Faith
About this blog
Thinking the Faith, Praying the Faith, Living the Faith is written by the PC(USA) Office of Theology and Worship.
Thinking Praying and Living the Faith is at the core of ministry in Theology and Worship. In the followingvideos hear what thinking, praying and living the faith means to the leadership of Theology and Worship. Discover why it matters, and how integrating the Christian faith makes a difference in our lives, and in the places where we live, work and worship.
Charles Wiley | Kevin Park | Karen Russell | Teresa Stricklen | David Gambrell | Barry Ensign-George
Recent posts
- Elward Ellis: “Into the glorious company of the saints in light.”
- Freedom of Licking Shaved Ice in Honolulu
- Song and Sacrament
- What will General Assembly be like this year?
- In the Breaking of the Bread
Categories
- Theology (28)
- Worship (25)
- Faith (23)
- Spirituality (13)
- Leadership (11)
- View all categories →
Archives
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- View all archives →
A Time to Play the Long Game
We have arrived at the moment when our disagreements take institutional form. Congregations are leaving this denomination, moving to another existing denomination, or forming a new denominational structure. Presbyteries are sorting out how to respond, how to be faithful, how to manage faithful staying and faithful leave-taking. Here in the denomination-level ministries folks are trying to discern how best to help us (hard as it is to say who the “we” is as we sort and struggle) live forward faithfully.
How do we do this? How do we live this moment faithfully?
The temptation in this moment, in the heat and hurt and anger of it, is to go for quick, decisive, irrevocable outcomes – to let those staying know that they’ve betrayed and abandoned Jesus Christ by their actions, to let those leaving know that they’ve betrayed and abandoned Jesus Christ by departing from this denomination.
Of course that’s the temptation. What we’re going through is painful. Anyone with any sense of what’s at stake will feel the pain of this moment. Though, let’s be honest, the pain is not evenly spread: in some places it is more acute than in others. Some presbyteries have greater consensus in our disagreements, some congregations have high levels of agreement. But not all, not by any means. The temptation to cut off those who are leaving, or those who are staying, is the temptation to make the pain end now, no matter what the long-term cost.
But in the end the cost will not be worth it.
Now is the time for us to play the long game – those staying, those leaving, those who are unsure. Now is the time to keep striving for the long view. Now is the time to commit and recommit ourselves to deal with one another in ways that both acknowledge the depth or our disagreements today (with all the pain they are causing) and at the same time establish relationships that allow us to rethink things in conversation later, somewhere down the road, when we have had some time to let the dust settle. Let us live our present disagreements, sharp as they are, in ways that refuse, wherever possible, to break relationship completely. Where it is necessary to take leave of one another (and we have the witness of faithful sisters and brothers that in some cases it is necessary), let us seek steadily to do so in ways that establish new relationships that leave us praying for, and genuinely wishing God’s gracious goodness for one another – however differently we may understand what that goodness is.
Why would we choose to do something so hard?
Because of what we don’t know. One of the things we don’t know is what kind of split we’re in. Not all denominational splits are the same. Splits among American Presbyterians have taken different forms. Are we in the midst of a split like those that took place in the late-18th, early-19th Century: Old Side/New Side (1741-58), Old School/New School (1837-69)? In each of these cases the split in the denomination was, with time, overcome. Is that what we’re doing? Or, are we in the midst of a split like the departure of congregations to form the Presbyterian Church in America – a split that appears irrevocable, a split that remains a raw wound in the life of the PC(USA)? Faithfulness to Jesus Christ requires us to do everything we can, “so far as it depends on you,” to make sure that this split is more like the former than the latter (Romans 12:18).
This will require much, including the following.
It requires us to acknowledge that the PC(USA) is and has always been something born in institutional separation within the church and existing to this very moment on the basis of institutional separation within the church. If schism is forming separate denominational structures, then we PC(USA) Presbyterians are all schismatics. Humility is the order of the day.
It requires us to be institutionally and spiritually creative. Our denominational polity and structures are human creations. Our forebears created them, we maintain them. We can change and adapt them to meet the needs of a difficult, unusual, highly stressful time. Ron Heifetz, insightful thinker on leadership, has observed that the question change asks of us is “What should we keep (or preserve)?” What of our polity should we keep, and what alter, to carry the maximum number of us forward together? How do we fashion structures that build bridges that stretch over the chasm of deeply held disagreements? How much room can we give one another? How courageous and creative are we?
It would be good to have a conversation about what it means to be the PC(USA) today. Are we still a “we”? If so, what is the identity of “we,” of the PC(USA)? Why does the PC(USA) exist as a separate denomination?
We have arrived at a moment none of us would have chosen. Where Jesus Christ has been awaiting us. May we be equally faithful in response, as we live this difficult moment.
- Posted at 10:52 a.m.
-
- Tweet
I really do sympathize with the agonizing message of the article: "Can't we find our way through the current conflict ?" But I reach a different conclusion: No, we can't. The two key points of Barry's article are wrong. First, the long game and the short game are actually the same game, not opposed in time. We have come to a real, not metaphorical, fork in the road. Two very different concepts of what we believe as Presbyterians. A point where we shake hands as friends and wish each other the very best as we part. Secondly, this is not an acting out of anger in the heat of the moment. Quite the opposite. It's been 30+ years in the making. The end of a long road, not a one-time squabble. I think it's just beginning to dawn on PCUSA leadership that they might have gotten it wrong when they believed they could limit the damage and control the consequences. They are so strongly in the liberal camp that they couldn't take an unbiased, detached perspective, and accurately answer the question, "How does this end ?" In honesty, it ends with a much smaller, ideologically and politically homogeneous PCUSA--in the 1 to 1 1/2 million range over 10 years. With a much smaller budget. I absolutely do not question their faith. They believe what they believe. I simply disagree with them. And nothing I say or do will change the vector they're on by 1 degree. There is a one-word summary of liberal certainty in their intellectual and moral superiority: hubris. Even if it's based on a sincere, fervently held faith.
by Tome Walters
November 7, 2011
Barry, why should we do this? The liberals fashion themselves as "progressive," all the while forgetting that progress does not mean that you are moving in the right direction. They approach these "deeply held disagreements" through character assasination rather than honest debate. They tell us that they need our voices at the table knowing all the while that they will ignore us at best. They insist that we accept that which is unconscionable to us, after they have spent decades refusing to do the same. The long game? I don't think so. The only reason I'm still here is that I believe that God has called me to stay. I have serious doubts that I will be allowed to stay when I finally have to say "no" to that which violates the Bible and my conscience.
by John Kerr
November 7, 2011
Barry, you and Peter Larson are both right. We have undertaken a ministry together we call the PCUSA, and owe some faithful response to that ministry and those relationships. But we owe even more to Jesus especially if the ministry we have chosen is seen to be moving contrary to the Word. As an Elder in know that plumbing the esoteric depths of thse issues will need to be done by some, but as our members and seekers drift away because of this conflict I feel compelled to put some practicle flesh on those bones. Long view = next GA, no more. By then the Parnell case and efforts on both sides to reverse the ordination decision and change the marriage definitions and practices will be decided. After that the long view will be something entirely different for all of us.
by Ken Robbins
November 7, 2011
Thanks Barry for another great insight! I will join you in praying that God gives us wisdom, patience and creativity for the long game. From my view this seems to be happening and I am encouraged whenever I see it.
by David Bennett
November 7, 2011
Barry, If Christ is not divided, and if we are made one in Him, then our division indicates that at least some of us (if not all) are not following Christ. Our pain is the result of our disobedience. We can only be one again if we are all willing to turn and follow Christ.
by Marie Bowen
November 7, 2011
These are wise and helpful comments. I hope that there are many listening.
by Steve Hayner
November 5, 2011
Barry, the only long game is that which is eternal and not temporal: faithfulness to Christ and obedience to his word. No institutional loyalties or human attachments can take the place of this "long game." Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the Confessing Church movement got it right when they were confronted by the idolatry of the Nazi-controlled Reich Church: it is those who depart from Christ and his Word who are schismatic.
by peter larson
November 3, 2011