Peace, Unity, and Purity Report: Neither Faithful nor Effective

I love Italian sausage pizza. But have you ever seen what goes into sausage? If you have, I don’t want to know. As I said, I like sausage pizza, and I want to keep on liking it. I’ve learned in life that there are some things it’s just best not to know, and sausage ingredients is one of those things.

In a way, Presbyterian issues are a lot like sausage. Sometimes it’s a little startling to know exactly what went into some actions. I had the privilege of following the Theological Task Force through much of its journey. I watched most of its open sessions—all of them for the last couple of years. I heard the Task Force members study the Scriptures and church history, read many of the papers they read, and listened intently as they ventured a few opinions in public. I grew to like the people a lot, and I am very appreciative of the sacrifices they made to be part of the Task Force. I even watched some of the ingredients slip into the sausage they made.

Thus, the taste of their final sausage is a major surprise and disappointment. I thought it would go down better than it has. I expected it to be bland and somewhat forgettable. It is neither. Thus, I write not to praise their sausage, but to bury it.

In this task of analysis, I owe much gratitude to Rob Gagnon; Henry Green and Michael Walker of PFR; Parker Williamson, Peggy Hedden, and Bob Howard of the Lay Committee; Mark Patterson; Gerrit Dawson; the renewal leaders who gathered in Chicago; and many others who have commented on the Report. I draw liberally from all of them, so there is not much original here. But I trust at least my gathering it together in one place will be of benefit, as you assess the Report for yourselves.

So, what is the Task Force, and what was it asked to do?

Twenty members, chosen for their diversity and gifts, comprised the group. The balance, once it was sorted out, was definitely liberal, but it wasn’t a horribly skewed sample. The members were, as a whole, very gifted and able. They’ve met about three times a year, several days at a time, since 2001.

They were given a charter to “lead the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) in spiritual discernment of our Christian identity, in and for the 21st century.…” It was odd wording about “spiritual discernment of our Christian identity,” but it basically meant to figure out what makes us Christian in this time and place. They were to use “a process which includes conferring with synods, presbyteries, and congregations seeking the peace, unity, and purity of the church.” Again, it’s very inelegant wording, but I think they were supposed to talk with interested parties about peace, unity, and purity. They were also given specific fields of inquiry: “This discernment shall include but not be limited to issues of Christology, biblical authority and interpretation, ordination standards, and power.” The Task Force covered most of that ground except for power, which kind of got short shrift.

In addition, the Task Force was asked to deliver a product: “to develop a process and an instrument by which congregations and governing bodies throughout our church may reflect on and discuss the matters that unite and divide us, praying that the Holy Spirit will promote the peace, unity, and purity of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).” Again, simplified, this means that they were to produce a process and an instrument for reflection and discussion. Note what it is: a process and an instrument for governing bodies to use to reflect on and discuss peace, unity, and purity. A process and an instrument. For reflection and discussion.

Okay, what’s missing in that mandate? Nowhere does General Assembly give the Task Force the job of distorting our polity! They weren’t asked to propose a major change that would in effect render useless every decision made by those responsible for changing our polity or Constitution. In a classic example of mission creep, the Theological Task Force has produced an indigestible sausage, when General Assembly asked them only for a schematic!

One might have guessed that there would be trouble, when the prologue to the original mandate described how we Presbyterians “share a heritage of listening for the way in which Scripture speaks as we struggle with hard issues.” Didn’t Presbyterians get in trouble just about the same time we started listening for Scripture to possibly speak something we might endorse, rather than listening to what Scripture clearly does speak to us, like it or not?

The Task Force members met, ironed out uncomfortable beginnings, genuinely interacted with one another, taught one another, expended prodigious amounts of time and effort, and only reluctantly moved from information gathering toward resolution and a report. For me, sitting in was like taking a politicized class in church history, polity, and watered-down hermeneutics.

Why the closed doors?

But sitting in was not always possible. The same Task Force that genuinely sought to include observers and the press in worship, Communion, and group hugs started meeting increasingly in closed sessions, often for major parts of days. It became obvious that every significant decision would be made in private, that we observers would never get to witness any true wrestling with differences or searching for common ground.

While people I respect solemnly swear to this day that no decisions were made in the closed sessions, I remain entirely unconvinced. I saw the group go into closed sessions without a plan and come out with agreement and a plan. Obviously, enormous decisions were hammered out behind the closed doors—such things as what direction the papers would take, who would write them, how the papers would be vetted, what they thought of early drafts, and so on.

When the doors did swing open for public sessions, the Task Force used the time to mop up. There would be some minor copy editing of text already hammered out. Decisions made in private would be formalized in a perfunctory public vote. But not a hint was given about what went into the sausage making.

In my opinion, this blatant, repeated dependence on closed meetings violated the proper intent of our denominational open meeting policy, even though the Task Force had been given license to close its doors “… solely for the purpose of exchanging views on sensitive theological issues.” When permission was originally sought, the idea was to use it sparingly to “play with ideas” not yet fully formed.

But the Task Force used closed sessions addictively, in ever-increasing doses. This caused two major problems. First, the Task Force members lost a grand opportunity to show the church how to reach consensus through differences. They tell us that they did, and it’s evident that they did. But how did they do it? What worked, and what didn’t? We’ll never know.

Second, the Task Force left everyone speculating on what deals were made to get a conclusion, on what was given up by any side in order to reach final consensus. Where nothing is revealed, we on the outside tend to manufacture conjectures. How much better to have been able to witness the process! But that was not to be.

In August, the Task Force finished and released its Report. Members have now fanned out to presbyteries and other gatherings, selling it like mad. In January 2006, they’ll gather one final time to finish any possible tweaking before the Report is submitted to General Assembly next June. What we have now is not final-final, but nearly so. I would be terribly surprised if the Task Force baited us for five months with a dummy report and then switched to another concept altogether. But I was surprised with the Report that we got in August, so I wouldn’t bet the mortgage on it.

Okay, so what does the Task Force Report say?

There are five sections:

• An initial section on theology,
• A report of the group’s progress and work,
• A discussion of the issues that it was given to chew on,
• A resource section that is short on actual resources but has some interesting commentary on the tension between four “complementary commitments,” and
• Seven recommendations for General Assembly to approve, some with several subsections, and each with an accompanying rationale.

I am pleased to say that there are a number of aspects of the Report to commend—and here I am especially indebted to Henry Green and the PFR issues ministry. What’s there to like?

• First, most of it is reasonably faithful to the Scriptures and the long-established convictions of the PC(USA). (You’ll notice some qualifiers, such as “most of it is reasonably faithful.” That’s because interspersed with great theology are some vague clinkers that are nearly impossible to evaluate, because they could mean so many things to different people with different expectations.)
• There is a clear affirmation of God’s eternal triune identity as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—not Hughie, Louie, and Dewey, or Curly, Larry, and Moe, or any other threesome that I await someone springing on us next, after some cornball innovations I’ve heard for the Trinity.
• The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are described as the true Word of God and our rule of faith and life. (Ah, if only the entire Report consistently lived out that sound theology!)
• We find a robust Christology that understands Jesus Christ as being fully human and fully divine.
• The confession that our hope resides in the atoning death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is refreshing, especially with some circles scoffing at substitutionary atonement these days.
• There is recognition that Christ alone is Lord and Savior and that the entire world stands in need of his grace. Again, considering the syncretism and universalism I see in some places—such as the Women’s Ministry Unit website—this is good stuff!

Now, even as we sing these praises, we may stop a little short and have to ask ourselves: What kind of church are we in, where the fact that a report calls Jesus Lord and Savior is notable enough to be commended? Wouldn’t that be a little like your commending me for this paper because I didn’t drool all over it this time? Shouldn’t such things as the Lordship of Jesus Christ be a safe “given” in our church? Well, at least it was safely so in the Task Force Report. This much was good about the Report.

But, as you are well aware, there are a number of problems in the Report, as well—significant problems that have provoked many a furrowed brow and are causing a thumbs down on the Report’s acceptance.

Major problem #1: The biggest and fatal problem is Recommendation #5, a new authoritative interpretation (A.I.) for G-6.0108. Note that it’s not the usual suspect—G-6.0106b. This A.I. seeks to give a different spin to a section two paragraphs later in the Book of Order: G-6.0108. What the A.I. would do is allow ordaining bodies to determine if outright departure from scriptural and/or constitutional standards “constitutes a failure to adhere to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity.” Should a session or presbytery consider such a departure inessential, it could freely ordain the person, despite any continuing unrepentant failure of fidelity or chastity—or any other troubling sin or cock-eyed theology, for that matter.

Let me briefly note seven glaring problems with this proposed authoritative interpretation:

Reason a: It would permit behavior that would have scandalized Jesus. Jesus never loosened sexual mores; he tightened them up. Think of the adultery bar being raised to preclude lust as well, or the murder bar raised to disallow anger. Jesus made it a habit to violate ridiculous, outdated laws of human invention, but didn’t do so with anything about sexual morality. Jesus’ failure to say anything permissive about homosexual behavior, combined with his words against all sexual immorality, assures us that he justly would have been appalled by homosexual behavior.

Reason b: This A.I. would create an upside-down situation, where the smaller part shall govern the larger part. This situation would be the exact opposite of G-1.0400, one of the historic principles of church government, which says that the larger part shall govern the smaller part. Why should an individual governing body be given sanction to disregard what the church as a whole has made plain, unequivocal, and mandatory? How unPresbyterian from the get-go!

Reason c: Atypical ordinations now performed dishonestly, defiantly, and illegitimately would become common, sanctioned, and routine. The door would be cracked open so far that any behavior could get through.

Reason d: A standard is no standard if it is not standard. One simply cannot have “nonessential requirements.” By saying we have standards but they aren’t essential, we would make a mockery of language as well as Christian morality!

Reason e: The Report, and thus the A.I., confuses standards and ideals, saying generally, “Sure we have standards, but, hey, no one is perfect. No one can keep our standards. So we just won’t worry about this pesky little inessential standard about fidelity and chastity.” Wrong! It confuses standards and ideals. Standards are what must be kept, but ideals are what we can only aspire to keep perfectly.

Reason f: It is striking that in substance, what the Task Force is proposing in the A.I. is Amendment A from 2001 in recycled form. In our last national vote on fidelity and chastity, those wanting to discard our standard proposed adding this wording to the previous paragraph, G-6.0106a: “suitability to hold office is determined by the governing body where the examination for ordination or installation takes place, guided by scriptural and constitutional standards, under the authority and Lordship of Jesus Christ.” So how is the Task Force’s proposed A.I. functionally any different than this previous proposal, which was defeated by a nearly 3:1 margin by presbyteries? How dull we would have to be to reject it decisively in 2001, yet get duped into accepting it now in another form!

Reason g: An Authoritative Interpretation ought to better explain a section of the Constitution. The proposed A.I. of G-6.0108, however, would actually violate the meaning and purpose of that section, which is intended to limit the bounds of individual conscience. How could we force into that context a radical restatement that would instead give unprecedented latitude to the ordaining body?

Major problem #2: Task Force recommendation #4 would urge governing bodies to use consensus decision-making alongside parliamentary procedure. Why not? Isn’t consensus the latest rage? There are a number of reasons not to favor it, including these:

Reason a: Consensus decision-making is clearly unconstitutional. Perhaps if we start ignoring one section of the Constitution, we could go on to ignore others. But our Book of Order states most clearly in G-9.0302 that “All meetings of governing bodies shall be conducted in accordance with the most recent edition of Robert’s Rules of Order….” If we were to decide to change our practices, we would need to amend our Constitution, not just follow the unconstitutional advice of the Task Force.

Reason b: If there is a reticent, malleable minority, consensus decision-making can be experienced as highly coercive. To speak against a proposal, one has to break the consensus of the group, and so people just remain silent but unhappy. Parliamentarian supreme Marianne Wolfe speaks disparagingly about consensus decision-making in Parliamentary Procedures in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), calling it “antithetical to…the basic rights of the individual,” “manipulative and overpowering to the rights of the minority,” and “far more destructive to unity than open disagreement and the freedom of the right to disagree.” Why would we ever decide to switch to something more destructive to unity?

Reason c: Conversely, consensus decision-making gives a vocal, determined minority faction the ability to place the majority over a barrel until the single-minded minority viewpoint gets its way. Just one individual can impair the whole body or unduly distort its decisions.

Reason d: Frankly, at this point in our debates over sexuality, the resort to consensus seems highly suspect. When a weak minority viewpoint cannot win a direct vote and has been getting walloped with greater and greater margins of defeat, now it starts to warm up to consensus? Hmmm. I wonder why? It would seem that perhaps the minority aims to obtain through consensus what it could never achieve through majority rule.

Major problem #3: The Report’s language leaves overabundant “wiggle room.” The Report is ambiguous throughout, leading readily to multiple interpretations. Such ambiguity appears to be intentional, in order to allow everyone to find in it whatever they want to find. For example, the Report lists a point of agreement: “Those who aspire to ordination must lead faithful lives. Those who demonstrate licentious behavior should not be ordained.” But what does “faithful” mean? What would “licentious behavior” be? It is left unclear, and that is what you get when disparate voices are forced to reach a fuzzy consensus.

Major problem #4: Both the reasoning of the Task Force and the process that it followed neglected critical thinking. Task Force members deftly demonstrated what I have termed “the problem of pooled opinions.” In many ways and at many times, they have taken many options and, without adequate evaluation, pooled them as if each one were of equal weight. Then, given that particular pool of options, they have claimed that they don’t have enough clarity or consensus to make a decision. But, ironically, the alleged lack of clarity was entirely of their own choosing, and the lack of consensus resulted entirely from their own abandonment of critical thinking. For instance:

• They looked at various methods of biblical interpretation, settling on none. It’s as if they were saying, “We don’t know what Scripture really says about homosexuality, but there is a wide variety of equally valid opinions.”
• They read excerpts of the work of various theological writers, but, when they discussed the few articles, they seemed to give as much (or actually more) credence to marginal works as they did to the most meticulous and authoritative treatise on the subject.
• They considered the viewpoints of everyone on the Task Force, but didn’t attempt to evaluate the coherence of the thinking, or to come to a decision that involved right or wrong, wisdom or folly.

Major problem #5: The Task Force seemed unable to understand that sincerity of belief does not make a belief right or honorable. It was so busy honoring anything lifted up, that it was as undiscriminating as drunken sailors saluting dish towels on a clothesline, thinking they’re saluting flags.

What would result if the recommendations were approved?

The list is quick and simple:

Result #1: Practicing homosexual persons would be ordained to office in every session and presbytery that has a majority so inclined. There would be nothing to hold back the pent-up demand, and we would soon have a flood of elders, deacons, and pastors ordained contrary to the standards that Christians have always upheld.

Result #2: Administrative review by higher governing bodies and judicial review by Permanent Judicial Commissions would be hindered, if not rendered impotent. The very language of the A.I. could give license to doubt that PJCs could even consider the substance of cases of this sort, rather than only the conduct of the proceedings. With a “presumption of wisdom” accorded to ordaining bodies, who could contend that the bodies erred?

Result #3: We would see the balkanization of the PC(USA), the end of connectionalism. Each ordaining body could do what is right in its own eyes, leading to a patchwork of practices, no uniformity of opportunity for candidates, unequal expectations, and nightmare transfers. What’s more, there is nothing limiting such balkanized practices only to ordination matters. What would preclude vastly differing practices on church property matters, women’s roles, or even racial equality?

Result #4: There would be myriad battles everywhere, all the time. Every session and presbytery would fight over ordinations and calls. When the rules only sometimes apply, we would endlessly fight over which times to apply them.

Result #5: Former authoritative interpretations, such as the Londonderry ruling by the GAPJC, would be completely contradicted—indeed, set aside. Clear precedent would be wiped out in one fell swoop.

Result #6: Approval of the Task Force Report would not bring resolution, because it attempts a polity compromise for a distinctly theological crisis. Rather than resolve the problems, it would fan the flames for schism.

Result #7: Approval would severely damage our already fragile relationship with stalwart, orthodox Presbyterian churches in other countries. News of our decision, and especially a spike in unconstitutional ordinations, would compromise fellow Presbyterians’ witness in their own countries, even leading to greater insecurity and violence toward Christians in some parts of the world. Our ability to work together in unity with these vital members of the worldwide church would be lost.

Result #8: There would remain no way for the national church to legislate anything anymore. In the name of “putting right what went wrong in the Kenyon case” from the 1970s (about a candidate who wouldn’t ordain women), this A.I. would allow any part of the Constitution to be treated as optional. Thus, the ability to secure the will of the church through our church polity would be effectively lost. Nothing could stick if anything can be deemed inessential.

Result #9: Attempts would be made to shame us into somehow “honoring” what is false and antithetical to God’s will. Falsehood, immorality, and defiant rebellion against God’s Word and will are not to be tolerated, not to be honored! In a stirring historical passage in our Book of Order, we read: “That truth is in order to goodness; and the great touchstone of truth, its tendency to promote holiness, according to our Savior’s rule, ‘By their fruits ye shall know them.’ And that no opinion can be either more pernicious or more absurd than that which brings truth and falsehood upon a level, and represents it as of no consequence what a man’s opinions are. On the contrary, we are persuaded that there is an inseparable connection between faith and practice, truth and duty. Otherwise, it would be of no consequence either to discover truth or to embrace it” (G-1.0304). Honor falsehood? Bring it on a level with truth, as if it were of no consequence? No way!

Result #10: All of this would happen as an end run around the repeatedly stated will of presbyteries and churches. One set of commissioners at one General Assembly could pass an authoritative interpretation, and—whoosh!—out would go two thousand years of Christian belief and practice, thirty years of Presbyterian discernment to the contrary, and three conclusive national votes among presbyteries. Out it would go with a gasp, and there would be no vote by presbyteries.

You’ve heard of the tyranny of the urgent? How about the irony of detergent? I remember a grade school classmate who demonstrated that water and oil do mix if you add a pinch of magic powder: detergent. It was a cool demonstration. The irony of detergent is that it makes the unmixable mix. The Task Force Report tries to be a magic powder that mixes two unmixable convictions. What we get, however, is not a pleasant blend; it is instead a slick, oily emulsion that will disgust those who examine it and cause the Presbyterian Church to slip into further disarray.

How, then, can we keep this from happening?

We who see clearly need to stand boldly. I love Martin Luther’s fire and conviction, when he proclaimed he couldn’t bend, “Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason.…” I admire how he said, “My conscience is captive to the Word of God.… [T]o go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise. God help me, Amen.”

Yes, amen! People need a clear trumpet to follow. They need refreshing moral clarity, and the Report is anything but clear. So what must we do?

We must respond theologically. By that, I mean several things.

• First, we must be profoundly biblical. The church doesn’t need any more sociological, political, anthropological, psychological, or merely pragmatic words. We need the Word!
• Second, prayer and the power of the Holy Spirit must undergird and overshadow everything else we do. This is not our job. We cannot do it. But God can do it. God is doing it. And God will use us in doing it.
• Third, we must be centered firmly on God’s glory, made clear in God’s will. This needs to be about God and what God has told Christians about how to live.

There is the great biblical stream of unity or oneness, given its most moving description in John 17. But the oneness is not politically manufactured; it derives from closeness to Jesus and conformity with his will for our lives. The closer we draw to Christ, the closer we get to all those who follow Christ.

And there is another great biblical stream of purity or holiness. Early on in Leviticus, we are told, “You shall be holy to me; for I the Lord am holy, and I have separated you from the other peoples to be mine” (Lev. 20:26). Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount: “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Mt. 5:48). What we do with our lives and bodies matters greatly to our Lord and Savior, and this task needs to be one of our ways of conforming to God’s will.

• Fourth, we dare not descend to lesser ends. This struggle cannot become some socially conservative quest just to comfortably keep habits the way they’ve always been. That’s too self-serving, too little an end! This is about God. We cannot be in this to wield political power or so that “our side wins.” What hubris that would be! What we are called to do is to “contend for the faith that was once entrusted to the saints” (Jude 3). Let’s keep it on that plane.
• Fifth, if we rightly value faithfulness in biblical morality and orthodoxy of belief, then we must give at least as much consideration to the purity of our intentions and methods. To pursue a noble end by ignoble means would be a disgrace.

We must think tactically. There are many ways to skin a cat, many means to reach our end. Here are a few:

Tactic #1: Lift up integrity. Deep down, the vast majority of Presbyterians desire integrity. Even many who seek far different ends will stir to a call for integrity. For instance, just plain integrity forces an honest person to concede that G-6.0106b, when it was proposed, was considered entirely essential by those who fought to try to defeat it then. So how could it be honestly deemed nonessential by the same people now? It can’t—not without them trashing their integrity. Let’s call people to be their noblest selves!

Tactic #2: Use all the tools of connectional Presbyterian polity. There are so many things that we can do. I think of statements that explain and clarify the situation, such as the joint statement by renewal group leaders, or the fine statements by the Lay Committee, the Presbyterian Coalition, and PFR. Use them! Write more.

We need to put good information into people’s hands and get important ideas lodged in commissioners’ minds. Right now, the Task Force members are fanning out to visit sixty-three presbyteries, three synods, and six other large gatherings, by latest count. Their Report is, of course, being distributed and publicized by the denominational publicity mill. Already the Stated Clerk has broadly commended it, as have the denominational seminary presidents.

The train is building up steam, and by the time it gets to General Assembly, the pressure to just hop on the approval band wagon will be intense. We need every countervailing measure to put a better message across. Already good people are at work to formulate more resources. All of us need to carry the word to the farthest reaches of the denomination. People simply must hear another side of the story on this Report—one that they won’t hear from the Task Force itself, or through the denominational apparatus.

General Assembly needs to receive overtures that speak a wiser, more faithful word. Some people are thinking through a substitute report, which a presbytery could adopt as just such an overture. Knowledgeable, skilled, and diligent commissioners definitely will be needed to work together at General Assembly toward making a substitute report the main report, or toward amending the most damaging parts of the Task Force Report, or toward defeating the Task Force Report altogether. Our polity provides such opportunities.

Tactic #3: Grassroots organizing. Hardly anything important happens nationally all at once, without first happening one conversation, one church, one community at a time. Renewal-minded Presbyterians need to be about the task of organizing every presbytery, every commissioner to General Assembly. Time remains in many presbyteries to elect solid commissioners. Time remains to talk with commissioners who are going to G.A. and explain concerns with the Report. Time remains to counter misinformation and present sound information in the public square. Truth is with us. Logic is with us. Fairness is with us. The biblical and theological arguments are on our side. We just need to do it.

We must operate pastorally. This is key. Specifically, we must love first and always. Jesus gave us the two Great Commandments: to love God and to love our neighbors as ourselves. That’s a great plan by which to operate.

To love God. This simply must be our central motivation. We take on this struggle because we love God. Period. Nothing else dare replace the love of God as our prime motivator. If we didn’t love God, why else would we care?

To love our neighbor. Because some of our liberal counterparts readily posit dark and nasty motivations for our behavior—most, one might suspect, saying more about their own motivations than ours—we must doubly demonstrate the truth that this entire undertaking is about love. The most loving thing that we can do for anyone lost in a besetting sin is to name the sin and plead with the person to repent. Certainly, we’ll get blank stares much of the time, if not outright hostility. But that doesn’t change what love compels us to attempt.

Why do we have our ordination standards, in the first place? Not for the sake of the church’s reputation. Not because heterosexuals got the upper hand and made up rules for everyone. Our ordination standards concern lives that desperately need to return to harmony with God’s benevolent plan. In a society eager to misjudge us, we put ourselves on the line, and we do it because we love and we want others to inherit God’s love.

God, after all, reproves and disciplines those he loves. We’re told it in Rev. 3:19. It’s a brilliant tactic. We even see that principle at work in our own lives. Think of it: When do we most show love toward ourselves? Is it when we’re permissive with ourselves or when we exercise self-discipline? We love ourselves best through self-discipline, by showing ourselves tough love. We dare not let anyone tell us it’s impossible to disapprove, discipline, and love, all at the same time. It is possible. We do it to ourselves all the time! It’s a necessary way to love.

The factor of love applies even further: If we cannot enter this struggle out of love, we should get out. Those motivated by genuine love cannot stand beside those unwilling to be guided by love for God, love for those across the aisle, and especially love for those wrapped up in the tragically destructive sin of homosexual behavior. We should have no part with the bully, the intimidator, the patently hostile one. We certainly must move forward vigorously, but we must do it because we love—as God loves.

We must work together. The need is paramount to participate together in this grand task of loving God and loving our neighbor through our work on Presbyterian issues. Our history as evangelicals, as renewal-minded persons and groups, as conservatives in a wavering denomination is checkered with petty little skirmishes among ourselves. Someone doesn’t size up the situation exactly as I would, or doesn’t fight the fight in precisely the manner that I think is required. So I jump to the conclusion that that person must be a collaborating coward or a hot-headed schismatic. What arrogant foolishness!

We in the renewal camp are members of the Body of Christ, made up of all kinds of parts and dispositions, talents and callings. We seek the same faithful following of God’s will, but we burn different fuels at different rates, operate spontaneously or deliberately, function solo or within structures, follow this course and that, and sometimes even bump around together like Keystone Kops. It’s a wonder that God accomplishes anything through us! But as comical or even as ineffective as we sometimes can be, we belong together in the Body and are all rallying to the same cause, all wanting the same outcome, all doing our part. Together.

I encourage my brothers and sisters in Christ to hold on to one another in this crucial hour. We must let go of egos and hobby horses and everybody-must-join crusades, and hold on to one another; drop suspicion and accusation and back biting, and hold on to one another; refrain from speculating and manufacturing fault and denouncing colleagues, and hold on to one another.

Satan absolutely cackles when he gets us flailing at each other, so we need to walk together. Friends, if we don’t hang together, we will hang our heads in shame separately before this is finished.

God will not be thwarted. When all is finally said and done, we are with him on the winning team. We cannot lose. I’m not talking church politics; I’m talking life! God chose us—for whatever reason—and he’s not letting go. Praise God, and let’s go forward with joy and confidence!

This article first appeared in Theology Matters, Vol. 11, No. 5 (Nov/Dec 2005).