Y'All Come

I got back from the Presbyterian Coalition's "Y'All Come" meeting in Chicago last night (well, I did, my luggage is still in Kansas City). It was a somewhat frenzied meeting and, not unlike others I've attended, not a little frustrating. These are good people. Their hearts are certainly in the right place, but they do love to talk about things rather than actually do anything. Jerry Andrews confessed at one point that he finds it easier to dwell in the place of ideas. I agree. It is much easier to escape to an intellectual argument than it is to hammer out an appropriate action. Sometimes, being able to see so many different sides of any given question is a distinct disadvantage. For example, towards the end of the meeting, we were asked to issue a call for opposition to the removal of the fidelity/chastity clause, to the introduction of the Belhar Confession, and to the new Form of Government (nFOG), all of these initiatives having been sent to the presbyteries by the recent General Assembly. For a variety of reasons, the body would only come out solidly against the proposed (and much weaker) replacement for fidelity/chastity. They will provide resources concerning Belhar and nFOG, but would not come out with a strong condemnation. This is folly. Simply because some expressed doubts about how we would appear, particularly if we opposed Belhar, in that we would leave ourselves open to the charge of racism, the whole package was weakened. In truth, the Coalition can sound altogether too much like Neville Chamberlain.

Just before the meeting began, we were emailed a study paper written by Joe Small, from the Office of Worship and Theology in Louisville. Joe is a great guy. We will miss him when he retires. In his paper, he diagnozes, very carefully, the situation in which we find ourselves, and the reasons why the church seems to be being led by the nose by popular culture. Then, he takes an idea from Vaclav Havel, the former president of the Czech Republic, written in 1975. Havel, writing under communism, sought to explain how dissidents could promote an alternative society by refusing to live out the lie perpetrated by those who simply fell in with dominant culture. Joe took this as a model for our dissent.

It was an interesting paper, as always, well written. However, it refused to countenance withdrawal, and it concluded with Joe's personal opinion that he thought it unlikely that this kind of movement could succeed in the PC(USA). There were no practical illustrations offered of what it might look like for us to remain in the PC(USA) yet operate as a 'second culture,' a kind of subversive movement dedicated to the truth. So, there were no concrete solutions. We learned about Phyllis Tickle's thoughts about the emerging church. We spent a great deal of time in a description of where we are. We spent hardly any time strategizing about how to change that reality. As a result, despite a tip of the hat to Presbyterians for Renewal's 17th Synod solution, and a similar idea from a group of Philadelphia pastors, we came away just saying "Hey, let's work harder - we can still 'Stay, Fight, Win." Actually, though I support the effort, I have to say that we are much better at "Stay, Fight, Lose."

Voting on amendments will begin in the presbyteries this Fall. we will have to see what will happen. A bigger problem may emerge from the action of the GA to request that the Board of Pensions offer same-sex benefits to church employees. This will affect every local church and will increase dues across the board by 1%. We will, therefore, all be implicated in supporting behaviours that the constitution and the confessions call sin. That may yet be an even bigger deal breaker in the poor old PC(USA).