Another leader taking leave? In recent weeks we have said sad farewells to church giants who have joined the church triumphant. This time we bid farewell to one who heads to a blissful retirement at 7,000 feet in New Mexico's mountains. As he comes to the end of his second four-year term as executive director of the General Assembly Council, John Detterick took a few moments to reflect on his tenure.
Let's get clear what's at stake. What's at stake is not clear.
We love our Jewish neighbors. Any lack of love any of us harbors toward any of them is sin. Our faith is rooted in Hebrew soil. Given the long history of Christian mistreatment of Jews, we bear the primary responsibility to rebuild trust between our communities.
We support the right of the nation of Israel to live in freedom with safe borders.
We love our Palestinian neighbors. Any lack of love any of us harbors toward any of them is sin. We feel a special affection for our ecumenical partners, the Palestinian Christians. Given that an international concern for justice led the United Nations to grant a homeland to the Israeli people, we bear a corresponding responsibility to promote justice for the Palestinians displaced from much of that land.
We support the rights of the Palestinians to live in freedom with safe borders.
The GAC's formal recognition that the divestment issue has created deep divisions among us is welcome. Their suggestion to establish a small work group on the issue is wise and pastoral. In effect, the GAC recommends setting up a process that should have been employed prior to any vote on divestment in 2004.
Editor's Note: This article is based on the text of a roundtable presentation at a meeting of the Presbytery of Philadelphia on April 23, 2006. Used by permission.
"As a means of pursuing peace and the common good of Israelis and Palestinians, the 2004 General Assembly adopted a seven-part resolution that affirmed its longstanding opposition to the Israeli occupation and took action to demonstrate the depth of its conviction, instructing Mission Responsibility Through Investment (MRTI) to start a process of 'phased selective divestment' consistent with General Assembly policy on responsible investing."
--PC(USA) Web site
Four basic issues arise when deciding the moral appropriateness of an action like divestment.
You barely have a chance to say farewell to Jim Andrews, and you have to say farewell to Bill Thompson, too. As the final stated clerks of the southern and northern streams, Jim and Bill together helped engineer the reunion--at the cost of one's continued ecclesiastical employment. Two decades later, their entry into the church triumphant just a few weeks apart assures that the former counterparts are both employed again, partnering in the promotion of God's reign through the cosmos.
Their legacies of leadership challenge their successors of today and tomorrow to excel
Acts 15: 1Then certain individuals came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." 2And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to discuss this question with the apostles and the elders. ... 4When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them. 5But some believers who belonged to the sect of the Pharisees stood up and said, "It is necessary for them to be circumcised and ordered to keep the law of Moses."
Let's shift the issue before that body, ever so slightly. Let's focus, not on circumcision, but on another important issue for the Jews.
As the General Assembly receives the report of the PUP Task Force and starts to discuss it, one simple question ought to be on our minds: What are our alternatives?
One, the GA can approve the report. This could lead to pressure for schism and anger breaking out because now Presbyterians will essentially permit an action that by vote of presbyteries three times in the last twenty years we have refused to approve.
Conspiracy Theory. Loved the movie. Mel Gibson and Julia Roberts put on a show.
This year's conspiracy theory installment, The Da Vinci Code movie, based on the wildly popular book out for several years, promises to sell many more tickets than the Gibson-Roberts film.
Americans love conspiracy theories. Attributing the worst motives to "those other people"--especially if they represent the bureaucracy of government, law enforcement or the religious establishment--pulls readers and viewers into a web of juicy intrigue. It makes high entertainment.
But conspiracy theories prove less entertaining to those falsely accused of such conspiring.
Popular fascination with Dan Brown's novel The Da Vinci Code continues unabated. The book has been on the bestseller list for more than 160 weeks with more than 10,000,000 (that's 10 million) copies sold. The May 19 release of the feature film based on this fast-paced adventure story and starring Tom Hanks as the handsome scholar Robert Langdon exposes Brown's provocative and disturbing ideas about Jesus Christ and early Christianity to an even larger audience. A directive from the Vatican urging Roman Catholics to boycott the movie will probably only increase the desire of some people to see the film.
c. 2006 Religion News Service
I'm not sure if I've ever seen such an explosion of public interest in Jesus -- from a variety of angles old and new (some would say odd). Whether this fascination simply means that Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code has created a new industry, or whether it signals something deeper -- that's up for debate. As a pastor with 24 years of ministry experience in a nontraditional setting and as an author on related matters, I think it's a good measure of both.
Through this resurgence of interest in the known Gnostic gospels, through intrigue surrounding the newly discovered Gospel of Judas, as well as through interest in all things Da Vinci, Americans are expressing, I believe, a simultaneous spiritual disappointment and hope -- and each has live political ramifications.
Can a disintegrating organization of Christian believers find a way to reverse its downward spiral? Our national leadership needs our help to find a way.
That downward spiral strikes a distinct resemblance to the deterioration of Main Street in many an American town. That hub of the community's commerce, with its pharmacy, supermarket, clothing, and shoe stores faded when developers built the shopping mall or Wal-Mart on the highway just outside town.
The Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity (PUP) has made seven recommendations to the 217th General Assembly (2006) meeting in Birmingham in June. The report as a whole is brilliant, subtle and balanced, and deserves careful study by commissioners to the General Assembly and by the church at large. The vote of this Assembly on the recommendations will have a profound effect on the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).
The heart of these recommendations is number 5, and this analysis and opinion will focus on it. Recommendation 5 proposes an Authoritative Interpretation of section G-6.0108 of the Book of Order. This section states the Church's understanding of our freedom of conscience within certain bounds. The authoritative interpretation reminds the Church of its Reformed tradition dating back to 1729 that establishes the principle of freedom of conscience within bounds and applies the test of adherence to essentials of Reformed faith and polity to those being examined for ordination as deacons, elders or ministers. In recent decades, the Church has applied the test of essentials primarily to matters of faith. The authoritative interpretation retrieves its use in matters of polity, meaning practice or behavior.
For years I have taught confirmands and officers-elect with some pride that the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has a constitutional form of government. The constitutional rule of law is one of our denomination's greatest gifts. It is also in serious danger of being undermined if recommendation five of the Theological Task Force on the Peace, Unity, and Purity of the Church is adopted as written.
On the whole, the report is a first-rate product. It provides the church with clear guidance on matters of Christology and biblical authority. The Task Force worked hard to model for the church how to resolve differences while building Christian community. Even regarding ordination standards, task force members wisely turned to the historic methods Presbyterians have used to resolve such disagreements, set forth in the Adopting Act of 1729 and the reports of the Swearingen Commission of 1925. For all these, they should be commended. However, in applying these historic methods to our current context, the Task Force both violates the original intent of the documents and sets a dangerous constitutional precedent.
William Sloane Coffin. James E. Andrews. Both gone. After spending a lifetime on a mission, they joined the Church Triumphant, leaving big shoes to be filled.
Coffin and Andrews each embodied a particular kind of churchmanship.
Bill Coffin was the activist: a chaplain and pulpiteer who stirred the masses to take action against what he declared to be the evils of the day. Many disagreed with his diagnoses. What he called a "disastrous cult of power" others cast as an international "police action." While others spoke of the force of law, he warned of the law of force. He provoked much rage. He also provoked action by those he persuaded with his arguments.
The Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity is recommending the General Assembly approve an authoritative interpretation of G-6.0108 that claims merely to clarify what has long been the historical position of the Presbyterian Church: that ordaining governing bodies have the final say on decisions of ordination. It once was common that presbyteries would allow candidates for ordination to declare their disagreements ("scruples") with the confessional standards of the church, and then determine if they would ordain the candidate nonetheless (lines 724-726). The recommended authoritative interpretation would revive this historic tradition (lines 1138-1179), encouraging governing bodies to hear the scruples of candidates and decide whether the stated scruples were sufficiently beyond the pale of our tradition to prohibit ordination.
I oppose it for two reasons: If it is approved, it will further erode the level of trust in our church; and it will be a top-down decision of a matter that the presbyteries have refused to allow.
Those Christian educators just won't take "No!" for an answer. Recent General Assemblies have rejected again and again proposals to ordain educators, yet presbyteries persist in submitting more overtures for the same. When will they give up? Or, maybe, should this year's GA return a different response?
Our attachment to the threefold offices of minister of Word and Sacrament, of elder, and of deacon is held almost as intensely as our affirmation of a Trinitarian God and our preference for three-point sermons. We have protected that structure against those promoting the office of bishop or of priest or of anybody else. Indeed, many of us urge our seminaries to appoint as faculty members only those who have been ordained to one of those offices.
We have not always been so jealously protective of the threefold structure of church office.
Several years ago a small incident occurred that has been much in my mind since I received the Final Report of the Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity of the Church. The incident took place as a pastor and I drove home from a meeting. We had joined ten others in what was called a "discernment exercise," exploring future directions for the presbytery where we both served. Rather than just brainstorm and then debate ideas, the group had attended on Scripture, entered silence, listened deeply to one another's yearnings, even where those yearnings lay far apart. The group prayed. On the way home, for better than an hour, my friend talked about the "fresh bond in Christ" (his exact words) he was discovering with a person whose views differed dramatically from his own.
In the spring, at the time when kings go off to war, David sent Joab out with the king's men and the whole Israelite army. They destroyed the Ammonites and besieged Rabbah (2 Samuel 11:1a-TNIV).
Welcome to Eastertide, a season to enjoy Easter's afterglow, to anticipate Pentecost's empowerment, and to go off to war.
'Tis the season to prepare for General Assembly.
The spring of 2005--the first GA off year--afforded Presbyterians the luxury of focusing their attention on Jesus' resurrection and the Holy Spirit's outpouring. This year such reflections could be drowned out by saber rattling and megaphone shouting. The 217th war, er, uh, meeting of the GA looms on the Alabama horizon--just three months away.
In the March 29, 1944 edition of The Presbyterian of the South, editors E.T. Thompson and Aubrey Brown announced that the magazine was changing its name to The Presbyterian Outlook. They explained:
We choose this name because it describes our purpose and hope--to give the Presbyterian outlook on evangelism, stewardship, missions (at home and abroad), education, worship, morals and life; the Presbyterian outlook on the problems of the individual, the home, the Church, the nation (especially our problems here in the South), and the world; the Presbyterian outlook on things past, things present, and on the things which are still to come.
We have been and we shall remain Presbyterian.
We shall endeavor, with God's help, to present a helpful, constructive, Presbyterian, thoroughly Christian outlook on all matters which properly concern us--as Christians and as Presbyterians.
One need watch only a few episodes of "Law & Order" or "CSI" to know that the wheels of justice roll on bumpy roads. Many an omniscient viewer has shouted the right answers at celluloid investigators, detectives, and prosecutors while the actors have painstakingly dragged through the evidence to build a case that can hold up in court. In TV World, justice usually does get served--about three minutes before the end of the show.
In the real world, those wheels roll on even bumpier roads. Many a crime victim discovers that the local gendarmes don't have the time or the will to pursue the evidence. Or, if they do, the prosecutor responds with a shrug, "We have no case." Screaming at those officers of the law can be even more counter productive than shouting at a TV.
Judging by this editor's e-mail inbox, many Presbyterians are shouting at their ecclesiastical TVs these days. Some are lifting up their voices in jubilation, others in anger. They all have been watching the same program, the recent ruling of the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Presbytery of Redwoods in response to the presbytery's case against the Rev. Dr. Jane Adams Spahr. Charged with performing same-sex marriages in violation of the Constitution, she acknowledged before the court that she had indeed officiated such services. However, the PJC acquitted her, stating that the constitutional definition of marriage between a man and woman need not bind the conscience of a minister. Only constitutional prohibitions need be obeyed, they said. Definitions need not be.
Like it or not, the stated clerk is the Presbyterian Church's lead ecumenical officer.
Like it or not, the present stated clerk is a self-avowed ecumaniac. He works hard for Christianity-wide unity.
Like it or not, the World Council of Churches, on whose executive committee Stated Clerk Cliff Kirkpatrick has just completed a six-year term, provides the PC(USA) its most expansive network of ecumenical relationships.
Like it or not, the recently concluded meeting of the WCC presented a picture of great unity. And it provided a platform for others to cry out their contempt for American Christians.
Like it or not, we need to deal with that.
Also featured in the Outlook forum this issue: Deep problems by Barry Ensign-George
More than fifty years ago, historian Lefferts Loetscher in his classic The Broadening Church (1954) argued that American Presbyterianism contained two elements: one stressing "precise theological formulation" and "orderly and authoritarian church government," the other placing "more emphasis upon spontaneity, vital impulse, and adaptability." "It has been the good fortune and the hardship of the Presbyterian Church," Loetscher noted wryly, "to have had ... these two elements in dialectical tension within itself from the beginning."
The tension was apparent as American Presbyterians cobbled themselves together first in a presbytery (1706) and then a synod (1716). Initially these bodies had no official creed, but by the 1720s, some were calling for mandatory subscription to the Westminster Confession. "Now a church without a confession, what is it like?" asked one proponent of subscription, and he replied that such a church was "in a very defenseless condition, as a city without walls" liable to infiltration by heresy and error. By contrast, opponents feared that required subscription was "a bold invasion of Christ's royal power" and noted the "glaring contradiction" of requiring ministers to adhere to a document which itself declared: "God alone is the Lord of the conscience."
Also featured in the Outlook forum this issue: How Presbyterians dealt with conflict in the past by James H. Moorhead
Due to space constraints the original version of this essay was shortened for the print version of the Outlook. The following is the complete, full-length version. --Editor
The long-awaited Report of the Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity (TFPUP) is in hand. Thanks and assessments have been offered. We've invested a great deal in this effort: good people who were called in recognition of their capacity for such work, thousands of dollars gathering them and broadcasting their work, precious time for their work. Clearly they have had a powerful experience, calling us now to follow the principles that guided them, seeking similar experiences for ourselves.
Of course, the TFPUP Report does more. It proposes actual changes to the structure of our life together. And it is here that incisive questions need to be asked. The Report includes some deep problems. Specifically, the Report's recommendations 1) do not recover historic Presbyterian practices, 2) propose a form of local option without explaining how we'll deal with the implications, 3) propose a major change to our life together without putting that change before the presbyteries. It is important that these problems be recognized and addressed. In what follows I will consider these three key problems in the Report's proposals, particularly in its Recommendation 5 (Rec. 5 for short). Other problems have been identified by others among us. They also bear careful consideration.
Editors Note: In its ongoing effort to support effective local church ministry and mission, the Outlook invites its readers to consider alternative models of church ministry being developed in sister churches around the denomination. This editorial combines with two other articles, Presbyterians and the "40 Days of Purpose" and Purpose-Driven and Presbyterian: One new paradigm at work, to provide analysis of the purpose-driven church paradigm
Many Reformed Christians shook their heads in dismay when Robert Schuller's book, Self-Esteem: The New Reformation (Word Books, 1982), made its way into print.
How could he possibly think that attaining a good self-concept could replace the gospel's drama of sin ... forgiveness ... redemption, they wondered.
How could categories drawn from pop psychology supplant terms used in holy Scripture, they protested.
The reformation he helped launch has been one not of theology but of methodology. That reformation commenced when he formed a church by visiting hundreds of Garden Grove, Calif., homes, asking folks, "Do you go to church?" and "If not, why not?" Based upon their responses, he shaped his drive-in church's liturgy around people's expressed desires rather than adhere to some of the classical traditions of the Reformed churches. In the process he jettisoned the language of Zion and replaced it with terms whose meanings were self-evident to secular people. He shortened or eliminated parts of worship perceived to be boring. In the process, communication effectiveness took precedence over confessional precision and biblical exposition.
Also featured in the Outlook forum this issue: The challenge of true compassion by Tim Filston
For my first Homiletics sermon at Westminster Theological Seminary my text was Paul's challenge to the elders of the church, in Acts 20:28-31: Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he has bought with his own blood. I know that after I leave, grievous wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number persons will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard!
At the time I preached that sermon, I was sure that the current meaning of "wolves" was "Protestant Liberals," who had explained away much of the text of Holy Scripture. After decades of historical research, I have not changed that opinion. However, I have learned that religious wolves come in many shapes and sizes. Left to ourselves, acting without the restraining or inspiring grace of God's Spirit, any of us can tear and divide the flock. A great hymn, "The Church's One Foundation," describes it:
Though with a scornful wonder
This world sees her oppressed,
By schisms rent asunder,
By heresies distressed ...
When Luther wrote his first commentary on Galatians (1519), he was concerned to confront both heresy and schism. He knew that the leadership of the church was riddled by sexual antinomianism and other deadly sins, and that it was involved in theological heresy that had corrupted its center in Rome.
© Copyright 2026 The Presbyterian Outlook. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Statement. Website by Web Publisher PRO
