Despite Jesus’ command to the contrary I have been thinking about, maybe even worrying lately, about the future of the Presbyterian Church (USA). It seems that a lot of us have been trying to discern what God has in store for us, if the conversations around The Fellowship and Next Church are any indication.
I increasingly believe that many of the struggles we face as a denomination are the aftershocks of our dislocation from the center of American culture. Many Presbyterians have been so used to the congruence between middle class white American culture and the Presbyterian Church that our movement away from the center is extremely disorienting. This disorientation causes deep confusion about identity and mission. We are no longer the chaplain to the culture. I spoke to a pastor recently who recounted when a particularly wealthy member of the congregation came to him and said, “when I joined this church, the mayor was a member of this church. Two bank presidents were members of this church. Three city council members were members of this church. That’s why I joined this church. Now, there is no mayor, no bank presidents, and no members of city council. I’m leaving.”
We have to find what God is calling us to when we’re no longer important. For many Presbyterians, this reality is painful and unwelcome. But it can also bring us to a more faithful clarity about identity and mission. Free from the expectations to of the past, we may be able to follow Jesus more closely.
The other night as I rested uneasily in bed, the words of a Gospel song my Holiness missionary parents taught me as a young child kept flitting through my head, “I Have Decided to Follow Jesus.” The second verse stuck in my head,
Though none go with me,
still I will follow.
Though none go with me,
still I will follow.
No turning back,
no turning back.
I believe strongly that God is in the business of forming a people, and that being Christian is a communal activity. But as we move forward in these uncertain times, we may find ourselves, from time to time, without others to join us. As believers, congregations, governing bodies, and even as a denomination, we will find that faithfulness to Jesus Christ will sometimes feel like a lonely calling.
We go not alone, for Christ goes before us and the Spirit is always with us, but we may find ourselves in more Gethsemane moments then triumphal entry moments. In those cases, I pray that we have the courage to follow Jesus, though none go with us.
Charles,
I truly appreciate your post. And it is about following Jesus. Thank you.
Posted by: Viola Larson | 03/03/2011 at 01:26 AM
Thanks, Viola. I do think it is about following Jesus. I happily left behind the Holiness movement with it emphasis on visible, external sin, but i am more and more convinced that its emphasis on faithful living in the face of cultural pressure is one we Calvinists would do well to learn from.
Posted by: Charles Wiley | 03/03/2011 at 10:23 AM
Early in my ministry I was an associate pastor in one of those large Presbyterian Churches which had the mayors, bank presidents etc. in the congregation. One of its leading businessmen said to me directly in a meeting one evening, "If I took the teachings of Jesus seriously I wouldn't be in business for 10 minutes!"
You're right. We are being forced to choose who to follow.
Rev. Ralph E. Nelson
Posted by: Rev. Ralph E. Nelson | 03/03/2011 at 11:11 AM
Charles,
Thanks for your reflections. A church member continues to remind me that we are called to be followers, rather than fans, of Jesus. Lonely the road we trod at times.
Posted by: Jay Wilkins | 03/03/2011 at 11:37 AM
Charles, I think you are right on that much of our angst is about dislocation from the center of American culture. If anything, that is what connects the NEXT and Fellowship conversations. It is no surprise that these have been spearheaded by big steeple pastors.
Putting aside our concern for cultural influence of the Christendom type and following Jesus into the kingdom of God is a refreshing approach.
Posted by: John Vest | 03/03/2011 at 01:12 PM
John, yup. I agree with you that the conversation must extend beyond the tall steeple pastors, Next or Fellowship (and others), but we need the leadership of these pastors. I'm looking forward to the conversation (and action?). I'd love to see some of the folks from Indianapolis show up in Minneapolis in August.
Posted by: Charles Wiley | 03/03/2011 at 01:15 PM
Thanks for that, Charles. Is there really any overlap between the Minneapolis group and the NEXT group, though? I didn't really feel invited/included to the Fellowship discussion, being young, progressive, and not particularly concerned about hammering out essential tennets. It's an easy drive and I love Minneapolis, but are these not two very separate conversations?
Posted by: Adam Copeland | 03/03/2011 at 02:27 PM
Adam, No and yes. If one could bracket the sexuality discussion, there is a great overlap in the discussions emphasizing missional communities, ministry formation, and seeking new and better forms of supporting structures. So there is great overlap in concern. But one cannot, of course, bracket out sexuality. One of the Fellowship's original seven was at Next, and I hope some Next folks will be in Minneapolis. Steve Hayner, one of the founders of PGF, brought 10 CTS students with him to Next. I am not a pollyana that believes all is sweetness and light, but I do believe that there is considerable common ground. Christine Chakoian's "testimony" on governance could be replayed at the Fellowship meeting in Minneapolis. The first testimony on missional wouldn't play well there (it included activism on gay marriage, for instance).
All I can say is that I emerged from Next (which included conversations and phone calls with folks from the Fellowship during the same time) more hopeful than I had been for some time. We'll see if the hope is grounded in reality in the coming months.
Posted by: Charles Wiley | 03/03/2011 at 02:54 PM
Thanks, Charles. That's helpful. I suppose, as the emergent church conversation began in more evangelical circles and now lives happily in the PC(USA), there's lots of room for overlap bracketing, yes, sexuality.
Which makes me think: How about a NEXT conference that brings together the denominations with which we're in full communion? Wouldn't it be refreshing to know that others are stuck (or not stuck) in the same places we are? Wouldn't it be faithful to look at what's NEXT beyond our dwindling PC(USA)?
Posted by: Adam Copeland | 03/03/2011 at 03:04 PM
Charles ... thank you for what you have written. It is a genuine encouragement.
Bob and Sylvia
Posted by: Robert Dooling | 03/03/2011 at 03:20 PM
Adam, I do think that one of the realities we are dealing with is a realignment of Christian traditions, for better or worse. It would be interesting to see how the denominational specific conversations could be strengthened by the broader conversations, and Full Communion partners is the natural place to start.
Posted by: Charles Wiley | 03/03/2011 at 03:31 PM
Thank you for your post, Charles. I, too, was raised in a holiness tradition and often sang the song you quoted. It is always my prayer as I sing it that I will be faithful to follow Christ always, even if it means going alone. Good words to live by.
Posted by: Marie Bowen | 03/03/2011 at 07:49 PM
I think the comments on this post point to the common ground I referred to. If you know much about the theological spectrum of the PC(USA), you know we have a good section of the spectrum displayed here.
Posted by: Charles Wiley | 03/03/2011 at 08:35 PM
In some ways, Charles, many of us would argue that the reason the PC(USA) is in the fix it is in is because it is trying to maintain its position at the center of American culture. As the culture has become more promiscuous centered in self-fulfillment, so has the church. The sexuality debate reflects this.
Posted by: Walter L. Taylor | 03/03/2011 at 10:17 PM
Walter, I can see why you would argue that. I can also see the same dynamic at work in the political activities of some Christian conservatives (this is a little harder to pin down with Presbyterians). Relevance vs. captivity is easier to identify at a distance (space or time) than in the midst of it.
Posted by: Charles Wiley | 03/03/2011 at 10:48 PM
I am missing background and context, forgive me. Are you talking about going forward with the PCUSA as the organization continues to regect the historical FAITH and and embraces the political world view of the current culture?
Posted by: david kolbinsky | 03/04/2011 at 10:20 AM
David,
I surely hope not.
Charles
Posted by: Charles Wiley | 03/04/2011 at 10:24 AM
Charles, Adam and others.. this post and conversation is a really good, important one. Thanks for taking part.
As part of the work of the MGB Commission, I have sensed that this discussion could also lead us into a broader one on what constitutes "full communion" with other reformed bodies, what partnership in mission looks like even across denominational lines and what possibilities exist for unity of the Church within the diversity of churches.
Because I attended both the Fellowship gathering and the NEXT conference I can speak to the fact that there is far more shared ground that unites missional church leaders than divides. The dividing issues, especially around sexuality are significant, but there is much to talk about and figure out together. I hope elders (both teaching and ruling!) will take part in as many of these conversations as possible.
I will link to this conversation and invite others to join in.
Thanks again.
Posted by: Tod Bolsinger | 03/04/2011 at 01:20 PM
One of my stock lines now is, "What other church bodies do we in the PCUSA have the hardest times getting along with?" "Those with whom we share the Westminster Confession." There are reasons for this, of course, but I find it sad. Todd, I'll look forward to hearing more about this aspect of your engagement. Who knew the MGB commission would be so fun?
Posted by: Charles Wiley | 03/04/2011 at 01:33 PM
Dear Charles,
I've been following the Fellowship/Next Church news from the UK. I wonder if there might be any potential for an alternative to these two movements/groups who are once again divided by the categories of right and left...might there be a hunger for an evangelical, catholic, reformed, ecumenical, and missional movement within the PC(USA) that draws folk in a common movement across the spectrum? Just wondering...Chris
Posted by: Chris Currie | 03/07/2011 at 05:14 AM
Chris,
I'd like to think so. I don't think we'll be able to answer that question until after the passage of 10-A. That is, if G-6.0106b goes away, we'll see if it what you envision is possible. The sexuality discussion has been so central and defining that I don't know how we will go forward. So, for instance, at Next we were exhorted not to wear our "team jersey" at this conference. But as we virtually removed our jerseys, it was pretty easy to see that 90%+ of the group was taking off the same jersey. The Fellowship gathering in August is a jersey-wearing event. And the fact that 10-A looks to pass right now by the slimmest of majorities may only make this harder.
Not the most encouraging response, eh? I will say that I came out of Next more positive than going in. The desire of vast majority of the Fellowship pastors to try to say within the PCUSA is encouraging to me. What you calling for is more than "staying together," but forging a more faithful future. I'm willing to work for that.
Charles
Posted by: Charles Wiley | 03/07/2011 at 03:55 PM