Churches Uniting in Christ (CUiC): Selling Our Birthright

The former Church of Christ Uniting, itself a variation of the earlier Consultation on Church Union (COCU), has not disappeared. It has metamorphisized into yet another form with yet another acronym. The new version is CUiC standing for “Churches Uniting in Christ.” In a few months every presbytery in the PCUSA will be voting on this latest proposal for ecumenical union. As of now it seems that far too few of them are aware of the profound implications this new proposal will have on the life not only of our denomination but on that of individual congregations as well. This lack of awareness has all the ingredients of a major tragedy.

This issue is all the more serious due to the lack of attention and indeed, even interest, that has been shown it. It is nothing less than astonishing that the whole CUiC proposal has not produced an outcry especially among the more evangelical members of the PCUSA. There may be a number of legitimate reasons for this including preoccupation with other matters such as PJC cases and so forth. I confess that I was myself in this category until the situation was called to my attention and I sat down and read through the proposal. It is my earnest conviction that this is a matter of real urgency especially since all presbyteries will be voting on the CUiC proposal this coming year.

So, really, what’s the big deal? It’s no longer COCU. We’re not talking about bishops any more. Don’t we already have the same kind of agreement now with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Reformed Church in America and United Church of Christ? The fact is that the current recommendation on CUiC now before the presbyteries is a real and present threat to the “peace, unity and purity” of the church. If adopted, we would, in effect, be approving guidelines which would alter fundamental Reformed and Presbyterian beliefs about the nature of the church. This is so for three basic reasons.

1. CUiC asks us to abandon our fundamental criteria for recognizing a true church of Jesus Christ.

In the CUiC proposal we are asked to “affirm the following visible marks that express the relationship of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to the other participating communions in Churches Uniting in Christ.” What then follows is a list of “mutual recognitions” the member churches would acknowledge in one another. The first of these is a “Mutual recognition of each other as authentic expressions of the one church of Jesus Christ” (italics theirs). Following this first “mutual recognition” is a list of various expressions of faith in God, Jesus Christ, Scripture and Tradition as well as Baptism and ordained ministry. The specific content of these assertions will have to be discussed later. For now we must deal with the general statement of “mutual recognition.”

This statement calls us to “publicly recognize” that “each [church] affirms the apostolic faith.” What is notable here is that no criteria are offered or even suggested to verify that a particular church communion is actually true to “the apostolic faith.” This completely bypasses a fundamental principle of the Reformed doctrine of the church. The entire Reformation movement struggled with the question of what are the marks of a true as opposed to a false church. No claim to upholding the truth of the Gospel could be taken at face value, including the claims of one’s own church. This was not a peripheral question for the Reformers. It was at the very heart of their understanding of what the church is. Unfortunately for us, the question has become largely peripheral. We often don’t even think in terms of evaluating ourselves or others by what our confessions call the “marks,” or “notes” by which we are called to distinguish the true from the false church. On the other hand, this issue was a matter of spiritual life or death for the Reformers. For them the true church was identified by its proclamation of the Scriptures alone as the Word of God, by its practice and by its discipline, not by its history, structure or social role.

This was especially the case with John Calvin in the final (1559) edition of his Institutes of the Christian Religion.

Calvin here devotes most of the fourth book to the question of distinguishing the true from the false church. His criteria are relatively simple in their basic formula. The true church exists where the Word of God is rightly preached and the Sacraments rightly administered. This simple statement was in no way simplistic, however. Calvin devoted hundreds of pages to its analysis. This standard for him always had to be carefully understood and applied. He says,

For, in order that the title ‘church’ may not deceive us, every congregation that claims the name ‘church’ must be tested by this standard as by a touchstone. (Institutes of the Christian Religion IV,1,11)

The Scots Confession (1560) in our Book of Confessions makes very clear that a careful study of the marks that distinguish the true from the false church was essential to the life and health of the church (Book of Confessions 3.18). This same critical focus is found throughout the historical statements in our Book of Confessions (cf. 5.134, 5.139, 6.140-6.145) as well as most of the Reformed confessions of the sixteenth century. The French Confession of 1559 which has recently been commended to us for study puts the issue this way:

At the same time we believe that it is appropriate to discern, carefully and prudently, what is the true church, for this designation has been abused too often. Following the word of God then, we say that the faithful community covenants to follow the word of God and the pure religion which derives from it, benefiting from this throughout its life… (article XXVII).

This is not simply a concern of the Reformation and post-Reformation church. The Barmen Declaration speaking against the German Christian attempt to take over the church in Nazi Germany is based entirely on the question of recognizing the difference between the true and the false church (Book of Confessions 8.07ff.). The Brief Statement of Faith, adopted by the PCUSA in 1991, states that the Spirit gives us courage, among other things, “to unmask idolatries in Church and culture” (Book of Confessions 10.4 line 69). The Dutch Reformed Church of South Africa’s doctrinal stance on apartheid raised questions in our own time about their status as a “true church.”

The point at issue in all this is that there can be no recognition of an authentic church without an examination of the marks of the true church since, as the Scots Confession puts it, “Satan has labored from the beginning to adorn his pestilent synagogue with the title of the Kirk [Church] of God….” (Book of Confessions 3.18). It is never claimed that even a true church will be perfect or free from error. The application of the “true marks” requires careful discernment as Calvin makes clear. Calvin illustrates his point by comparing Judah under Rehoboam with Israel under Jeroboam. He claims that Israel in that situation was no longer a “true church” because of near total idolatry, while Judah, which admittedly was far from perfect, was still a “true church” (Institutes IV,II,7).

The problem with the CUiC proposal is that it ignores the question of the criteria of a true church altogether. It simply asserts that all the member churches recognize “each other as authentic expressions of the one church of Jesus Christ.” To do so without raising the issue of how these churches, the PCUSA included, are evidencing the visible marks of a true church bypasses an essential feature of Reformed belief and practice. For the sake of argument it may well be that all member churches, ourselves (hopefully) included, actually fulfill the marks of the true church. That is not the point. The question at stake is what sort of church uniting is being proposed. If we are not prepared to deal with the criteria of what defines a true, as opposed to a false, church, then we cannot claim that we are seeking an “authentic expression of the one church of Jesus Christ.” The statement by Dietrich Bonhoeffer during the German Church struggle is particularly apt here:

A church which no longer takes the rejection of false teaching seriously no longer takes truth, i.e. its salvation, seriously, and ultimately no longer takes the community seriously, no matter how pious or well organized it may be. (The Way to Freedom [New York and Evanston: Harper and Row, 1966], p. 189).

The fact that the CUiC proposal never attempts to deal with the criteria of the marks of a true church robs it of viability as a serious proposal for any church union.

The objection that may be raised at this point is that CUiC is not trying to be a genuine church union (in spite of its name). We are only talking here about mutual recognition and cooperation so that doctrinal considerations on the nature of the church really do not apply. This however brings us to the second major concern.

2. CUiC proposes a union which threatens the historic autonomy of PCUSA congregations.

It is important to quote from the proposal itself to see what sort of union is being envisioned:

The relationship expressed through these visible marks is not structural consolidation but a unity in diversity among churches that, though many, understand themselves to be one community in Christ. From the moment of inauguration, the life of these churches will be visibly intertwined as never before (italics mine). From the moment of inauguration, their relationship, with God’s help, will not be one of friendly coexistence and consultation but of binding community (italics mine) that actively embodies the love of Christ which ties them to one another.

What is being proposed here is far more than a “formula of agreement” such as we presently have with the Lutherans, Reformed Church and UCC. There are several characteristics of this “binding community” that we should note. First, lest we think this is a union in name only, we should observe that the proposal calls for “appropriate structures of accountability” which would hold member churches “mutually accountable.” Second, there are specific implications that this mutual accountability would have. These would include having “conversation” with other congregations of CUiC regarding “major decisions about the mission of a congregation or judicatory.” It would also involve representatives from CUiC taking part in Baptisms, installation services and “key decision making groups.” Overseeing all this is the statement that the common life of the members of CUiC will “need to be served in its local, regional and national expressions, by structures of mutual empowerment and accountability” (italics mine).

We need to recognize that the CUiC proposal imagines a congregational life different from that which Presbyterian congregations at least presently enjoy. If we enter into CUiC we are also acknowledging a new measure of “accountability.” Consider for a moment that no PCUSA congregation is asked to have presbytery representatives attending Baptisms and church installation services, much less sitting in on “key decision making groups.” (This of course does not apply to ordination services of a minister which, while frequently held in a local church, are nonetheless services of the presbytery not the particular congregation.)

One has to ask what will be these “appropriate structures of accountability?” What will be their “appropriate means for consultation and decision making?” Who will belong to these “structures?” How will they be chosen? And what measures will be taken to hold “churches mutually accountable to the commitments they have made?” And, to whom (if anyone), will these structures themselves be held accountable?

To raise these questions is not to speak against the idea of accountability per se. It is however one of the great hallmarks of the Presbyterian system that the local congregation in its government and guidance is under the responsibility of the session all of whose members have been elected by the local congregation. The local Presbyterian congregation enjoys a wide latitude of autonomy. It is of course not free to do anything it pleases. It can be held accountable by the presbytery. Yet members of presbytery do not ask to sit in on “key decision making groups.” We do not even feel the need to consult with the presbytery on “major decisions” about the ministry of the congregation. A congregation may, if it chooses, ask for input from presbytery. We may well argue that it might be wise to do so and, in fact, we should do so more often. However, there is at present no “structure of accountability” examining the life of a Presbyterian congregation. That could well change if we enter into the CUiC proposal.

We need to understand that a positive vote on the CUiC proposal may well set us on a path that is very different from what Presbyterian congregations have experienced up to this time.

3. CUiC proposes a union that is theologically inadequate.

We have already mentioned the fact that the CUiC proposal does not deal with the issue of the criteria for the marks of the true church. We need to consider however what marks it does lift up as defining the “Churches Uniting in Christ.”

In the proposal’s discussion of the “visible marks” which, as we pointed out above, it already assumes member churches possess, the following theological assertions are made:

• faith in the one God who through the Word and in the Spirit creates, redeems and sanctifies;
• commitment to Jesus Christ as Savior and as the incarnate and risen Lord;
• faithfulness to the Holy Scripture, which testifies to Tradition and to which Tradition testifies, as containing all things necessary for our salvation as well as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith….

Do we need to raise any question about these? Aren’t they obviously expressions of the apostolic faith? In reality these statements are more problematic for what they don’t say than what they do. We certainly can’t ask for a full statement of faith in a brief catalogue such as this. We should however note certain things. First, the statement about God is not really a Trinitarian one. The “one God” is described in terms of function. God “through the Word and in the Spirit creates, redeems and sanctifies.” Are “Word” and “Spirit” here equal persons with “God?” Well, they could be but not necessarily. It would seem that a brief summary statement of the “Apostolic Faith” could say something about God in three persons, as the Trinity or the “Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” Nor is the statement about Jesus Christ without ambiguity. One could argue that the divinity of Christ is implied as the “incarnate and risen Lord.” But is implication enough? What’s wrong with echoing the Nicene Creed as the Brief Statement does, “fully human, fully God?”

I can only speak for myself but I confess I wonder, in the light of CUiC’s avowed goal “to be in conversation with representatives of Judaism and Islam and other living faiths” along with the stated goal of “many concentric circles in varying degrees of agreement and affiliation with us,” is there perhaps an attempt here to play down key doctrines like the Trinity and the two natures of Christ in order to facilitate such “conversation” and the forming of these “concentric circles”? Does the omission of apostolic terms like “Father” and “Son” offer concessions to some feminist or even post-modern concerns with a view to their inclusion in the “concentric circles?” Does the inclusion of “Tradition” along with “Scripture” suggest some qualifying of Scriptural authority perhaps to make more palatable the paragraph on the “intentional commitment to promote unity with wholeness and to oppose all marginalization and exclusion in church and society based on such things as race, age, gender, forms of disability, sexual orientation and class.” On the face of it this statement does not run counter to what PCUSA positions have stated depending, however, on what the intended meaning of such phrases as “all marginalization and exclusion” and, of course, “sexual orientation” actually means. For an example of the Reformed view on “Tradition” note the comments from the Second Helvetic Confession (Book of Confessions 5.014):

Likewise we reject human traditions, even if they be adorned with high-sounding titles, as though they were divine and apostolical, delivered to the Church by the living voice of the apostles, and, as it were, through the hands of apostolical men to succeeding bishops which, when compared with the Scriptures, disagree with them… (italics mine).

These concerns are further reflected in the definition of mission which CUiC proposes. The clear focus of this definition is “a shared mission to combat racism.” This opposition to racism is further defined by “challenging the system of white privilege that has so distorted life in this society and in the churches themselves.” The concern here cannot be with a clear statement to repudiate racism. Racism in general and “white privilege” in particular are sins which must be recognized and opposed wherever they are encountered. And certainly the church has been weak in this area and indeed needs to be called to account.

The question, however, must be with the issue of racism being the defining one in a statement of “Christ’s mission.” To be sure, “proclamation of the gospel, evangelism, education” are included but the “particular and emphatic call” is for the erasing of racism. Unfortunately, past experience with ecumenical efforts in this area, including examples within the PCUSA itself, have generally meant that the evangelistic proclamation of the gospel (the first of the Great Ends of the Church) often is minimized to the point of being virtually non-existent. By all means, let us place a clear emphasis on witnessing against racism. However, have we been any less weak on “the proclamation of the gospel for the salvation of humankind,” “the shelter, nurture and spiritual fellowship of the children of God,” “the maintenance of divine worship” or “the preservation of the truth?”

Are we looking at an unbalanced view of the mission of the church? I believe we are. If we are really concerned about the issue of racism, why aren’t we pursuing some form of union with the National Baptist Church or the Church of God in Christ as well as the African American denominations in CUiC? Is the issue really racism? Or is it a particular ideological reading of the Gospel? There are many African-American denominations that take strong stands on racism but also emphasize evangelism and church growth far more than we do.

The problem comes down to this. Theology is being redefined as social policy. Evangelism once again is being made secondary to “conversation” and “cooperation.” The difference is that CUiC includes not only these questionable redefinitions but also calls for “structures of accountability” to enforce them. Any question on this is quickly answered by reading the second appendix of the CUiC proposal entitled, “Call to Christian Commitment and Action to Combat Racism.” The larger problem here is not the need to combat racism but rather the empowering of a particular structure to accomplish that purpose. Yes, as the appendix states, “Racism is about power.” Power, however, takes many forms. The twentieth century has clearly taught us that attempts to control one set of power abuses have often led to other, equally pernicious abuses of power. This has especially been the case when the groups intending to overcome abuse are not themselves clearly defined and clearly accountable.

As Presbyterians faithful to Scripture and to the best of our tradition we need to pursue church unity and social justice. We need also to focus on all the Great Ends of the Church which have been sadly neglected by us. We need to seek God’s leading humbly and prayerfully. The answer to these needs however is not the “new relationship” of Churches Uniting in Christ.

Some solutions are worse than the problem.

This article first appeared in Theology Matters, Vol. 5, No. 6 (Nov/Dec 1999).