Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Fellowship of Presbyterians, and especially the newer group calling itself the Evangelical Covenant Order, or ECO. Periodically throughout our history, disgruntled Presbyterian conservatives have formed such breakaway denominations, but their history is not encouraging. The new denominations have tended not to flourish in the long term, and they have often been subject to repeated splits. Our history has demonstrated, over and over again, that the habit of schism, once indulged, is a difficult one to break.
Unlike earlier breakaway movements, the ECO, in its published statements, seems reluctant to use the “D” word - “denomination” - in describing itself. It prefers the word "order," and in using it, has drawn parallels between itself and religious orders of the Roman Catholic Church like the Jesuits and the Franciscans. This is troubling, because the woolly language may mislead some congregational leaders into thinking they can vote to affiliate with the ECO without involving Monmouth Presbytery in the decision-making process. ECO leaders may prefer to speak of “affinity groups” and “a new way of being the church in a post-denominational era,” but such vague language doesn’t alter the fact that the ECO is, in fact, a new Presbyterian denomination.
Despite its leaders’ hesitancy to use the “D” word, the ECO looks, walks and quacks like the proverbial duck - the “D” referring to “denomination,” of course, not “duck.”
The ECO, however, is a horse of a different color. While the “Polity” document of the ECO welcomes both congregations that wish to be "graciously dismissed" from the PC(USA) and become outright members, and those who wish to remain in the PC(USA) but have dual affiliation, the PC(USA) Form of Government has some very explicit provisions relating to the formation of “Union Congregations” - those that are affiliated with the PC(USA) and another denomination simultaneously.
Our Constitution does not permit congregations to simply vote to affiliate with the ECO – nor any other denomination – without first obtaining the permission and support of their PC(USA) presbytery for doing so. This is true even of those who envision themselves maintaining dual affiliation: one foot in the PC(USA) and one foot outside it.
The PC(USA) Office of Constitutional Services in Louisville has recently issued Constitutional Musing #25, “Joint Congregational Witness,” on this very topic. Ruling elders and teaching elders of any congregation who are considering establishing a relationship with the ECO would do well to read this document very, very carefully, and then to officially notify Monmouth Presbytery, in writing, that they are contemplating such a step, well in advance of any Session or Congregational votes on the subject. A Session or Congregation who votes to affiliate with the ECO without bringing the Presbytery into the decision - even under the understanding that they will have “one foot in and one foot out”of the PC(USA) - is in violation of the Form of Government and could be subject to ecclesiastical discipline. The Form of Government is clear that such Union Church relationships may only be established by explicit consent of the PC(USA) presbytery (G-5.05).
“But, aren’t we living in a post-denominational age?” some may counter. “The ECO is simply ‘pursuing a new way of being the church.’ This is merely a ‘mission partnership’ we want to be involved in. We want to be nimble and flexible, ever open to the Holy Spirit’s leading. We mean no harm. In fact, we mean to do a great deal of good, for the sake of the Lord!”
That may well be - and in that case, those interested in the ECO should easily be able to convince the Presbytery, through its Committee on Ministry, that their motives are pure, and that they wish to pursue their decision-making process with total transparency.
We never do agree on everything, in the church – haven’t, since the days of the Apostle Paul – but at least we in the Presbytery of Monmouth ought to be able to agree that, for the sake of our common relationship in the Lord, we owe one another clear communication and full transparency on anything and everything relating to the Fellowship of Presbyterians and the ECO.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
In case you haven't heard those terms before, don't worry. Neither had I, until I read them in a review of a new book by Len Sweet, who's on the faculty of Drew University Divinity School here in New Jersey. The book is called Viral: How Social Networking is Poised to Ignite Revival.
I'm a Gutenberger, because I was born prior to 1973. Quite a bit before 1973, if the truth be told.
That means I tend to think in terms of printed words on the page. It's how the church - and society at large - has been communicating, ever since Johannes Gutenberg invented movable type for printing presses sometime around 1439.
My kids, though, are Googlers. They've grown up with personal computers, and more recently with smartphones, which are really handheld computers. Today's smartphones pack more computing capacity than the computer on board the lunar module Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed on the moon.
Back when I was in high school, a transistor radio with a single earbud was the cool tech item. If you were lucky, it might even pull in the FM stations, but no stereo sound.
Today - for those who can afford it - it's the new Apple iPad. We used to watch Mr. Spock on the original Star Trek using something like those, but never dreamed we'd see it in our time.
To us Gutenbergers, "text" means something solid, tangible, relatively unchangeable. Like the Bible open on the pulpit.
To Googlers, "text" is a verb.
If Len Sweet is right, the question of what technology we've grown up with is more than significant for the church, because it affects our entire way of looking at the world. Those born after 1973 are digital natives. They've never known anything different. The rest of us are at best digital immigrants. Like the first-generation immigrants who came to this land from overseas, we're forever playing catch-up with our progeny.
Here are some of the distinctions he identifies between Gutenbergers and Googlers:
Gutenbergers: It's necessary to be right.
Googlers: It's necessary to be in relationship.
Gutenbergers: God is in charge.
Googlers: God chose to be among us.
Gutenbergers: Capital campaign.
Googlers: Homeless campaign
Gutenbergers: Statement of faith.
Googlers: Life of faith.
Gutenbergers: Build something.
Googlers: Meet someone.
Gutenbergers: A culture of words and individualism that has lost its ability to propagate.
Googlers: A culture of images and relationships that breed virality, the petri dish of revival.
Centuries ago, the Apostle Paul rode merchant ships crisscrossing the Mediterranean and Aegean Seas, made newly safe by the order imposed by the Caesars. Christianity rode that new technology to an explosion of growth. A millennium and a half later, Luther and Calvin made use of Gutenberg's press to get God's word - newly translated out of the original languages and Latin - into the hands of ordinary people.
Are we on the verge of a change just as epoch-making? I think we are, and it's already begun. It's also coming at us with breakneck speed.
If the church is to continue to be the church, we need to figure out how to be a church of both Gutenbergers and Googlers. All other issues we’re now struggling with – including the interminable debates about sexual ethics – are as nothing compared to this mega-issue.
We’d best get over those comparatively minor debates, and get on with it.