It was made clear by the Fellowship leadership that they know the Fellowship is not “enough” for some who would declare the PCUSA apostate and turn from any contact with them. Also that some will feel the need to leave NOW (not after this stuff makes its way through GA – maybe).

What the Fellowship intended to be
Seven guys who meet annually in a covenant group had become disillusioned with the institution of the PCUSA and how much time was spent in politics and infighting and how little was spent on the business of winning people to Christ and making disciples. They knew there was a better way to be the body of Christ: to connect at a meaningful level with other pastors, to share what God was doing in their local congregations, and to learn from one another. The question was “What could a refreshed, revitalized, reformed witness offer to a post-modern, post-Christian world?”

The Presbyterian church used to ask congregations, each year “How have you seen the Holy Spirit manifest in your congregation this year, either through conversions or through increased Christian work?” And “How is your congregation extending itself beyond its bounds this year?” These are questions we SHOULD be asking.

Their vision was a voluntary grouping of like-minded teaching and ruling elders within the PC(USA) akin to the Orders within the Roman Catholic system; something that would be a strong, covenanted community. This order would still be PCUSA, but would be distinct, taking additional vows of fidelity to classical Christianity, and bonding together to hold one another accountable and to strengthen and support one another. Not unlike the purposes of our PEPSI group or similar affiliations in other presbyteries, except this one would exist across the entire denomination.

To establish this structure required rethinking some assumptions we have formed which may no longer be relevant. “A “presbytery” as we have come to know it in 2011 seems a bureaucratic stranger in the Kingdom. We want it to be different.” So they sought to re-vision what our presbyteries are missing and to see how those missing elements might be accomplished through a fellowship. They agreed that we needed to address the following:

Shared belief – The PCUSA has become so diverse in theology that we often cannot recognize the faith of one another. Some theological consensus is necessary for the fullness of our life together. The Fellowship seeks to bind those of “like mind” together around a central core of beliefs we can affirm. This is not envisioned to be as stringent as subscription to Westminster; but is intended to articulate essentials and ensure we share a common understanding of the core tenets of the reformed Christian faith. A summary was standing firm under all of scripture; orthodox like Nicea; reformed like Heidelberg; evangelical like Lausanne; and morally sound.

Presbytery size – Effect on communion: The size of presbyteries has had a deleterious effect on the covenant relationships of pastors and elders within them. Presbyteries have become something other than the original intent and far less than covenant communities. Many churches have become isolated and independent because of the breakdown in fellowship at the presbytery level. We need to regain our Presbyterian connectionalism. We need to regain the community of elders and pastors that bound us together and gave us strength.

Effect on program staff: The decision in the 70s to enlarge presbyteries so that they could afford more program staff may have made sense then, but the economy of scale envisioned in that time has not had the benefit desired. Most presbyteries are in financial difficulties, but can no longer imagine not having the staff we did well without 50 years ago. We need to reevaluate whether we need full time presbytery staff, and whether large-scale presbyteries to pay them might irrelevant.

Then 10-A happened
Although removal of the fidelity and chastity clause does not require or, it could be argued, even permit the ordination of self-affirming practicing homosexuals, that is certainly the way it is being received. A recent GAPJC court case refused to consider the scriptures and confessions together with the BoO and approved the ordination of such a man. This is a symptom of a larger, more systemic problem wherein we have come to have no shared belief system with many of our fellow elders and pastors within the PCUSA. This drift of beliefs did not happen overnight, some left over National Capital and Kaseman in 1981 (divinity of Jesus Christ), some left over PCUSA policies on abortion, but 10-A is a breaking point for many.

After the passage of 10-A, the fellowship was inundated with interest by many who did not understand the entire vision of the Fellowship, but saw the Fellowship as a possible safe harbor from the fallout of 10-A. Some want things just the way they’ve always been, but without the threat of ordained homosexuals. Some want us to denounce the PCUSA as apostate and get out of Dodge, en masse. Some (mostly those from Louisville) want to just get along. Some churches already have nothing to do with their presbyteries, and they want to just ignore what has happened (closet Congregationalists).

Others already have people leaving over this abandonment of Biblical authority and know they need to do something. Some are afraid the pastor and elders will be removed by administrative commissions if they even voice complaint (At least 2 Presbyteries have standing administrative commissions vested with this authority). Others are afraid the congregation will lose their building or endowments if they stand for what they believe. Some serve congregations that are already petitioning to leave for EPC or elsewhere; others serve congregations that would split on a vote.

The Fellowship is largely pastors: shepherds who, although they have a vision of a better land for their flocks, and a better paradigm of shepherd, are first and foremost shepherds. They heard the bleating of the confused and frightened masses and made modifications to their strategies to incorporate these refugees.

The Fellowship Gathering
In August, 2011 people representing at least 850 churches gathered in Minneapolis. The Fellowship gathering was defined by its worship. The first worship, the night before the conference began, had more than a thousand. Each day of the conference began and ended with worship. And the ballroom was packed – for all of them. Vic Pence, who spoke at the final worship, was prepared to make a joke about attendance at final worship as a lead in to his “the power of a remnant” presentation, but had to make a joke about his joke because worship was full. The singing, the prayers, the speakers, were all very powerful, and all focused on Christ. Speakers spoke on “the need to focus on where Jesus is leading”, “What do we need to do to be aligned with what God is doing?”, “Turning anger to grace”, and “the power of a remnant to make a difference”.

Seminars described the possible organizational options within the fellowship, ways to work within presbyteries, in spite of presbyteries, alternative forms of presbyteries, and the New reformed body. More on those in a moment. But did I mention the worship? And the general air of laughter, and friends calling out across the room. People meeting friends from seminary and from Facebook, making connections.

The informational presentations were done via video feed to every conference room in the hotel. Conferees were randomly grouped in tables of 10 (with the exception of EPs and staffers who were randomly grouped with each other, but not the general population). There was time after each briefing for the tables to discuss and provide feedback and questions (via email). A few folks had as their job for the conference, to sort through the emails and consolidate questions and prioritize based on frequency.

Q&A times were built into the schedule for the organizers to answer some of these questions. This led to wonderful, meaningful conversations between the elders and pastors attending the conference. My table had 4 elders (all from large churches), 6 pastors: two from large churches, 3 from middle-sized, then me. It helped people to process the information from multiple viewpoints. Some tables had folks who were against all that the Fellowship stood for, and were naysaying all that they heard, but their influence was limited to the table(s) where they were. All in all it was up-beat, fast-paced, focused on glorifying God, and seeking answers both within and beyond the PCUSA.

What the Fellowship has become
The Fellowship still seeks to be an order within the PCUSA. The Fellowship will be a covenanted community of churches and individuals who gather around a defined set of essential tenets (to be defined). The focus is on empowering and equipping the congregation: not a congregationalism, but a recognition that the primary agent of ministry is and should be the congregation. Jim Singleton defined a vision for a fellowship that includes Theological Clarity, Missional Passion, Covenantal Commitment to each other, Global Connections, and Leadership in a different way. Under the original Fellowship vision, this would all happen without any PCUSA structural adaptations. It would be much like More Light Presbyterians or the Confessing Churches. But the Fellowship has no interest in playing the politics of the PCUSA – that has gotten us nowhere. The Fellowship wants to renew the PCUSA one church at a time, by engaging in mission.

The Fellowship still seeks to be an order within the PCUSA, but also with those in a New Reformed Body. The NRB is for those who fear the coming Kenyonization[1] of GLBT ordination and the redefinition of marriage; those for whom the PCUSA has just gone too far afield, or those who are in hostile presbyteries. Although there is the possibility that releasing a church to the NRB will involve less resistance on the part of presbyteries than release to the EPC, there is still great risk here for local congregations, especially depending on the level of antagonism in the presbytery.

Other strategies proposed appealed to churches in different contexts: a congregation in a friendly presbytery who is able to accomplish their mission in an uncompromised way may continue on as they are. This was especially attractive to those in presbyteries such as San Diego and Santa Barbara. In other presbyteries, where it may become difficult to get any candidate through due to close voting habits, it was suggested that presbyteries take advantage of the latitude of nFoG to have more than one CPM/COM. Another alternative was to petition the GA to realign presbyteries or allow the creation of geographic overlapping presbyteries to avoid these stalemates. Obviously these options require the ability to get an overture through the presbytery. Some churches are in openly hostile presbyteries, although the options are presented, unless a national overture is passed and mandated, these churches have no recourse within the PCUSA.

Other alternatives
It was made clear by the Fellowship leadership that they know the Fellowship is not “enough” for some who would declare the PCUSA apostate and turn from any contact with them. Also that some will feel the need to leave NOW (not after this stuff makes its way through GA – maybe). For those churches there was an information session on the EPC. But this was not a Fellowship plan, it was the plan for those for whom the Fellowship is not severe enough.

Questions to ask ourselves
What do we believe? To what extent are we comfortable with the diversity of belief in the PCUSA and to what extent do we believe the PCUSA has erred? Is the difference in theology sufficient to mandate or even warrant action? Should that action be a statement of difference, removal of fellowship, or something else?

What should we be/do? Where do we believe God is calling us to mission and to action? To what extent is our mission currently influenced by our membership in the PCUSA – for the positive or negative? What about in the projected future? What are the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats within the current structure for our church and its mission? What are the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats within the various presbytery options or the proposed NRB for our church and its mission?

Detail on the options
All of these options assume, for those interested in the fellowship, that pastors and elders, and even churches might join the Fellowship, agreeing to the basic tenets and working together to further the Kingdom of God. The Fellowship is NOT a denomination.

Within the PCUSA:
Tier 1 – Stay the Course
This option is for those churches in presbyteries that are not having a negative impact on the church. The church is free to preach the Word and continue their ministries in the context they are in. This option is also for those who might be in hostile presbyteries who chose to depart in place as long as possible to avoid the cost in people and money that their presbyteries would exact if they were to attempt any other option.

Tier 2 – Parallel Presbyteries
This option requires approval by presbytery and GA (only GA can form a presbytery). It basically forms a new presbytery (or allows two presbyteries overlap (A’s conservatives joining B and B’s liberals joining A)) thereby allowing people to continue to work within the current PCUSA system and still call pastors, etc, with in PCUSA polity and their conscience.

Tier 3 – Bifurcated Presbyteries
nFoG, in its imprecise wording, seems to allow for more than one COM or CPM in a presbytery. It is thought that some presbyteries which are more evenly populated with conservative and liberal factions might chose this option so that they are not constantly fighting each other over the issue. This requires presbytery approval to create the COMMISSIONS and authorize them to make the decisions. This would remove floor examinations if it is to be successful.

The New Denomination
Tier 4 – the New Reformed Body
This is a new denomination. It exists, legally on paper. It is not yet recognized by the PCUSA; that will require an act of the coming GA. This option is for churches that cannot continue within their current structure either from persecution or conscience. The goal is to continue relationships where possible (PGF and other missions) and differentiate where necessary. Churches would seek dismissal from the PCUSA to the NRB and go through their presbytery’s dismissal process. Alternatively, Churches might seek to become a union church of both denominations: PCUSA and NRB (for example, Pittsburgh has a church which is PCUSA and UMC).

The possibility to be an “affiliate” is harder to pin down and not yet permitted. Affiliation would require the GA to modify nFoG to allow churches to affiliate with denominations as members can affiliate with another church.

Committees of Correspondence
The CoC are not part of the Fellowship initiative, but they are in contact and working together. The Fellowship is not interested in playing PCUSA politics, the CoC are. Through CoCs there will be overtures coming out that CoCs can submit to their presbyteries and hopefully several (up to 15 or more) presbyteries can submit very similar overtures to GA. (Much as More Light and Covenant Network have been doing for years.) This might include a national Gracious Dismissal Policy, a freedom of conscience provision that would prevent a Kenyon case, nFoG changes to support some of the tier options, and/or others.

[1] Rev Kenyon was denied acceptance as a minister because women’s ordination violated his conscience; He was not permitted to declare it a scruple — effectively making women’s ordination an essential belief.

This article first appeared on the Biblical Presbyterian Network blog and is used with their permission

[Editor’s note: Original URLs (links) referenced in this article are no longer valid, so the links have been removed.]