people in this church will get on that train of not staying where we are but being transformed into the kind of church God wants us to be.
