On January 28th, the Presbyterian Church USA nominated Clifton Kirkpatrick to serve a third term as the clerk of the General Assembly, the ruling body for the denomination. Kirkpatrick likes to mix his liberal politics with religion. Appropriately enough, the meeting was held in Berkeley, California. The failure of the denomination to address the liberal politics of the clerk does not bode well for it's future. Mr. Kirkpatrick has been responsible for some controversial decisions...
According to this article in The Layman, Mr. Kirkpatrick:
1. Publicly opposed the war in Iraq and was a signatory to a World Council of Churches statment that inferred (according to the Presbyterian News Service) that President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair should be tried for war crimes. )
2. Has voiced his strict opposition to church officers who redirect their giving away from the denomination despite the fact that this is acceptable under the constitution of the denomination.
3. Has strongly advocated major funding from the PCUSA for the National Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches, two organizations that emphasize a social-political agenda.
4. Has proposed that the Book of Order be abbreviated to a few chapters to eliminate as a requirement for the whole denomination such issues as the "fidelity/chastity" ordination standard.
The Presbyterian News Service acknowledges only a small portion of the controversy over the nomination of Mr. Kirkpatrick:
"Kirkpatrick will be opposed by at least one other candidate. The Rev. Bob Davis, of Escondido, CA, the executive director of the Presbyterian Forum, a PC(USA) renewal group, announced his candidacy earlier this month. The Rev. Linn “Rus” Howard, of Venetia, PA, reportedly has told friends that he intends to run, but has not formally announced. Both have criticized Kirkpatrick for what they characterize as unwillingness to “uphold” and “defend” the PC(USA) constitution, particularly its ban on the ordination of sexually active gay and lesbian Presbyterians." [source]
At the very least, Mr. Kirkpatrick should recognize that these stands of his do not further the cause of the gospel and refrain from engaging in them. Since Mr. Kirkpatrick has a long-standing history of liberal activism in his position, this doesn't seem likely to happen. Instead, the tension within the denomination grows and it's very possible that we'll see a repeat performance of the fiasco that engulfed the Episcopal Denomination.
There are a great many well-meaning pastors and session members who seem to believe that they can just continue to focus on their own congregations and this whole issue will disappear. It won't.
I know I'm swimming with sharks on this one, but here goes....
"1. Publicly opposed the war in Iraq and was a signatory to a World Council of Churches statment that inferred (according to the Presbyterian News Service) that President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair should be tried for war crimes. )"
Inferred isn't demanded. And, for that matter, a LOT of churches lined up on the no war side, even some fundamentalist and evangelical congregations. Are you inferring that these churches are not Christian?
"2. Has voiced his strict opposition to church officers who redirect their giving away from the denomination despite the fact that this is acceptable under the constitution of the denomination."
Of course he would. PC(USA) may be a cash cow, but it's a greying cash cow. If a bunch of uppity conservatives stop paying their per capita, the synods are screwed, and they go hat-in-hand to Louisville, where they will have no choice but to deplete their coffers to keep the synods afloat. 5, 10, 15 years of this will bankrupt the endowment.
Personally, I think withholding per capita is akin to claiming to being a loyal Republican but never giving a dime to the party or showing for a caucus. Either you're in or you're not. You choose to fight in the church, or you choose to bag it and join the OPC/EPC/PCA.
"3. Has strongly advocated major funding from the PCUSA for the National Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches, two organizations that emphasize a social-political agenda."
This is part of what we PC(USA) rank-and-file call "the Louisville disconnect." The folks in Louisville don't know what's going on on the ground, and honestly, few of them really care. Exacerbating this disconnect is the fact that the strongest evangelical churches in PC(USA) are all in the West.
Of course, if you have a problem with the PC(USA) espousing a socio-political agenda, though, you have to look askance at any church which takes a side with abortion. The real issue, honestly, is that people don't like it when a church doesn't take THEIR side.
"4. Has proposed that the Book of Order be abbreviated to a few chapters to eliminate as a requirement for the whole denomination such issues as the "fidelity/chastity" ordination standard."
AKA "Can't we just stop talking about F&C already?" Remember, every time they've tried to revise this or get it stripped it's been smacked down by the synods. Last time it was a 70/30 split, higher than the 67/33 split which approved Amendment B in '97. Eventually, F&C will come off the books, but we're at least 10 years away from that happening, maybe 20. By then, PC(USA) will be at least 1/3rd smaller than it is now and bleeding even more profusely. The average PC(USA) member is now 55+, better than the Lutherans and Episcopalians but not by much. The only thing that saved them was an influx of twentysomethings (of which I am one, though no longer 20) in the mid-90s. Where did these twentysomethings come from? University Pres Seattle, Hollywood First, First Berkeley, First Pres Boulder... not exactly bastions of liberal theology. As that generation joins the leadership, I think you'll see them continue to block F&C from coming out of the Book. The other thing tempering all this is that older generation remembers the disaster of 1971 all too well (when the Southern Presbyterians tried to force the churches to ordain women, triggering the PCA schism).
And no, this won't go away, even though we all wish it would. The problem, honestly, is that political apathy has moved into the pew. Why sit on session? Why care about the direction of the denomination? Gen X/Y Christians care about what's in the local church, not the church general. Heck, in our church (PC(USA), 500 members, average age 33) only 1% of our budget is per capita -- compared to 21% spent on local and international missions. Who cares what happens in Louisville? If you want to change what happens at GA, start getting the 25-34s to pray and ask God whether He wants them in leadership.
And one more thing... every time Kirkpatrick has run he's run against TWO conservatives, not one. You want to knock Kirkpatrick off? Unite behind ONE guy.
Posted by: dw at February 7, 2004 12:28 AMWell, I hate it when people don't have the guts to leave their real name and/or email address, but let me briefly take a shot at your arguments.
re: Inferred that he was anti-war ... the Presbyterian News Service inferred that Clifton was anti-war -- the PNS is the mouthpiece of the denomination so I would assume that they are correct in their inferrence. Secondly, I'm not assuming that anti-war churches are not Christian. My point is that in his position he represents everyone in the denomination both pro and anti-war therefore he shouldn't make ANY statement unless it is clearly against the stated doctrine of the denomination.
re: Withholding per capita -- Since he has ignored other entreaties to stop politicizing his office and supporting causes that are in opposition to church doctrine, what other way do you propose that they make their voices heard? We'd rather avoid a split but if we continue to be ignored then you'll get your wish.
re: political apathy -- You want the conservative side to drop their demands about fidelity and chastity and then you complain about political apathy. What you're really saying here is that you want people to be active only in supporting your pet causes and since they aren't then they have "political apathy".
The real issue is that the PCUSA hq in Louisville advocates positions that are in direct opposition to church doctrine at best, and at the very least, misrepresent the views of a large block of the church members. So, of course, I want Clifton gone. In my view, he's a heretic and would be better off working for the UN or some other liberal bastion of change.
Thanks for you lengthy comments. With more space and time I imagine we could get much deeper into the issues you raised. I'm okay with comments like yours - they don't agree with mine but at least they're rational. I can respect other views here, but next time leave your name!
-Jim.
I usually post with my initials -- it's, er, three characters less than my name. And I use a fake e-mail address because I already average 20 spams per day on my primary e-mail account, an address posted in exactly one place on the Internet (and accidentally). So, no, I'm not gutless, just trying to hide from a bunch of Chinese and Nigerian scam artists.
If you want my name and e-mail address, you could just look at the URL -- that's my site. And you can call me Dylan because that's what mom put on the birth certificate.
Anyway... onward.
Kirkpatrick, as an individual, has the right to say whatever he wants, but it's up to the church general to formulate a policy. If Kirkpatrick is out of line and seen as speaking ex cathedra, PC(USA) should censure him. As I've understood it, though, PC(USA) as a denomination took an anti-war stance. (Mind you, this is as a denomination; church sessions voted freely on this. Our church took the middle path, saying it was all a concern and asking that the church pray for those who will be caught in the crossfire, esp. women and children. It was a very hot topic.)
"What other way do you propose that they make their voices heard?" Four things.
0. Pray. (Duh.)
1. Evangelize.
2. Participate.
3. Be polite, reasonable, yet uncompromizing.
By evangelizing I mean to lead people to Christ, but also to convert people to your side. In this, there needs to be clarity and discernment as to what is true and what is dross.
Participation means going to synod meetings, sitting on session, and doing something to contribute to the political life of PC(USA). It's God's church, but it's also a bureaucracy run by humans, who by their nature sin and fall short of the glory of God. Salt and light, people.
Finally, being a rabble-rouser in PC(USA) gets you nowhere. You know the line -- "decent and in order." Know what you believe, be able to defend it, but remember that all things we are commanded to love one another. You know Satan's getting off on the Anglican implosion right now.
And, honestly, I believe there will be a schism, but I think it's still ten years off. I hope I'm wrong on both counts (well, not that it happens this year), but that's a lot of time for God to act and for people to act.
"re: political apathy -- You want the conservative side to drop their demands about fidelity and chastity and then you complain about political apathy."
I don't see where you get that. I supported and will continue to support fidelity and chastity. I'm a protesting Catholic and evangelical who has found himself for the last decade in PC(USA), and I don't see how, Biblically, being a practicing homosexual can serve in a church. My main quibble is with it being seen as worse than adultery and other sexual sins in the church.
"What you're really saying here is that you want people to be active only in supporting your pet causes and since they aren't then they have "political apathy"."
No, I want people involved, but I'm tired of the whining from the peanut gallery. You have a problem, get involved. If you feel PC(USA) has strayed too far in either direction, UCC is on your left, PCA is on your right.
"The real issue is that the PCUSA hq in Louisville advocates positions that are in direct opposition to church doctrine at best, and at the very least, misrepresent the views of a large block of the church members."
Yes, this is the "Louisville disconnect" I was talking about. Honestly, it's working both ways. Two synods are voting to ignore F&C, and you know no one will discipline them. The only time Louisville and GA get any response to where they are is when the synods blow their proposals out of the sky like so much skeet.
"So, of course, I want Clifton gone. In my view, he's a heretic and would be better off working for the UN or some other liberal bastion of change."
Of course, you are branding 40% of PC(USA) heretics.... He's not even close to the worst one in Louisville. I could name names, but I won't.
You know how you can dump Kirkpatrick? Call the two conservatives who are thinking of running against him, and get one of them to bow out. Trust me, Kirkpatrick would go down in a hurry -- so long as you weren't picking someone too conservative. A good, solid West Coast evangelical would work perfectly, esp. one who promised a vacation from the annual F&C screamfest.
I'm willing to talk more. Heck, we can blog back and forth if you'd like to. Check my blog -- you'll find my e-mail address.
Posted by: dw at February 7, 2004 08:10 PMFirst of all let me say, clientandserver.com is a very cool url for a website.
Secondly, I think we can have a lot of fun going back and forth on various issues. We probably agree on quite a lot, but there's enough disagreement to make it fun.
Finally, let me try to address what you said,
Kirkpatrick, as an individual, has the right to say whatever he wants, but it's up to the church in general to formulate a policy. If Kirkpatrick is out of line and seen as speaking ex cathedra, PC(USA) should censure him.
You're right that as an individual he does have the right to say what he wants, however, he wasn't making his statements as an individual but as a representative of the denomination. As far as the sessions voting on this, I would imagine that there were many different points of view at each session - which is precisely why Kirkpatrick should've not taken a position on it.
Our church took the middle path, saying it was all a concern and asking that the church pray for those who will be caught in the crossfire, esp. women and children.
Although I personally don't agree with that stance, I can understand why a church would take that path. It is certainly much better than alienating one group or another while still remembering those who would be in harms way.
Four things to do to be heard:
0. Pray. (Duh.)
1. Evangelize.
2. Participate.
3. Be polite, reasonable, yet uncompromising.
I couldn't agree with you more on these points, but in good conscience, I can't financially support actions that I believe are in opposition to the Gospel. (I'm not nec talking about the war here.)
In fact the issue of withholding per capita as a protest came up at a session meeting and I personally don't agree with it as a protest. There are other ways to protest. I just can't honestly support the actions of Louisville in good conscience. Maybe that means I should join a PCA church or something but unfortunately that isn't an option.
My main quibble is with it [homosexuality] being seen as worse than adultery and other sexual sins in the church.
I couldn't agree with you more.
Of course, you are branding 40% of PC(USA) heretics.... He's not even close to the worst one in Louisville. I could name names, but I won't.
See my post for Feb 8th!
You're right, 40% of them probably are heretics.
Participation means going to synod meetings, sitting on session, and doing something to contribute to the political life of PC(USA). It's God's church, but it's also a bureaucracy run by humans, who by their nature sin and fall short of the glory of God. Salt and light, people.
I really liked this paragraph. You couldn't be more correct.
Thanks for your response! I'll take a look at your website and maybe we can have some fun with some issues.
-Jim.