Broken Covenant

Broken Covenant: Signs
of a Shattered Communion

By Parker T. Williamson

There was a time when Presbyterians knew what they believed. Rooted in Scripture, denominational leaders guarded the truth that had been entrusted to them. Aspiring ministers were tested for an unequivocal commitment to the church's faith.

Essential beliefs were specified, and candidates for ordination subscribed to them in writing. No scruples, no behind the back finger crossing, no "wink, wink" reservations, no private definitions of Biblically conceived and confessionally affirmed doctrine. The lines between belief and unbelief were clearly drawn and commonly understood. If you wanted to be ordained a Presbyterian, you had to believe what Presbyterians believe.

Today, having lost more than half the denomination's membership in the last few decades, decimated its budget, consumed its endowments, and jettisoned most of its missionary force, Presbyterian Church (USA) managers are clinging to the vestiges of a vanishing institution.

What happened? What caused an unparalleled witness to the Gospel in the United States of America to be so rapidly swept toward oblivion? These are questions, not of conjecture, but of history.

I. Essential Tenets
On May 22, 1922, the Rev. Harry Emerson Fosdick stepped into the pulpit of First Presbyterian Church in New York City and delivered a sermon titled, "Shall the Fundamentalists Win?" A Baptist, Fosdick subscribed to no creed. Thus, he was the ideal front for Presbyterian leaders who chafed when required to subscribe to the denomination's five "fundamental" beliefs.¹ Modernists wanted more flexible standards – and preferably no standards at all. Finding the historic doctrines of Christianity too confining, they insisted that the essence of Christian faith lies not in specified beliefs, but in one's "Christian experience."

Fosdick and his Presbyterian supporters were challenged by J. Gresham Machen, a distinguished professor of New Testament at Princeton Theological Seminary. In his book, Christianity and Liberalism,² Machen argued that liberalism is not merely a different emphasis within Christianity, but a different faith altogether. He demonstrated that liberalism affirms:

A different God (an immanent rather than transcendent 'deity').

A different anthropology (human beings are essentially good).

A different Jesus (a model human rather than Savior).

A different scripture (of human, not divine origin).

A different church (a political body whose primary mission is to change societal structures, not making disciples).

Machen argued that if the Presbyterian Church set aside "fundamental" Christian doctrines in favor of experience-based ideologies, it would no longer be "Presbyterian," nor could it even be called "the Church."

The 1926 General Assembly
In a 1924 document called The Auburn Affirmation, Presbyterians who sought to free the denomination from being tethered by "fundamental" Christian doctrines denied the inerrancy of Scripture and declared the virgin birth and the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ "theories." Forging an alliance with "moderates," Presbyterians who affirmed Biblical teachings but placed their highest priority on institutional stability, the Auburn Affirmation group won control of the General Assembly, forced Machen to resign his Princeton professorship, ultimately revoked his ordination and, in a landmark 1926 General Assembly, abandoned the denomination's requirement that ordained leaders subscribe to any particular beliefs. This removal of 'fundamental doctrines,' often referred to as "essential tenets," was destined to have a seismic impact on the future of the Presbyterian Church.

During the four decades that followed the 1926 General Assembly, several generations of Presbyterian leaders were ordained without reference to any doctrine that the denomination deemed essential. During examination, candidates for ordination were asked to receive and adopt "the essential tenets of Reformed faith," but nowhere were these essential tenets specified. The result was precisely what Machen predicted, a broadly inclusive leadership that defied theological definition.

As they entered the 1960s, Presbyterian Church leaders began to realize that they faced a growing disparity between what the denomination officially claimed to be and what, since 1926, it had actually become. The denomination continued to identify itself as a constitutional church, standing under the authority of the Westminster Confession of Faith, a theologically precise and logically coherent statement of Reformed belief. But in reality, since 1926, presbyteries had not been holding ordained leaders accountable to any particular doctrine, including centerpiece doctrines in the Westminster Confession of Faith.

Enshrining a library
Given the drift that had occurred since 1926, honesty required that the Westminster Confession of Faith be superseded, for, in practice, it could no longer be called the denomination's constitutional standard. Publicly acknowledging this reality via a constitutional amendment, however, was politically untenable. Thus, denominational leaders developed a plan to honor Westminster without obeying it. They would leave the confession in place, but envelop it within a compilation of other historical documents.

A key component in the plan was to add into this mix a new confession deemed more relevant to modern times. Thus, a clear and precise theological benchmark, a single standard by which the denomination's faith could be measured, was replaced with a library of multiple resources called The Book of Confessions.

A conditional 'authority'
Not only was the denomination's theological standard now diffused, but the inclusion of an additional document introduced self contradiction into the picture. A task force had been appointed "to update Westminster" with more contemporary language. But the group went well beyond its assignment by proposing a brand new confession, The Confession of 1967.

On the subject of Scripture, "C-67," as the new document was popularly labeled, differed radically from all other documents in the book. In every other confession, the divine authorship of Scripture and its consequent authority over the faith and life of the church was the central affirmation. C-67 also said that Scripture is the Word of God, but it modified that affirmation. "Scripture," it said, "is nevertheless the words of men, conditioned by the language, thought forms, and literary fashions of the places and times at which they were written."³

On its face, this qualifier can be accepted by Biblical scholars. No credible student of Scripture would deny that inspired human beings were the instruments by which God's Word was inscribed. But C-67 was headed in a different direction, one that would seriously weaken Scriptural authority. By employing subjective phrases, this confession suggested that the Scriptures are God's Word to the degree that the reader experiences them as God's Word. According to C-67, scriptural authority is determined, not by Scripture, but the person who reads and interprets Scripture.

Following its adoption of C-67, the General Assembly approved substantial changes in the vow required of persons seeking ordination. The earlier vows asked, "Do you believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice?" The new vow asked, "Do you accept the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the unique and authoritative witness of Jesus Christ in the Church catholic, and by the Holy Spirit, God's Word to you?"

The new religion
The adoption of C-67 completed what was begun by the General Assembly of 1926. Now, the great confessions of the Reformed tradition, and even Scripture itself, could be neatly arranged on the shelf, enshrined as historical documents, and revered as expressions of the culture from which they arose. Sufficiently sidelined, they would no longer inhibit those who were rapidly developing what Machen had identified as a distinctly different religion.

The new religion that came into vogue during the late 1960s was secularized liberalism. Popular authors on Presbyterian seminary campuses were Harvey Cox,⁴ Thomas J.J. Altizer,⁵ and Bishop John A.T. Robinson.⁶ Dietrich Bonhoeffer's⁷ "the world come of age" and "religionless Christianity" themes were also required reading.

Seminarians cut their theological teeth on the very themes that Machen had identified as alien to the Gospel: an immanent, pantheistic god rather than the transcendent God who reveals himself in his Word, an essentially good human being who needs only an opportunity for self-development, a vast array of culturally developed "authorities" available for selective utilization by humans as they maximize their inherent potentialities, and a church, now redefined as a political association, vectored toward community development goals.

II. Liberation as Salvation
If one believes that human beings are essentially good, then, as Machen argued in Christianity and Liberalism, there is no need for a Savior. Jesus Christ becomes an example of the kind of person all humans can be. He is a moral leader, who encourages us to do good deeds, building communities of peace and justice where all humans may flourish and share the earth's resources.

But how does such an optimistic anthropology explain the obvious fact that many persons live vastly below their potential? How does it account for a yawning gap between the rich and the poor? How does it explain poverty of mind, spirit and resources? Liberalism's answer is that the problem in these inequities lies not in the transformation of persons, but in the overthrow of systems, socio-economic, political structures of oppression that enslave individuals, keeping them from becoming all that they can be. Secularized liberalism's solution to this problem is not salvation, but liberation.

As Presbyterian Church leaders substituted liberation for salvation, a radically different concept of missions began to surface among denominational boards and agencies. The church's call now was to engage in revolution, to participate in class struggles both at home and abroad, to declare that "God is on the side of the poor," and to support political and, if necessary, armed liberation movements ostensibly aimed at redressing inequities.

Increasingly, the language of Presbyterian Church leaders included race, gender and economic equality. They referred to "the tools of Marxist analysis" as essential for understanding and addressing the world's inequities. This transition from the Christian doctrine of salvation to secular liberalism's ideology of liberation is illustrated in the following actions by Presbyterian general assemblies and their agencies:

On May 15, 1969, James Forman, author of the "Black Manifesto," was welcomed to the General Assembly podium by Stated Clerk William P. Thompson as "a modern prophet." Later, a $50,000 gift was given in response to Forman's demand for "reparations." The gift was channeled through IFCO, an ecumenical agency of denominational leaders.

In 1971, the United Presbyterian Church made a $10,000 grant to Black Panther and self-avowed Marxist activist Angela Davis, who was on trial as an accessory to the murder of a judge in a Black Panther trial.

In 1972, and again in 1973, the United Presbyterian Church made $75,000 grants to ROSCA, a Marxist organization working to overthrow the government of Colombia. Three presbyteries in the Presbyterian Church of Colombia sent a sharply worded "Declaration" to the United Presbyterian Church General Assembly. Colombian Presbyterians said leaders of ROSCA "are men with known Marxist views who are totally unrelated to our Colombian Church. These men reject the order now established in Colombia and propose the establishment of a socialist regime with the logical implication of the destruction of economic and political structures which at present operate in our country."⁸

In 1973, the United Presbyterian Church funded and participated in IDOC, a coalition including denominational "national missions" representatives whose position paper stated: "To be more specific, this paper contends that the system which creates and sustains much of the hunger, underdevelopment, unemployment, and other social ills in the world today is capitalism ... As such, it is an unjust system which should be replaced."⁹

In 1973, the Presbyterian Church of Brazil evicted United Presbyterian Church missionaries for their involvement in liberationist activities.

During the 1970s, both Northern and Southern streams of the Presbyterian Church made significant investments in liberation movements, largely guerrilla activities, operating in southern Africa. Many of these grants were channeled through the World Council of Churches Fund to Combat Racism, of which the Presbyterians constituted the largest denominational contributors. In 1974, for example, WCC grants to terrorist groups in southern Africa (called "liberation groups" and "freedom fighters" by denominational officials) totaled $322,000.

One grant recipient was FRELIMO, whose guerrilla fighters attacked a Nhacambo hamlet. One hundred twenty of the hamlet's 186 huts were burned. Seventeen villagers were killed, of whom three were small boys, three were youths, two were baby girls, seven were women and two were men. The massacre and FRELIMO's responsibility for it was authenticated by the International Red Cross.

In 1975, the Joint Strategy and Action Committee (JSAC) – a coalition of denominational agencies, including representatives of the United Presbyterian Church and the Presbyterian Church (US) – issued the following policy statement: "There is a need to demystify Marxian thought and to legitimize the use of class analysis within the U.S. so that it can be heard rather than prematurely dismissed in our ecclesiastical and national life. We need to continue to build ties of solidarity between all those who are working for human liberation both here and in other countries."¹⁰

In 1975, representatives of the United Presbyterian Church and the Presbyterian Church (US) endorsed the following "consensus" statement: "The present economic system is irreconcilable with the Christian faith … Anti-communist socialization and hysteria … have prevented the development of class consciousness among oppressed and exploited people in the U.S."¹¹

In 1977, the General Assembly of the United Presbyterian Church approved a resolution calling on the United States government to remove any obstacle of policy or practice imposed by the United States preventing normal relations with the Cuban government. This call has been repeated often by subsequent general assemblies, and current Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick has appeared for photo opportunities with Fidel Castro, whose regime he has supported.

In 1978, "The Consultation on Overseas and Domestic Mission," funded by the Presbyterian Church (US), was convened to enable world mission policymakers to "hear the voice of the Third World." But consultation leaders handpicked spokespersons from other countries, sometimes bypassing elected leaders of partner churches overseas in order to invite radicals who were not recognized by their own people and clearly did not represent the beliefs of their churches. This selection process – and its predictable outcome, support for guerrilla organizations in Third World countries – was the subject of a vigorous protest from the moderator of the Presbyterian Church of Brazil.

On September 3, 1978, guerrilla forces under the command of Robert Mugabe and Joshua Nkomo opened fire on an Air Rhodesia civilian airliner that was transporting Christian missionaries. A handful of survivors, including women and children, crawled out of the wreckage. Ten of them were shot and mutilated by the guerrilla fighters. Eyewitnesses who managed to escape the massacre described it in detail. Subsequent investigations revealed that Mugabe and Nkomo's Patriotic Front of Zimbabwe had received an $85,000 grant, including United Presbyterian Church funds, that had been filtered through the World Council of Churches Fund to Combat Racism.¹²

In 1982, the Presbyterian Church of Brazil severed its ties with the Presbyterian Church (USA).

In recent years, the world has turned its focus to the Middle East and, in particular, to the war that has been raging between Israel and its Arab neighbors. Presbyterian Church (USA) spokespersons have found in this conflict a fertile field for applying the theology of liberation. The facts in this exceedingly complex international conflagration to the contrary notwithstanding, denominational bureaucrats have identified the oppressor and the oppressed. Having decided that God is on the side of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, the Presbyterian Church (USA) has dispatched task forces, study groups, tour guides, media specialists and funding sources to support the liberationists' agenda. Official Presbyterian Church (USA) delegations have met with Hezbollah, a terrorist organization, and the General Assembly's Mission Responsibility Through Investment agency has targeted for shareholder resolutions and divestment several companies that do business with Israel.

This list of resolutions, grants, policy statements and activities – which is illustrative, not exhaustive – demonstrates a continuing commitment by Presbyterian Church (USA) officials and their predecessor agencies to largely secular liberation movements. This commitment is consistent with an ideology that defines the mission of the church in terms of replacing one human system with another, ignoring the fact that every system devised by humans – including, but certainly not limited to capitalism – is inherently sinful.

Human sin cannot be eradicated by liberationist restructuring schemes. Sinners need a Savior. His name is Jesus, and he is the Christ.

III. The PCUSA's Problem with Jesus
On July 29, 2000, Presbyterians across the country were shocked when they received reports of a speech delivered by Rev. Dirk Ficca, a keynote speaker at the Presbyterian Peacemaking Conference. The theme of the event focused on how to maintain effective relationships with persons of other faiths in an increasingly pluralistic world. Ficca's thesis was that much of the discord that has fractured human communities is fomented by groups that host exclusive religious convictions. His solution was to recognize that God works in the world through people of many faiths.

After all, asked Ficca, "If God is at work in our lives, whether we're Christian or not, what's the big deal about Jesus?"

Ficca's comment and an unsuccessful damage control campaign by the General Assembly Council hurled Christology onto the docket of the 2001 General Assembly.

On June 14, 2001, a vigorous debate ensued. Some commissioners insisted that declaring Jesus Christ "the singular saving Lord" must be a requirement for church leaders. Others wanted the denomination to continue being "inclusive, generous, welcoming and diverse."

Some commissioners quoted John 14:6: "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me." The Rev. Catherine Purves said, "There comes a time when a clear and strong singular affirmation of the Lordship of Jesus must come, and this is the time."

Seminary student Jeff McDonald said, "If salvation isn't singular through Jesus Christ, does that mean that it is plural? If it is plural, who are the others?"

But former General Assembly Moderator Freda Gardner opposed the affirmation of Christ alone. "Words can become stumbling blocks," she said.

The Rev. Robert Ray, a presbytery executive, said, "I do not have the right to say other people cannot find God in other ways. If God is all powerful, God can find ways to save Hindus, Jews, and other people."

Timothy Sakelos suggested that religions are like a basket of fruit. "The taste, smell and look are different, but they are all fruit. If you look more deeply, you can see the sunshine, rain and minerals. Only their manifestations are different. All religions have similarities and differences, but the real difference only exists in their emphasis."

As polarities sharpened, moderates raced to the microphones, expressing their fear that the denomination might split if either position were affirmed. Former General Assembly Moderator Syngman Rhee suggested a compromise. "Why not approve both?" he asked. "Couldn't we put these two positions together?"¹³

And that is exactly what the commissioners did. By a vote of 369-163, the assembly declared that Jesus is "unique." Calling the decision "namby-pamby at best," Christianity Today paraphrased it: "Jesus may not be the only way to salvation, the denomination essentially said, but he's the only way we are sure of."¹⁴

Commenting on the assembly debate, The Rev. Joe Rightmeyer, executive director of Presbyterians for Renewal, made a statement that could have been taken verbatim from J. Gresham Machen's Christianity and Liberalism. He said, "What has crept into the life of the Presbyterian Church is not just a difference of opinion, it is unbelief."¹⁵

The denomination-wide reaction to the assembly's compromise launched a surge of public declarations from local church sessions. In these declarations, they aligned themselves with a rapidly growing "Confessing Church Movement" that attracted 1,314 congregations, representing more than 434,000 Presbyterians. "The General Assembly may not be able to say who Jesus is, but we can!" said The Rev. Paul Roberts, pastor of Summit Presbyterian Church, the first church session publicly to declare its faith in contradistinction to the General Assembly's ambivalence.

That reaction moved the succeeding General Assembly to issue another compromise, albeit somewhat less ambiguous, called "Hope in Jesus Christ."

The Kaseman Case
The "What's the big deal about Jesus?" controversy was not the first occasion in which the issue of Christology had been debated among Presbyterians. In 1981, the case of The Rev. Mansfield Kaseman came before the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission, the highest court in the denomination. At issue was the fact that during his ordination examination, Kaseman denied the divinity of Jesus Christ. In answer to the question, "Was Jesus God?" Kaseman replied, "No, God is God."¹⁶

Later, in an attempt to explain his position, Kaseman tried to improve his answer. "Saying Jesus is one with God is a better way of saying it." But, he continued, "I, too, am one with God."¹⁷

Kaseman's denial of Biblical faith to the contrary notwithstanding, the high court upheld National Capital Union Presbytery's decision to ordain him. The issue, the court reasoned, was not a matter of theology, but one of polity. Instead of asking if it was right for the presbytery to ordain Kaseman, the court asked if the presbytery had the right to ordain Kaseman. To that question, the court answered in the affirmative. The heart of the issue in this case, the court said, was the "inherent powers of the presbytery."

The Permanent Judicial Commission's decision upheld a ruling of the Synod of the Piedmont that Kaseman's answers to theological questions "were within the acceptable range of interpretation" of doctrine in the Book of Confessions and that in accepting his answers, the presbytery correctly and properly reflected the spirit of theological pluralism. "The arguments presented by both parties in this case force us to recognize that there are several valid ways of interpreting the creedal symbols and the confessions of our faith," said the synod court in its ruling that was subsequently upheld by the denomination's high court.¹⁸

The Kaseman decision emphasized doctrinal freedom, the linchpin of the 1926 General Assembly's decision that the denomination would no longer require its ministers to subscribe to specific beliefs. It affirmed that Kaseman "recognized and accepted the fact that the creeds of the church are extremely important … the church does not require that its ministers be possessed of a photographic mind … Indeed it appears to this commission that by his refusal to use theological language in answering the questions asked at his examination, Mr. Kaseman was being true to the spirit of the Confession of 1967."¹⁹ This was precisely the kind of aberration against which Machen warned the church in the 1920s debates.

Building Community Among Strangers
A controversial study paper that called for building community by denying the lordship of Jesus Christ was derailed by the 1998 General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA). By a vote of 418-86, the assembly rejected Building Community Among Strangers, a product of the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy (ACSWP).

A central thesis of the committee's paper was that religious differences divide people and that Christians can affirm Jesus Christ's lordship while also affirming the validity of other people's gods. The paper equated believers in the truth of God's revelation with followers of "a jealous tribal God." It urged Presbyterians to become "Christian humanists," religious pluralists who believe that all beliefs about God are equally valid. To illustrate its point, the paper included an image of a banquet in which the food is blessed not only in the name of Jesus, "but also in the name of Allah, the Lord Krishna, Siddhartha Buddha, and the Goddess Gaia."²⁰

The assembly sent the paper back to ACSWP, asking that a revised version state clearly Scripture's teaching that "Jesus Christ is Lord of all the world and its only hope of reconciliation."

The following year, the 1999 General Assembly approved a revised version of Building Community Among Strangers that had removed much of the offensive language.²¹ Members of the Presbyterian Renewal Network cheered the assembly's action, only to learn during a meeting in Louisville, Ky. two years later, that the original, unabridged document was being offered for sale at the denomination's book store in the Presbyterian Church (USA) headquarters building. "Get a load of this," said Rev. Ilona Buzick, executive director of Presbyterian Elders in Prayer, as she displayed her newly purchased copy. "Why did we bother with the debate? It is as if the General Assembly never acted."

What Buzick discovered is illustrative of a frustration often experienced by Presbyterians who have fought for Biblical integrity within the Presbyterian Church (USA). While they have won significant victories at general assembly meetings or at the presbytery level where general assembly amendments to the Constitution must be ratified, they have found themselves impotent to counter a denominational infrastructure that refuses to implement policies with which it does not agree.

Denying the Atonement of Jesus Christ
In 1993, a new religion was promoted at a Minneapolis, Minn. event, sponsored by the World Council of Churches and funded by a $60,000 grant from the Presbyterian Church (USA). The purpose of the event was to "re-imagine god" and, in the process, to reconfigure Jesus Christ. In order to accomplish these goals, leaders of the event proposed a god who is "within" rather than transcendent, and a "Christ" who does not resemble Scripture's witness to Jesus of Nazareth and the cross on which he died.

Planned and funded by a group that included high-level executives of the Presbyterian Church (USA), the new religion was referred to as a "bottom-up" religion. Speakers began with their own experiences as women from a variety of cultures and religions. They announced that God is teaching them, as women, new teachings that are superior to Scripture's revelations. Jesus' incarnation, his divinity and his atonement on the cross were soundly rejected.

The 1994 General Assembly meeting in Wichita, Kan., rejected many of the themes expressed in the ReImagining God conference, declaring that they were "beyond the boundaries of Reformed faith."²² But printed versions of the conference presentations were archived by staff members of the Presbyterian Church (USA) Women's Ministry Unit, where they became "recommended resources" for various denominational programs, including those of the National Network of Presbyterian College Women.

Mary Ann Lundy, executive of the Women's Ministry Unit and a principal in planning and funding the ReImagining God conference, had become a political liability for the denominational establishment. General Assembly Council executive James Brown fired her, but immediately thereafter she was hired by the World Council of Churches' office in Geneva, on whose executive committee the Rev. Kirkpatrick sat. Kirkpatrick represents the denomination that gives more money to the World Council, on a per-capita basis, than any other supporting denomination.

Lundy's quip after the firing/hiring scenario was, "I've been fired up!" Here, as in the case of Building Community Among Strangers, an action of the General Assembly that evangelicals applauded was undermined by those who manage the denominational infrastructure.

In 1998, during a gathering of Presbyterian Church (USA) leaders attending the World Council of Churches meeting in Harare, Zimbabwe, Kirkpatrick publicly recognized Lundy, acknowledging the "pain" that had been inflicted on her by "some Presbyterians," and thanking her for her "extraordinary leadership and gifts." His words evoked a standing ovation.

The Decline and Drift of Union Theological Seminary
By a hair-splitting vote of 68-64, the Presbytery of Coastal Carolina decided, on Feb. 24, 1996, not to adopt a session resolution that questioned the commitment of Union Theological Seminary in Virginia to Reformed theology and its adequacy as a training center for ministers of the Presbyterian Church (USA).

The resolution was submitted by the Pineland Presbyterian Church session after it learned that Union's theology professor, Douglas Ottati, refuses to affirm the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ and denies that Christ lived a sinless life. Ottati states in his book, Jesus Christ and Christian Vision,²³ that he affirms "the resurrection," but not the bodily resurrection to which Scripture attests. Ottati's version of the resurrection suggests a "continuing presence" of Christ in the lives of his disciples. He believes that they "experienced" Christ's presence after his death, although it is not clear how he differentiates this experience from a residual memory.

The session said it was troubled that an institution of the church whose purpose is to prepare Presbyterians for ordained ministry would employ faculty members who deny "essential doctrines" of the faith.

During the Coastal Carolina Presbytery debate, supporters of the seminary lauded its years of service to the denomination. But the Rev. Brown Caldwell, a minister member of the presbytery and alumnus of the seminary, said, "This is not a peripheral dispute. It is about a central tenet of the Christian faith. We are talking here about Union's commitment to the historical resurrection of Jesus Christ. Without the resurrection, we have nothing to say."

A year later, Union Seminary again made the news when it invited Rosemary Radford Ruether to deliver the prestigious Sprunt Lectures. Ruether calls the resurrection of Jesus Christ "a myth created by males to assuage their own fear of death."²⁴ Her theology makes room for multiple deities that are encompassed into "the great womb within which all things, Gods and humans, sky and earth, humans and non-humans, are generated."²⁵

Christ's atonement declared an outdated doctrine
Two theology professors, echoing one of the central themes of the ReImagining God conference, told a national conference of the Covenant Network of Presbyterians on Nov. 11, 2002, that the atoning death of Jesus Christ is an outdated doctrine.

Not the cross, but "the incarnation itself may be redemptive," said Anna Case-Winters, associate professor of theology at McCormick Theological Seminary. "He became as we are that we may become as he is – the incarnation that accomplishes our salvation.''

In an affirming response to Case-Winters' thesis, Union Theological Seminary professor Paul Capetz agreed. "What about atonement? We don't need any more crucifixions." Nonetheless, Capetz said the cross is important to Christianity as a "symbol of the faith" – not as the redemptive work, but as a reminder that suffering is a part of the Christian life.

Problems with the Incarnation and Resurrection
It is not only in seminaries and national conferences that the denomination's Jesus problem has come to light. Several presbyteries have struggled with it. Three examples are illustrative, one in Missouri, one in New Jersey and another in North Carolina.

During a Nov. 15, 1995, Heartland Presbytery meeting, the Rev. Stu Austin, who was being examined for presbytery membership, said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that He is the only way to salvation." According to those present, the Rev. Hal LeMert challenged the assertion, saying, "If that's your position, then I cannot vote for you." Later, in a telephone interview, LeMert was asked if "an essential tenet of the Reformed faith [is] that Jesus Christ is our only access to God?" "No. I don't think it is," he responded.²⁶

Prompted by this discussion, the Roanoke Presbyterian Church of Kansas City submitted an overture that would have required ordained members of the presbytery to declare that "Jesus Christ is the only mediator between God and humankind and the only access to God is through Jesus Christ." Either sign it or resign your ordination in good conscience, the overture said.

Roanoke's overture triggered two days of "colloquy" on the question, "Who is Jesus?" and an extended debate ensued. Finally, the presbytery adopted a revised version of Roanoke's overture, one that affirmed Jesus Christ as "the sole reconciler between humankind and God," but did not include any requirement that ministers subscribe to it as a condition of their continuing ordination.

The 'idea' of the atonement rejected
On Nov. 20, 2002, the Presbytery of West Jersey opened its evening session with the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, voicing the familiar words, "This is my body broken for you. Do this in remembrance of me." Then it received into ministry a person who denies the divinity of Jesus Christ and rejects the "idea" that he died to save us from our sins.

The candidate, Helen Dekker, had little to say about the relationship between Jesus of Nazareth and God. She said she was thankful that Jesus "brought me under the wings of God's love," but beyond that it was not clear that she saw much more in him.

That led to questions. "Is Jesus God?" asked a member of the presbytery. "No," she replied. "He was filled with the spirit of God."

A woman who had served on the committee that recruited Dekker said "She teaches us to find the Spirit in ourselves, and she has helped us rewrite our mission statement. It is a little different from what we are used to, but we feel the Spirit with Helen leading us."

Another church member said, "I'll never forget the first sermon I heard her preach. It was on racism and tolerance."

When the vote was taken, Deker was approved by a 3-1 majority.

Physical resurrection denied
Citing a lack of agreement among witnesses, an investigating committee in November 2003 decided not to call for a trial of a minister accused of heresy for allegedly denying that Christ rose bodily from the grave.

The committee said that Robert W. Martin III's "statements on the resurrection of Jesus Christ could and should have reflected the full witness of Scripture and the Confessions. They do not, however, place him outside of the Reformed tradition and he cannot properly be called a heretic."

At issue was the fact that, when asked "Do you believe in the literal, physical, bodily resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ?" Martin said "No." Persons who were present during Martin's examination had mixed recollections of how Martin subsequently explained and possibly qualified his response.²⁷

What do Presbyterians believe about Jesus?
A perusal of presbytery debates across the denomination reveals that the question, "What's the big deal about Jesus?" refuses to go away. It is asked in numerous forms, often in the context of presbytery ordination examinations. In recent years, the trend among presbyteries has been to refer such discussions to small groups, typically their Examinations Committee or Committee on Ministry, thereby keeping potentially inflammatory disputes under wraps. On occasions when committee decisions are challenged before the whole presbytery, they are often settled, not as theological issues, but on questions of polity – e.g., did the committee have the right to make its decision? – rather than the more substantive question of did the committee make the right decision? After all, without standards, who is to determine if a decision is right?

Occasionally, in the midst of such disputes, the suggestion is made that the underlying theological issue be referred to higher governing bodies – ultimately to the general assembly – for a definitive ruling that would apply to all churches. Inevitably, such suggestions are scuttled by reference to the 1926 General Assembly, where it was determined that each presbytery may determine for itself what constitutes "essential tenets of Christian faith."

Over the years that have passed since that historic General Assembly, ministers who entertain radically different beliefs regarding the person and work of Jesus Christ have been ordained. In the course of their careers, they have moved from one presbytery to another, thus spreading the virus of variant beliefs. It is not surprising, therefore, that attempts to establish a denomination-wide standard - as in the "What's the big deal about Jesus?" General Assembly of 2001 – have failed. The pluralism that has been so thoroughly woven into the fabric of denominational life, and the manner in which postmodernism allows words to mean whatever their speakers (or listeners) want them to mean, makes it almost impossible to assess what constitutes Presbyterian Church (USA) belief.

IV. Justice Love
Denominational leaders began mentioning that which had heretofore been deemed unmentionable in 1966. In November of that year, the United Presbyterian Church Council on Church and Society proposed "a study of the Christian concept of sexuality in the human community." The council said it would "explore the mystery of sexuality in a broad range of human experience; identify and analyze the forces that enhance or inhibit the realization of sexual values; and evaluate the church's role and responsibility in interpreting the meaning of sexuality and in bringing a Christian ethical view to bear upon its expression in human relationships." The 1967 General Assembly approved the proposal and established a task force to conduct it.

The fact that the Council on Church and Society initiated this study was itself instructive and could well have presaged the direction that it would take. Paramount on the council's scale of values was "justice."

The resulting 2,000-page "Sex and the Human Community Report" embraced the principles of "situation ethics," replacing fixed moral principles with a morality that affirms behavior deemed "appropriate" in each situation. Condoned, under certain circumstances, were premarital and extramarital sex, homosexual relationships and other practices long considered immoral on the basis of Biblical teaching.

During the General Assembly debate, the Rev. Richard Unsworth, a member of the task force, was asked, "Does the Bible have a definite set of sex ethics?" He replied, "It depends on who holds the Bible – Darryl Zanuck would answer differently than Billy Graham."²⁸

The 1970 General Assembly voted to distribute the report to all churches for study, but only on the condition that its own "attachment" be appended to and made an inseparable part of the report.

That attachment, vigorously opposed by the Council on Church and Society, proved to be a 180 degree contradiction to the message of the report. The assembly's attachment read: "We, the 182nd General Assembly (1970), reaffirm our adherence to the moral law of God as revealed in the Old and New Testaments, that adultery, prostitution, fornication, and/or the practice of homosexuality is sin. We further affirm our belief in the extension Jesus gave to the law, that the attitude of lust in a man's heart is likewise sin. Also we affirm that any self-righteous attitude of others who would condemn persons who have so sinned is also sin. The widespread presence of the practice of these sins gives credence to the Biblical view that men have a fallen nature and are in need of the reconciling work of Jesus Christ which is adequate for all the sins of men."²⁹

Thus, Presbyterian congregations got a package deal, two statements for the price of one, each statement contradicting the other. Ironically, although the Council on Church and Society opposed the package, its approval worked to the council's advantage. Had its report simply been rejected by the assembly, agencies of the assembly would have had no warrant to implement it. But because it was adopted, albeit with the attachment, denominational agencies could now promote parts of it, the parts that represented their views.

Selective Implementation
In the ensuing years, this has been a popular tactic when church leaders face substantial opposition during general assembly meetings. In the name of moderation, peace and mutual respect, they seek a compromise statement that affirms both points of view. Once the statement becomes policy, staff members proceed to implement the portion that they prefer, ignoring the portion that they deem objectionable.

Even before the 1970 General Assembly adopted its both/and package on human sexuality, denominational agencies and their publications were promoting the Council on Church and Society's ethic. In April, just prior to the General Assembly meeting, Church and Society magazine ran an article titled "Female and Single – What Then?" Written by Margaret Kuhn, coordinator of administration for the Division of Church and Race, the article said:

"The church should point the way with compassion and wisdom to a way of life that enables those who are single to express their sexuality and to establish deep sustaining relationships with men who may or may not be married; to begin to experiment with ways in which particular members of a congregation may become an extended family - or at least take on the characteristics and functions of an extended family. Such relationships between single women and married men might or might not involve coitus."³⁰

Homosexuality Study
On Nov. 11, 1975, New York City Presbytery sent an overture to the 1976 General Assembly requesting guidance on the ordination of a homosexual candidate whom the presbytery deemed otherwise qualified for the ministry. At about the same time, the Advisory Council on Church and Society initiated a "Prospectus for Study" of homosexuality and an "Advice and Counsel Memorandum" on homosexuality as resource material for the assembly that would receive New York City Presbytery's overture.

During the 1976 assembly, there was no question but that a study of homosexuality would be authorized. The only question was who would oversee the study? In that contest, the Advisory Council on Church and Society won. Likewise, Church and Society prevailed in having members of the study task force appointed by the moderator (Thelma Adair) and Church and Society member Jeanne Marshall. The task force would be resourced by the Church and Society staff rather than by the staff from the Office of the Stated Clerk. These shape-of-the-table decisions proved to have a major impact on subsequent task force decisions and recommendations.

The task force report to the 1978 General Assembly was predictable, given the composition of the group and its staffing. It stated that homosexuality "is a strong, enduring, not consciously chosen and usually irreversible affectional attraction to and preference for persons of the same sex." It declared that homosexuality is "a minor theme in Scripture … not mentioned by any of the prophets or by Jesus himself." The primary ethical issue in relationships between Christians, said the report, "is not whether the relationship conforms to a concept of orders of creation, but whether the persons involved in the relationship encourage and support growth in faith and self-giving love."³¹

Moving to its major conclusion, the report asked: "May a self-affirming, practicing homosexual Christian be ordained? We believe so, if the person manifests such gifts as are required for ordination." It recommended that decisions on the fitness of candidates for ordination continue to be lodged with the presbyteries, recognizing that "this constitutional situation may lead to divergent actions by different congregations and presbyteries."³²

Five members of the 19-member task force filed a minority report: "Our study has led us to conclude that homosexuality is not God's wish for his children …it is neither a gift from God nor a state or a condition like race; it is a result of man's fallen condition."

The minority report continued: "Though none of us will ever achieve perfect fulfillment of His will, all Christians are responsible to view their sins as He viewed them, and to strive against them. To evade this responsibility is to permit the church to model for the world forms of sexual behavior which may seriously injure individuals, families, and the whole fabric of human society."³³

When the General Assembly met in June of 1978, it voted by an overwhelming majority (approximately, 600-50)³⁴ to declare that homosexual behavior is a sin and, accordingly, "our present understanding of God's will precludes the ordination of persons who do not repent of homosexual practice."³⁵

In 1979, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (US), anticipating merger with the United Presbyterian Church, approved an interpretation of its ordination standards that paralleled the United Presbyterian Church's 1978 ruling. Meanwhile, the 1979 United Presbyterian Church General Assembly defeated a proposal to reconsider its position on homosexuality. Special interest groups representing homosexual activists lobbied general assemblies in both branches of the Presbyterian Church until their reunion in 1983.

'Justice/Love'
In 1991, the General Assembly of the now merged northern and southern denominations, The Presbyterian Church (USA), was confronted by a major offensive from homosexual activists and their allies in the denomination's national staff. Before the assembly was a "Human Sexuality Report" promoting the theme "Justice/Love." The task force that produced the report was staffed by "ethicist" James Nelson, whose published commitment to virtually unfettered sexual couplings was widely known.³⁶

"Justice/Love's" controlling premise was that all sexual activity among adults – whether marital or extramarital, heterosexual or homosexual – is good if it occurs by un-coerced, mutual consent (that's the justice part) and is motivated by a sincere desire to please the other (that's the love part).

Obviously, Scripture says something quite different about sexual morality, so the committee had to set aside Scriptural authority. On this point, the Confession of 1967 was a significant help, since it had already concluded that Scripture is derived from culture. The task force said, "Whatever in Scripture, tradition, reason or experience embodies genuine love and caring justice, that bears authority for us … Whatever in Biblical tradition, church practice and teaching, human experience, and human reason violates God's commandment to do love and justice, that must be rejected as ethical authority."³⁷ Thus, Scripture was to be subject to the task force's "justice/love" principle, not the other way around.

The 1991 General Assembly rejected the Human Sexuality Report by an overwhelming vote (534-31), but not before the liberals achieved their compromise: The assembly agreed that the report could be used as "a study resource" for the church. That's all that the denomination's infrastructure needed to turn their defeat into victory. Justice/Love themes have appeared in numerous denominational conferences, study guides, curricula, and promotional materials. Considering the preponderance of evidence, one would think that the Human Sexuality Report of 1991 had been approved.

There Ought to Be a Law!
By 1996, Presbyterians committed to Biblical authority, particularly as it speaks to the issue of human sexuality, realized that their general assembly victories, undermined by the refusal of staff to implement them, were useless. They were also concerned that an increasingly liberal high court, the Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly, was coming dangerously close to overturning the 1978 ordination standards decision. A minority on the court (soon to be the majority) wrote an opinion that the standard set by the 1978 assembly was merely a general assembly opinion, and that it could have the force of law only if it were embedded in the Constitution.

So, in 1996, the General Assembly adopted an amendment to the Constitution (Book of Order) that denies ordination to persons who engage in sexual activity outside the bonds of heterosexual marriage. Hailed as a landmark victory by conservatives and evangelicals, G-6.0106(b), the new constitutional standard has been attacked at every level of the denominational infrastructure. In 1997 and 2001, General Assemblies approved amendments to erase it, only to be defeated by decisive majorities of the presbyteries.³⁸

Even so, numerous violations of the standard have occurred in presbyteries where homosexual activist groups are strong, and the stated clerk of the General Assembly, the denomination's chief constitutional officer, has repeatedly said that it is not his job to enforce the Constitution.

Undermining The Standard
In 2006, the General Assembly found a way to amend the Constitution without amending the Constitution. Guided by its task force on "Peace, Unity and Purity," the assembly articulated an "authoritative interpretation" of the ordination standard; namely, that it is the standard, but that local (sessions) and regional (presbyteries) governing bodies may decide that, in their case, the standard is "not essential." Because the decision was an interpretation of the Constitution rather than a formal amendment to the Constitution, the Advisory Committee on the Constitution ruled that no referendum among the presbyteries was required.

Denominational liberals – and some in the "evangelical" camp who place a high priority on institutional preservation – claim that "nothing has changed," citing the fact that the words are still in the Constitution. But deep in their hearts, increasing numbers of Presbyterians know that something very significant has occurred. Deferring to a principle of local autonomy, first established in the 1926 General Assembly, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) eviscerated its Constitution. No longer universally applicable, and devoid of any means of enforcement, the Constitution has become a book of wishes, whose words may mean whatever the reader chooses to have them mean.

Affirming Abortion
Although often categorized as a "health" issue, the subject of abortion was tackled early on by "justice" oriented denominational agencies. A review of Presbyterian Church debates on abortion provides a graphic example of the tactic already described, wherein denominational leaders engage in selective implementation of general assembly policies.

At the outset, no selectivity was needed. Abortion was placed on the general assembly's table in the civil rights '60s as a women's entitlement issue. In 1970, the General Assembly declared that women should have full decision-making powers in unwanted pregnancies. It said that women should have "full freedom of personal choice concerning the completion or termination of their pregnancies," and artificial or induced termination of pregnancies should not be restricted by law. The General Assembly's action was sweeping and unqualified: a woman could choose to terminate the life within her womb at any time and for any reason with which she was comfortable.³⁹

In 1972, the General Assembly reaffirmed its position, adopting 15 recommendations from a report by the Standing Committee on Women. The recommendations urged development, support and expansion of birth control clinics and favored the establishment of medically sound, easily available, and low-cost abortion services. They called for support of legislation to repeal abortion laws and the development of "theological materials on abortion."⁴⁰

In November 1975, the Advisory Council on Church and Society released a "document designed to assist people in making decisions on abortion." Observing that the general assembly had declared that women should have the legal option of abortion, but that it had not spoken on the morality of abortion itself, the Rev. Kent Organ, chairman, said the council felt such a document could be "helpful." The intent of the study was to address women's needs, not only to feel that an abortion decision was "legal," but that it was "moral" as well.⁴¹

Alarmed that denominational agencies were advocating abortion, at any time and under any circumstances, as a moral decision, the Presbyterian pro-life movement was organized on March 19, 1979, in Atlanta, Ga. It declared that its purpose was "the promotion and safeguarding of human life from conception through every stage of life" within the Presbyterian and Reformed family of churches.

On Sept. 27, 1979, seven national agencies of the United Presbyterian Church met with Patricia Gavett, an official of the Religious Coalition on Abortion Rights, to discuss the "legal ramifications of anti-abortionist positions regarding first amendment rights and freedom of religion." At the close of the meeting, synod representatives planned strategies "to maintain pro-choice positions in the courts and to support and develop counseling procedures that would protect a woman's right to choose freely." They agreed to convey their plans to one another through the office of the Presbyterian Council on Women in the Church, in New York.⁴²

In 1980, the General Assembly took "no action" on an overture from the Presbytery of Northeast Florida "to appoint a committee to restudy principles for decisions concerning abortion and recommend ways to discourage abortions as an option."

On June 16, 1981 four religious leaders testifying before a U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee subcommittee rejected the idea of a law banning abortion. "The passage of a bill ... would result in writing into law the most extreme view of one group of religious persons and the denial of views held with equal force by large numbers of other religious persons," said William P. Thompson, a lawyer and stated clerk of the United Presbyterian Church's General Assembly.⁴³

Senate Subcommittee Chairman John East then led a 15-minute discussion on the "sanctity of life." The senator attacked the theologians for failing to grant any "right to life" to the unborn. "I don't find any, any indication that you'll give any right to the unborn under the law … The ultimate right to life is totally absent [from your testimony]. It's a matter of feeling, a matter of privacy, a hunch," he said.⁴⁴

Silencing protests by Thompson and his partner lobbyist, Rosemary Radford Ruether, East accused the group of "defending your political turf" rather than expressing true theological views. Life is a continuum from conception to death, he declared, and Congress must determine at what point on that line life should be protected.⁴⁵

In various forms, the "pro-choice" position defended by denominational leaders and the Religious Coalition on Abortion Rights⁴⁶ has been reaffirmed by subsequent general assemblies. Presbyterians Pro-Life has won a few victories, the major one being a general assembly condemnation of "partial-birth abortion," and another being a resolution replacing the word "fetus" with "unborn child." But even when the pro-life group has won the inclusion of such wording in general assembly statements, it has been confronted with the intractability of a denominational infrastructure that refuses to implement any change in its radical pro-choice proclivities. Liberals may have conceded that the subject under discussion is an unborn child, but they still insist on killing it.

Who Is Lord?
The theme that has surfaced in Presbyterian Church (USA) human sexuality debates for more than 40 years is that individuals are entitled to control their own destinies. Missing from that theme is a sense of accountability to anyone other than one's own, autonomous self. Thus, the subject of sex is forcing this denomination to address the far more ultimate question: "Who is Lord?"

V. A More Perfect Union?
Today, few would contest the observation that the Presbyterian Church (USA) has been shattered. Historically, the two elements that engendered this communion were its Reformed convictions, expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith, and its Reformed polity, expressed in its Book of Order. Comprising its Constitution, these documents helped generations of Presbyterians understand what Presbyterians believe and how they are to act. Grounded in these "essential tenets of belief and practice," our forebears professed the faith, built churches and established institutions to under gird their burgeoning ministries.

In this brief history, we have traced the effects of two losses. One is the loss of core beliefs. The other is the loss of order. These losses were fomented by the embrace of secular humanism, an ideology that enthrones individual autonomy and rejects the principles that underlie a corporate life.

Unable to appeal to common faith and practice, denominational managers struggle to find a bonding agent that might stop the fragmentation of their institution. When an institution loses its moral authority, coercion is its only remaining tool. Rarely successful, coercion is often a sign that the organization's terminal phase has begun.

In the rapidly splintering Presbyterian Church (USA), ministers are increasingly coming under fire when they show signs of institutional disloyalty. Presbytery executives often warn their clergy that their ecclesiastical futures may be in jeopardy. Heavy-handed administrative tactics are employed in lieu of Book of Discipline procedures that mandate fundamental fairness and due process. Resistance to hierarchical mandates is greeted with the presumption that a minister has renounced the jurisdiction of the Presbyterian Church (USA).

Invoking the Book of Order's property clause is the coercion of choice for dealing with churches considering disaffiliation from the denomination. As a result of this tactic, many congregations are examining their corporate documents and considering injunctive relief in courts of law.

The "Louisville Papers," documents that were drawn up by denominational lawyers in 2005 and 2006 to deal with ministers and congregations that are deemed dissident, offer a graphic illustration of the coercive strategies that are prevalent among ecclesiastical managers. Far from providing stability and cohesion, these documents have resulted in an increased sense of estrangement between the denomination and its congregations.

Considering these ecclesiastical conditions, it is little wonder that membership is plummeting, deficits are rising, and a sense of malaise has enervated a once vibrant denomination. Having embraced incompatible faiths, the Presbyterian Church (USA) suffers a malady that was predicted long ago. Politics will not save it.

VI. What Next?
It is beyond the scope of this paper to predict the future. Our purpose is to address the question that many Presbyterians are asking when observing the state of their denomination; namely, "What happened?" As we said at the outset, one responds to such questions, not with conjecture, but with history.

History may, however, offer a clue to the future. If, in fact, the seeds that produced the denomination's current condition lie in its decision to abandon the essential tenets of the Christian faith, then it would seem reasonable to assume that a disciplined embrace of faith's fundamentals might result in a turnaround future.

An examination of the current denominational infrastructure reveals not the slightest indication that so radical a change of heart and mind is either desired or possible. Repentance is Kingdom language, and the autonomous self welcomes no king.

But the Kingdom of God is at hand. Jesus himself said so, adding to his announcement the command, "Repent, and believe the Gospel."⁴⁷ While that announcement and its consequent command have not evoked institutional repentance, they have touched the hearts and minds of thousands of Presbyterians who currently reside within that institution. Communities of those who thrive on God's Word are emerging, and they are discovering one another. In configurations whose shape and form may not yet be clear, they celebrate a corporate conviction, trusting that where two or three gather in the Lord's name, he also will be there. Human institutions come and go. His Kingdom is forever.

This article is excerpted from the forthcoming book Broken Covenant: Signs of a Shattered Communion by Parker T. Williamson, which will be published by Reformation Press. It is reprinted here with the permission of the publisher. It also appeared in the final report of the New Wineskins Association of Churches' strategy team and is included in A Time for Every Purpose Under Heaven.

Footnotes

1. Presbyterians aspiring to ordination were required to affirm: (a) the inspiration of the Bible by the Holy Spirit and the inerrancy of Scripture as a result of this inspiration; (b) the virgin birth of Christ; (c) the belief that Christ's death was an atonement for sin; (d) the bodily resurrection of Christ; (e) the historical reality of Christ's miracles.

2. Machen, J.Gresham, Christianity and Liberalism (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Erdman, 1923).

3. The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA), Part One: The Book of Confessions (Louisville, Ky.; Office of the General Assembly; 1999; paragraph 9.29; p. 257.

4. Cox, Harvey; The Secular City, (New York; Macmillan Company; 1965).

5. Altizer, Thomas J.J; The Gospel of Christian Atheism (Philadelphia; Westminster Press; 1966).

6. Robinson, John A.T; Honest To God (Atlanta; Westminster John Knox Press; 1963).

7. Bonhoeffer, Dietrich; Letters and Papers From Prison (New York; Macmillan; 1968).

8. "Declaration" by The Presbytery of the South, Synod of Colombia, South America.

9. IDOC-North America; No. 54; Summer, 1973.

10. Grapevine (JSAC) Vol. 6, 1975

11. Ibid.

12. Time Magazine, September 18, 1978

13. Moderator Rhee's suggestion, a political solution to a theological problem, has been employed often by general assemblies, most recently in the 2006 General Assembly's adoption of a "Peace, Unity and Purity" recommendation affirming the denomination's standards of sexual behavior, but allowing governing bodies to declare them "non-essential."

14. Christianity Today; July, 2001.

15. Ibid.

16. The Presbyterian Layman, Vol. 13, No. 5

17. Ibid.

18. Op. Cit., Vol. 14, No 2.

19. Minutes of the 193rd General Assembly, United Presbyterian Church in the USA.

20. Minutes of the 210th General Assembly, Presbyterian Church (USA).

21. Minutes of the 211th General Assembly, Presbyterian Church (USA).

22. Minutes of the 206th General Assembly, Presbyterian Church (USA)

23. Ottati, Douglas F.; Jesus Christ and Christian Vision (Minneapolis, Minn.; Augsburg Fortress: 1989).

24. Ruether, Rosemary Radford; Sexism and God-Talk (Boston; Beacon Press; 1993).

25. Ibid.

26. The Presbyterian Layman; Vol. 29, No. 2

27. Report of Investigating Committee; Presbytery of Western North Carolina; November, 2003.

28. The Presbyterian Layman; Vol. 3, No. 7

29. Minutes of the 182nd General Assembly, United Presbyterian Church in the USA.

30. Church and Society; March/April 1970.

31. Minutes of the 190th General Assembly, United Presbyterian Church in the USA.

32. Ibid.

33. Ibid.

34. The number displayed on General Assembly projection screens was 94.4 percent.

35. Minutes of the 190th General Assembly; United Presbyterian Church in the USA.

36. Nelson, James; Sexuality and the Sacred. (Louisville, Ky.; Westminster John Knox Press; 2006).

37. Minutes of the 203rd General Assembly; Presbyterian Church (USA).

38. Constitutional amendments proposed by a General Assembly must be ratified by a majority of the denomination's 173 presbyteries before they become church law.

39. Minutes of the 182nd General Assembly; United Presbyterian Church in the USA.

40. Minutes of the 184th General Assembly; United Presbyterian Church in the USA.

41. Religion News Service, Nov. 14, 1975.

42. Presbyterian Church Office of Information; Sept. 27, 1980.

43. Religion News Service; June 16, 1981.

44. Ibid.

45. Ibid.

46. The name of this lobby was subsequently changed to the more benign "Presbyterians Affirming Reproductive Options."

47. Mark 1: 15-16