I am not Inspired by the General Assembly Mission Council's Meeting

I have not commented much on denominational issues except for a few posts on the Fellowship of Presbyterians (which now includes the Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians). But this article in the Presbyterian Outlook summarizes what I find frustrating about the way this denomination is being led. Fussing about a congressional hearing based on the complaints of one side does not represent good stewardship of time. In fairness, though, I can see some point of examining possible pay disparities in our denominational offices since we are so willing to wag our fingers at other entities about such issues. But again, is this worth the amount of time and effort, when the biggest challenge facing the national office is employing anyone at all!

In other articles, reference was made to GAMC supporting a recommendation to divest from some companies that sell equipment that supports the Israeli military, including sensory equipment used at checkpoints. These checkpoints are important for Israel's protection from suicide bombers. Oh well, never mind.

(I do want to thank one lonely member of the Committee for speaking against this proposal: “I think what’s proposed is ineffective and counterproductive,” and actually goes against the interest of peacemaking, said council member Kears Pollock of Pennsylvania, a retired corporate executive. Some of the products made by the three companies may actually have saved lives, Pollock said.")

The GAMC also is boosting the per capita level because, even as membership continues to steeply decline, they are proposing increasing the per capita budget, which has, in my opinion, many unnecessary line items like disproportionate support for the National Council and World Council of Churches, both of which say pretty much the same thing as our denomination on political issues anyway.

And there is some tinkering with special offerings. Again I really don't know what the point is:

Special Offerings Advisory Task Force. On Feb. 16, the council approved the recommendations of the Special Offerings Advisory Task Force. The task force has set a goal for the PC(USA) to raise $20 million from the offerings by 2020. It also is recommending that the General Assembly eliminate the Peacemaking Offering (funding peacemaking endeavors instead through the One Great Hour of Sharing offering) and that it create a new offering to support world mission.

To me, the GAMC seems to be riding the same old hobby horses of declining, mainline Protestantism ... feminist resentments, Israel-bashing, and supporting ecumenical efforts by propping up creaking old bureacracies, as well as the proverbial rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Is there any concern on the part of the GAMC on reaching the lost with the Gospel of salvation? Any concern for persecuted Christians around the world (many of them in majority Islamic countries, btw ...)?

This all has so little to do with my congregation (except for possibly causing us embarassment) that I find the GAMC's activities to be essentially irrelevant. In the meantime, our small but vibrant congregation will continue striving to honor God and serve our fellow men and women in our community by confessing Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord and honoring the Bible as God's Word.

A Very Good Fellowship Covenant

Notwithstanding my criticisms of the Fellowship of Presbyterians' (now called the Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians) project, I really affirm their just released Covenant statement. I especially appreciate the affirmation about the sanctity of life. I plan to sign the Covenant and will encourage our session to consider supporting it as well. This does not mean we are considering leaving the PC(USA). It does mean that we are looking for a way to be faithful followers of Christ, relying on the Word of God, while remaining in the PC(USA).

I am grateful to the ECO for issuing this.

Does the Fellowship of Presbyterians Actually Make Sense, Part 3

I was wondering how to write down what I have been considering about the Fellowship of Presbyterians project. A letter written to the Layman, published today, encapsulates my thoughts quite well. I am grateful to J.T. Tate of Asheville, NC for laying it our so clearly.


Presbyterian ‘Split-P soup’ does not need any new ingredients

Posted Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Ok, so now they're talking about forming a "New Reformed Body." Why?

1) If you want to have female preachers, the EPC has gone out of its way to welcome you, as I'm sure the CRC and RCA would. Will the NRB mandate female ordination and ban complementarianism, like the PCUSA has for so long?

2) If you want to keep the full Book of Confessions, keep in mind the N(e)O-Orthodoxy of the Confession of 67 is hostile to a Biblical view of Scripture, and has promoted the prevalent mainline view of the Bible as a nice "record of man's religious experiences" but full of myths and certainly not the written Word of God. Per this view, if we don't like what's in there, we can say "that part isn't God's word" and we get to make God in our image!

The Presbyterian "Split-P soup" does not need any new ingredients. Want to stay liberal in theology? I'm sure the PCUSA will allow minimal conservative scruples. Think the PCUSA is Babylon? The EPC, PCA, RCA, CRC, OPC, ARP, and numerous other denominations will be happy to have you join their ministry.
J.T. Tate
Asheville, N.C.



Although the Fellowship has some good proposals on the table regarding polity (no property trust clause) and theology (the importance of the incarnate AND the written Word of God), in some ways it looks like the PC(USA) with all confessions included. That makes little sense to me. It also makes little sense that the Fellowship leadership invited Joe Small, who does not even endorse the Fellowship, to help craft the statement of theological essentials. Rev. Small has written some great things during his time leading the PC(USA) Office of Theology and Worship, but he is committed to the PC(USA) as "the Church." Why a group that wants to facilitate a new denomination would turn to someone who opposes that makes no sense to me. I think it leads to incoherence and a dilution of the Fellowship's focus.