Celebrating the 25th anniversary of that June 1983 day in Atlanta when the northern UPCUSA and southern PCUS became the reunited Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is a time, not of nostalgic indulgence in a past that once was, but a time to engage in honest reflection on how far we have come in fulfilling the dream that brought us together and see how far we have yet to go in becoming a new Church.
First, denominational reunion would never have taken place in 1983 had it not been for the creation and existence of eighteen union presbyteries between 1970-1983, once called “the most unique phenomenon in North American Presbyterianism.” The constitutional changes that made their creation possible were achieved under the win-lose polity of majority rule with close majority votes. Nine presbyteries initially were created between 1970-1972 along the border states where UPCUSA and PCUS churches coexisted. Nine more were created between 1979-1983, mostly in non-border states in the South. No union presbytery was like another. Each reflected the distinctiveness of its ecclesial and cultural context.
The motivation for their creation came from years of cooperation built on long-lasting personal relationships. Clearly it became an affront to the unity of the Church and just plain stupid for Presbyterian neighbors to remain apart. They found a new gracious way of being church in union presbyteries, fully members of both denominations.
Union presbytery representatives came together in annual consultations to face problems emerging from divergent denominational structures in both their worlds. They experimented with new win-win decision-making by consensus. Workable solutions were found to “equitable distribution” of mission dollars, recruitment and care of candidates, relocation of ministers, and mobility between pension/annuity plans based on what contributed to the welfare of the whole.
New creative ways were found to reduce duplicated mission efforts in both denominational structures in areas like hunger and peacemaking programs, special offerings, and planting new congregations. All this laid the foundation for implementing the practical details of reunion when it came. Growing out of their experience, those in the Union Presbytery Movement insisted that diversity and inclusiveness be front and center in the reunited church as they worked to pass reunion in both denominations.
How the Union Presbytery Movement propelled Presbyterian denominational reunion into being and circumstances making it happen are chronicled in the book, Dreams, Where Have You Gone? It is based on my personal experience on the staff of the Presbytery of Transylvania (Union), chairing the Committee of Assembly Operations (PCUS) responsible for planning the reuniting General Assemblies in 1983, and ninety-eight interviews conducted in the Union Presbytery Movement Oral History Project.
Second, the reunited Church in 1983 experienced a bad case of theological anemia. The UPCUSA had exerted capital energy in bringing the Confession of 1967 and Book of Confessions into being. The PCUS General Assembly passed “A Declaration of Faith” in 1976 but failed to get the majority required in the presbyteries. Efforts were made to get a new Book of Confessions as part of The Plan of Reunion but failed.
The best theological concession that could be reached was the creation of Chapter II, “The Church and Its Confessions,” of the new Book of Order. A group assigned the task drafted it one weekend. Jack Rogers later referenced this as the source of the essential “Tenets of the Reformed Faith Expressed in the Confessions of our Church” and the rationale for one of the ordination vows. A growing debate has emerged in the early 21st century challenging his assumption. As specified in the Articles of Agreement of The Plan, “A Brief Statement of Faith” was approved and added to the Book of Confessions seven years after reunion.
Still 25 years of experience in a turbulent environment, punctuated by recent passionate battles over the person of Jesus Christ and the Trinity Paper, has yet to produce a comprehensive confessional statement reflecting a contemporary theological stance of the PC (USA) expressive of a new identity.
Third, the reuniting Assembly in 1983 instructed the General Assembly Council to conduct a church-wide consultation process to produce “The Life and Mission Statement” that would (1) provide a means by which the reunited church, in all its parts, might speak about and reflect upon a common vision of its life and work, and (2) provide a commonly agreed upon foundation for structuring the life of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).” A very significant statement resulted, but because it took two years to produce, old patterns filled power and structural voids that circumvented the creation of a new identity.
Union presbyteries hoped that reunion would be the consummation of an organic process in which things grew together stronger and healthier over time as new relations were developed. What emerged instead resembled a negotiated corporate merger that plucked the prime parts of former systems and discarded the rest.
Lost identities of former denominations, classic organizational power struggles, cobbling together a new structure out of two former systems, a careful balancing act on filling top staff positions all contributed to obscuring and losing the new missional foundations laid out in the “Life and Mission Statement” on which structure and staff were to be determined. A ubiquitous parade of reorganizations has ensued to the present trying to find the right corporate organizational or managerial technologies to make the system work in the contemporary context. I suggest that the current emphasis on “a missional polity” is an attempt to recapture the theological focus misplaced at reunion.
Fourth, the Articles of Agreement of The Plan of Reunion had two deal breakers. Had they not been included, reunion would probably not have passed. Article 8, a concession to some in the UPCUSA, mandated the formation of the Committee on Representation (COR), an unamendable Article of Agreement. Some at that time understood it could not be removed from the Book of Order. This interpretation is implicitly being challenged by the omission of the current provision for the Committee on Representation (G-9.0105) from the Draft of the Revised Form of Government.
Article 13, a concession to some in the PCUS, was a time-limited “escape clause” that allowed PCUS congregations to leave under certain processes with their property. Though the eight-year time limit of this Article has long since expired, there are former PCUS congregations currently attempting to leave the PC(USA) with their property believing it is still their right to do so.
Both Articles were attempts to legislate relationships, yet both fell short because it was believed that relational issues had been addressed.
Fifth, originally the dreamers espoused diversity and inclusivity as values that would bring strength to the whole body. Later, for some, diversity was equated with the syndrome of “special interest groups.” Their rhetoric became extremely vocal, consuming more corporate airtime, driving away those who disagree, negating constructive conversation. Diversity became an end in itself with an intensity of politicized “over-against-ness” leaving little or no room for Christian welcome for the “not-like-me.” As social propriety degenerated in cultural wars, a vivid picture of the dysfunctionality of a “win-lose mentality” was portrayed in a fragmented body.
The Union Presbytery Movement believed diversity that offers true inclusion — welcoming all strangers within our gates — must be at the heart of breaking down relational barriers that separate us. The Theological Task Force Report in 2006 suggested creative ways to build such inclusive relationships in Christ.
Sixth, meandering migrations of Scottish immigrants through Northern Ireland to the New World, along with immigrants from other parts of Europe, created a dominant culture that shaped every aspect of life in the New World — political, social, economic, and religious. The Scottish and Reformed legacy that we as Presbyterians hold so dearly is rooted in the civil and ecclesial conflicts of that Scottish heritage.
Time has come to take a serious look at this Eurocentric heritage. Historically, our constitution and polity; our ecclesial structures and educational institutions; the way we recruit, educate, and deploy ministerial leaders are based on Eurocentric systems. I believe we must assess whether parts of this heritage are stumbling blocks in shaping the new way of being church in the North American reality of the 21st century.
Fruits of our labors in “foreign mission fields” of previous centuries are being harvested now in this land. Presbyterian immigrants from Asia, Africa, and other locations outside America are bringing their versions of Presbyterianism to these shores. Many of their traditions and those of some native-born peoples are steeped in oral cultures where their ways of lifting up and maintaining leaders from within their own congregations and ordering congregational life stand in stark contrast to the ways we have historically approached the same tasks.
An example of an alternative pattern of pastoral leadership within our own North American culture appears in the rapid growth of commissioning lay pastors. They usually come from the locale in which they are called to serve; their language is the local language; they are steeped in the context of that culture; their preparation for ministry in not ordinarily conducted in the setting of a seminary; their ministry is highly relational and familial; they tend to have a longer tenure of service, less mobile, and able to build a sustainable ministry.
Given the new realities of the 21st century context, I feel the challenge for the dominant Presbyterian culture is to be reformed by Word and Spirit by welcoming contributions from other cultures without excluding those positive values from its heritage.
Finally, the generation of folk who dreamed “the Dream” in 1983 is dying off and with it goes first-hand memories and perceptions of what this legacy entailed. Current and future generations must build on the foundation of what they have learned from their antecedents’ experience and then dream new dreams about being Church in the remainder of the 21st Century.
William G. McAtee is a Presbyterian minister now honorably retired. McAtee served Transylvania Presbytery for 26 years as associate executive and then as executive presbyter from which he retired in 1997. He served as Chair of the Committee of Assembly Operations (PCUS) during the time that it was responsible for planning the reuniting General Assemblies in 1983.
