Note: this post was written on Friday July 15, ahead of the “corrected” story issued by the Presbyterian Layman. What is below prompted the latest version of their story, which, while correcting some errors, let others remain, which is rather disheartening. In any case, I’ll plan not to respond further but will hope for greater accuracy from their reporting in the future.

Yesterday the Presbyterian Layman requested that I offer suggestions as to how they might modify an online article about me before it goes to print next week. I appreciate this very much. They had chosen to write an article about a few select comments I had made last week while I was responding to a question from the audience, during a workshop on “denominational issues” at the PFR Christian Life Conference. Unfortunately, rather than accurately reporting what I said in the context of discussion, what they produced in their article – intentionally or not – was in fact an unfortunate distortion.

This is of particular concern to me because the question that was asked was about an initiative that some evangelical friends of PFR have been working on: the New Wineskins Initiative. The request was for PFR to provide leadership on how the New Wineskins’ proposals might be modified and how the future direction of that movement might be better shaped. So, I gave some initial candid thoughts. That’s the context, which could have been made clear in their article.

My hope is that, if the Layman chooses to go ahead and print the article, they will correct it, for the sake of honesty and integrity, which they say they desire to uphold.

The following are some points that I request be changed in the Layman article. I’ve also included some of my own gratuitous comments on the issues at hand. The inaccuracies of the Layman article can be verified by the audio recording of the seminar that was attended by the Layman reporter, John Adams, on Sunday, July 3, 2005. This recording is available by contacting the bookstore of the Montreat Conference Center in Montreat, NC.

Point 1

The Layman stated: “Walker also said he was concerned about the “three reasons” New Wineskinners gave that would justify separating from the PCUSA. He said those three reasons were 1) repeal of G-6.0106b, the fidelity-chastity ordination requirement in the denomination’s constitution; 2) the repeal of the Authoritative Interpretation that undergirds that standard; and 3) the failure of the 2006 General Assembly to adopt the New Wineskins’ 10 “essential tenets.” But the Rev. Dean Weaver of Kenmore, N. Y., co-moderator of the New Wineskins, did not specify the same three “breaking points” when he addressed a plenary session of the NWI Convocation. Weaver cited what Walker listed as 1) and 2), but Weaver’s third breaking point was an unbiblical “Christology.””

Necessary Correction: I actually never mentioned the three reasons of the New Wineskins, nor did I attribute point three to New Wineskins’ leadership. I did say that “a lot of the folks at the [NWI] convocation…that I talked with have just given up. In fact the way that I think they have set it up, if we maintain ordination standards but fail to adopt a subscriptionist model – their essential tenets – that may be the precipitating crisis for departure.” And this is true: a number of folks expressed that to me, and I find it troubling. It is troubling to me as one who believes that this is the time for massive evangelical engagement – the time for us to begin behaving like the mainstream of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), which we are. It is not the time to be packing our bags for retreat, an activity that would likely catalyze a victory for the liberal minority of the denomination. If you are concerned about the state of the PCUSA, please help me change it. Organize in your presbytery. Implement the Presbyterian Forum’s Operation Fair Representation. Consider one of PFR’s suggested overtures. Attend one of the events of our National Conference Series. Contribute to our video project.

Point 2

The Layman noted that I am concerned about several points in the NWI essential tenets. This is true, though perhaps I should have saved my sentiments for private conversation, as I had done heretofore. The way in which the Layman presents my point on NWI essential tenet #10 could be clearer. They stated it as follows: “Walker contended that the language “made whole” has a gnostic flavor and that the essentials fail to include an important credal statement affirming the bodily resurrection of Christians after they die.”

Suggested correction: the two points go together. The current phrasing of “essential tenet #10” of the NWI is problematic because believers are said to be “made whole” at death, which brings us to glorification and completion prior to the resurrection, picturing the state of the future life as though we are are eternally disembodied souls. The resurrection of the body has been, of course, essential to the Christian faith from the very beginning; see, e.g., 1 Cor. 15, and the Apostles’ Creed. It’s important to note that I was also very careful to say in my seminar that “it’s not as though I think they don’t believe in the resurrection of the body.” Rather, I said I thought that the writing of a confessional document that was intended to be the basis of theological unity for an ecclesial body “needs to be done with more care.” It’s simply an exhortation to be more careful about how we express what we believe. Especially if the essential tenets are aimed at shoring up orthodoxy, it’s important that they be orthodox! I know that ensuring orthodoxy is a major driving force of the NWI, which I appreciate. And I have received confirmation that a change in this essential tenet is in the works. Terrific.

Point 3

The Layman Stated, regarding my comments on the current state of theological diversity in the PCUSA: “”We can’t simply define it as two faiths,” Walker said, adding that most people don’t have time for the old Old School-New School arguments. “We need to believe God died for us on the cross.””

Necessary Correction: I’m not sure I even understand these concluding sentences of the article! I never mentioned the Old School – New School arguments, which raged in the 19th century! Rather, I was commenting about how some folks understand the relationship between the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy in the 1920s and the present theological struggles in the PCUSA. Regarding whether or not we can accurately describe the state of theological diversity in the PCUSA as one of two distinct, coherent faiths, I did say that “the coherent liberalism that used to exist in the Presbyterian Church is actually much less coherent now, and it is declining.” And I continued: “Most people my age – I’m 29 – don’t have time for the kind of old classical Liberalism – [with] Jesus as simply a moral exemplar. We won’t come into the church – and pour ourselves into the church – for that kind of a tepid faith.” The point is that liberalism is declining, and the younger generation coming into leadership in the church is a group whose piety is largely shaped by the orthodox Christian faith. And that’s a good sign.

Point 4

The Layman stated: “Walker did not mention the fact that the New Wineskins have called for major changes in the denomination’s structure to re-establish congregations as the primary agents of mission, with higher governing bodies existing to support, not control, them.”

Necessary correction: Actually I did mention it. During my seminar, I called for such changes myself, briefly explaining the thrust of “missional theology” and its relation to church structures; and I mentioned several groups working on ideas, including the NWI

Point 5

The Layman stated: “Walker also singled out another renewal movement – the Presbyterian Lay Committee – because of its publication of a monograph titled, “Can Two Faiths Embrace One Future.””

Necessary Correction: Actually, in this seminar I never mentioned the Layman or this particular document. I did mention, however, that it was not particularly helpful to try to understand the current theological debate in the PCUSA simply by using the categories of the 1920s Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy (which is the basic thrust of the Layman’s booklet). We must face the realities before us today in order to face our future effectively.

Point 6

The Layman stated: “An outline that Walker handed out for his presentation declares that, “The church has held the line!” Three lines later, the outline mentions the “Struggle to enforce the constitution,” but Walker did not elaborate. He made no reference to the dozens of congregations that are willfully and repeatedly violating the prohibition against ordaining self-acknowledged, practicing homosexuals with no intervention from the Office of the Stated Clerk.”

Suggested correction: This point is more a curiosity than anything else. I admit it: I skipped a couple points on my outline because I was short on time! And although I did not mention these few dozen congregations violating our standards, I did take the time to mention the several thousand congregations engaging in kingdom work every day. PFR desires to highlight and support the work of such congregations as much as we seek to battle the frustrating minority that seeks to defy our church’s constitution. I refuse to be enveloped and imprisoned by the concerns of a defiant minority.

Well, those are a few select points.

Friends, we’re in serious times and we need the renewal conversation to be sharp. One of the assets we’ve had – although we haven’t always been the best organizers or worked the bureaucratic structures to our advantage – what we’ve always done well is think clearly. One prominent liberal leader admitted to me in conversation that evangelicals are better students of the Bible and theology than our liberal counterparts. I agree. And we need to live up to this reputation now more than ever, as we seek to be faithful in troubled times. Now is not the time for careless sound bytes that misinterpret the well-intentioned and careful reflections of other renewal leaders.

And let me say that I appreciate the efforts that the New Wineskins folks are putting forth, even though I think some of them are problematic. “Agreement on all points ” is not a prerequisite for sitting down for some good discussions. Regarding theology, I do have some thoughts about (1) the importance of maintaining our Reformed confessional standards, (2) the relationship between such standards and any proposed list of “essential tenets,” and (3) making sure to consider justification by faith alone and a Protestant understanding of the sacraments “essentials of the Reformed faith.” Indeed, they form the core of the marks of a true church and were right at the center of the 16th-century Reformation that gave birth to the Reformed tradition. More on these later!