Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) blogs

Faith

Subscribe to this blog feed icon

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 the Office of Theology and Worship. In the following videos, learn more about what thinking, praying, and living the faith means to the leadership of the Office of Theology and Worship. Discover why it matters and what difference it makes in our lives, work, and worship.  

Charles Wiley  
Barry Ensign-George
David Gambrell
Christine Hong 
Karen Russell
Teresa Stricklen  

Recent posts

Categories

Archives

See all PC(USA) Blogs →

PC(USA) Home →

June 29, 2012

On Being a Theological Affinity Group

Barry Ensign-George

There’s been some talk lately about being a “theological affinity group” and there’s likely to be more  When people talk about “affinity groups” they usually mean a group that is in agreement about key theological matters (that is, matters the group believes are key) and wishes to form a group together to pursue a common life shaped by those shared affirmations.  Many commentators say that it is bad to form such groups, others say that such groups could be helpful within our denomination, the PC(USA).  As we discuss all this it is important to bear in mind a truth that is so obvious that it often gets overlooked: the PC(USA) is a theological affinity group.  (There are other affinities that define us, but that’s for another day.)

The PC(USA) is a theological affinity group.  Actually, we can and should put that in a more personal way: we (the PC(USA)) are a theological affinity group. 

The PC(USA) has always required a significant degree of like-mindedness.  If you reject infant baptism that may be fine for you, but you’re not one of us, you don’t share our theological affinity.  If you reject the ordination of women to church office, you may still be a Christian, but you’re not part of our theological affinity group.  If you believe that the church is marked by relationship to your local priest, who is related to the bishop, who is related in a particular way to the Pope, that may be fine for you, but it means you’re not one of us.

So, not surprisingly, affirming theological affinity is one of the central tasks of our denomination’s Constitution.  The Book of Confessions, the foundation statement of what constitutes us, is (when taken as a whole) an exclusively PC(USA) document.  As the documents in the Book of Order move from past to present they narrow down on our small group within the church, until we get to the Confession of 1967 and the Brief Statement of Faith, which are only decisive confessions for us, the PC(USA).  They mark off our affinity group off from all other Christian sisters and brothers, the vast majority of the church.

The Book of Order’s chapter on the Church and its Confessions is an elegant statement of the particular theological affinities that give us our denominational identity.  We share some beliefs with “the Church catholic.”  We share some beliefs with other Protestants – but Protestants are not all Christians, only a sub-group marked by particular theological affinities.  But that doesn’t make us one denomination with them at all.  More narrowly, we share some beliefs with other denominations in the Reformed tradition.  But not all Protestants are Reformed, only a sub-group, marked by particular theological affinities.

Our ordination questions bear clear witness to our being a theological affinity group.  “Do you sincerely receive and adopt the essential tenets of the Reformed faith as expressed in the confessions of our church as authentic and reliable expositions of what Scripture leads us to believe and do . . .?”  Not the essential tenets of the Christian faith – no, “the Reformed faith,” the tenets of our affinity group within the Christian faith.  Actually, we narrow things down even more.  Congregationalists are as Reformed as we are, but if you firmly believe that congregational polity is the right and faithful polity, sorry – our affinity group affirms presbyterian polity.  You’re welcome to stay, but if you do so you’ll have to abide by the polity that suits us.  Well, actually, it’s not just any old presbyterian polity.  There are other groups in the U.S. that are as presbyterian as we are.  We are a sub-group of U.S. Presbyterianism, which is a sub-group of the Reformed tradition, which is a sub-group of Protestantism, with is a sub-group of Christians.  [Thus the ordination question quite rightly calls the PC(USA) “our” church – the one formed by our particular affinities.]

The PC(USA) only looks broadly diverse if we leave the vast majority of Christians out of view.  The PC(USA) is a theological affinity group.  If theological affinity groups are wrong, then the existence of the PC(USA) is wrong.

The thing we differ about is not that some of us reject theological affinity groups and others accept them.  To be a PC(USA) Presbyterian is to accept theological affinity groups.  The thing we differ about is what makes up the theological affinity that holds us together.   What are the shared beliefs and practices that hold us together as a theological affinity group in the great wideness of the church?  How many of us do those beliefs and practices really hold together?  When do we no longer have enough common understanding of the faith to form one denomination?  It’s easier to make things simple: “theological affinity groups are bad.”  But as it stands that statement is hypocrisy when it comes from a PC(USA) Presbyterian.  It is dishonest.  Being honest about who and what we are will be a better way to move forward in Jesus Christ.

Tags: affinity, affinity groups, denomination, pc(usa), theological affinity groups

  1. Barry: Thank you for this! I am sorry to be so late in seeing it. Very good. I am reminded of the writings of Dr. John H. Leith, who taught us that we are--in terms of increasing specificity--Biblical, Catholic, Protestant, Reformed, and Presbyterian. I would like to explore with you, if I may, the reference in our ordination questions to "the essential tenets of the Reformed faith." I have become convinced that that is a problematic expression on multiple levels. Please see the following: http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs145/1103274555079/archive/1112254282108.html http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs145/1103274555079/archive/1112254331824.html http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs145/1103274555079/archive/1112254391972.html http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs145/1103274555079/archive/1112448828785.html Thank you! Grace and Peace, Dr. James C. Goodloe IV

    by Dr. James C. Goodloe IV

    May 20, 2013

  2. Thanks, Barry, for your comment. Glad you found your way here. Yes, folks sometimes talk about "mission affinity groups." I think these groups will have a common understanding of mission. Any understanding of mission will itself be theological - and necessarily so. So, mission affinity groups are a particular kind of theological affinity groups. And denominations themselves are affinity groups, by their very nature. So the PC(USA) itself is a theological affinity group - for those who are staying as much as for those who feel called to leave the PC(USA) for another place within the church (the broader church that includes other denominations). It is good for those of us in the PC(USA) honestly to admit that what makes us a distinct denomination is our theological affinity - whether our theological affinity is thin or wide, articulate or inarticulate.

    by Barry Ensign-George

    April 10, 2013

  3. The term I have heard more that "theological affinity group" is "MISSION affinity group," referring to smaller groups of churches that hold each other accountable and affirm one another in common mission.

    by Barry Ballard

    April 9, 2013

  4. Once, we were. But not now. Key "beliefs and practices" held by Presbyterians for 200+ years are now being rejected by half of the PCUSA under the banner of change. That change is being imposed by political strategies and tactics more common and appropriate to the political arena than a consensus-building theological approach. Get 51% of the vote, declare victory, move on to the next struggle, get 51% by whatever means, and repeat. Win narrow, tactical victories, pat the losers on the head with insincere, soothing condolences, and explain to them it's all on them if they can't, in good conscience, follow the parade. I believe center liberals have come to understand the denominational center cannot hold continuing that strategy. Cynthia Bolbach's parting comments about the need to stop and absorb 10A and nFOG now and the inadvisability of approving same-gender marriage now is exhibit A for that. We'll know in a week if the center has a chance of holding and our theological affinity group can last awhile longer, or if it's going to explode now and a much smaller theological affinity group emerge from the wreckage: a new homogeneous group of 1 million theological and political liberals finally rid of traditionalists and conservatives.

    by Tome Walters

    June 30, 2012

  5. This was very insightful -- I hadn't thought about the issue of theological affinity groups in the frame of how we already exist as one denomination in one theological tradition. Thanks for sharing!

    by Andrew Teeple

    June 29, 2012

Leave a comment