Download PC(USA)`s Poison Pill - Presbyterian Coalition

Layman Online Commentary:
PCUSA’s poison pill
By Forrest A. Norman III, The Layman, Posted Tuesday, March 15, 2011
The island of Guam is infested with snakes. Inadvertently introduced to the island after hitching
a ride on ships during World War II, and lacking a natural predator, the snakes have thrived.
To rid the island of the invasive brown tree snakes, which no one seems to want, dead mice
packed with aspirin have been airdropped into the jungle canopy. The plan is simple: the snakes
eat the aspirin-packed mice, go into a coma and die. Apparently brown tree snakes like mice, but
the drug which cures headaches in humans kills the snakes.1 It’s the classic “poison pill.”
In legal terms, a “poison pill” is a defensive device built into a corporate structure to deter hostile
takeovers. While varying in form, the basic idea is that when a change in control is in the works,
the corporation to be taken over is burdened with heavy financial obligations which make the
takeover less appealing.
In nFOG, the Presbyterian Church (USA) has offered up its own version of the poison pill. The
amendment contains elements of both the legal plan and the snake-plan. Embedded like aspirin
in the mice, and triggered by a change of control like the corporate version, several things will
happen if the presbyteries vote to digest the nFOG: Power structures will change, hierarchies will
be strengthened, congregations will be disempowered and the denomination that once was – will
be gone.
The nFOG seeks to change the basic corporate structure of the church – taking it from a
presbyterial system to a much more hierarchical one. Gone will be the elegant balance of
presbyters from the local churches gathering to discern God’s will, and in its place will be
mandated openness to ideas that fundamentally undermine the church’s faith and theology.
The change is so great, yet subtly stated, that even the permissive powers of the particular church
are replaced with expressly limiting language. The similarity is no doubt designed to appease or
confuse the casual reader. Compare, for example, the current G-7.0304 which states that
“Business to be transacted at meetings of the congregation shall include … matters related to the
permissive powers of a congregation …” with the proposed nFOG’s version: “Business to be
transacted at meetings of the congregation shall be limited to [a short list].”2 There are no
permissive powers listed for a congregation in nFOG.
The proposed structural changes are troubling, but not nearly so much as the “aspirin” part of the
deal. If presbyters really want a different form of government, then so be it; there is Biblical
precedent: “Give us a king” cried Israel. And even that criticism may be a bit harsh, as there are
still a few checks in the nFOG process. If there is a common bond among the presbyters, then the
plan is workable, with much good will and forbearance brought to the table. But I fear there is
not. Instead there is a tasty looking morsel on the table which is packed with the pain-killing
drug of relativism.
First on the plate is the false promise of universalism. Gone is the Calvinist doctrine of Limited
Atonement, the “L” in T.U.L.I.P., which tells us that Christ’s death was a substitutionary
endurance of the penalty of sin for the elect, and that Christ’s redeeming work was intended to
save those whom God the Father had given Jesus Christ the Son. Instead, nFOG misleadingly
promises that God “redeems ... all things and all people.”3 nFOG goes on to proclaim that God’s
mission was to liberate Israel from oppression and bring good news to all who are
“impoverished” which is a very limited way of articulating the Gospel of Jesus Christ presented
in the Bible.”4
Now if you are troubled by this shift in theology under nFOG, swallow hard because there is a
directive that there be “unity in diversity” which tells us that we are to be united in the church
“regardless of theological conviction.” Under nFOG everyone is to tolerate and celebrate all
differences, including all theological ideologies.
If this logic is causing you a headache, just take more aspirin, and swallow this: Despite the
pronouncement that diversity is to be respected, those who believe in traditional Reformed
theology will not be able to stand up for it, because nFOG “shall guarantee full participation and
representation in its worship, governance and emerging life to all persons or groups within its
membership.”5 The terms “emerging life” and “groups” are not defined. Given that we are to be
united with all persons regardless of theological convictions, it could arguably include New Age
Wiccans looking for a little open ecumenicity as the PCUSA seeks reform and “fresh
direction.”6 And while that example may be a bit over the top, the “group” is expected to include
those not of the Reformed faith, or necessarily of Christian faith at all.
There is a redefinition of terms and a new rhetoric at work. Under the nFOG, we must “extend
the fellowship of Christ to all persons” and “Failure to do so constitutes a rejection of Christ
Himself and causes a scandal to the Gospel.”7 So the only sin according to nFOG is not to drink
the Kool-Aid of universalism, which is, I guess, a chaser to the mouse stuffed with aspirin.
There is much good in the words of nFOG, but it is tainted by what it conceals. Dressed up in
theological-sounding verbiage, far too many of the principles embedded in nFOG are nothing
more than an invitation to divergence from the faith once delivered to the saints. Be as wise as a
serpent and sniff out the poison pill before you swallow the meal.
Forrest A. Norman III is a member of Hudson Presbyterian Church (EPC) in Hudson, Ohio. He
is chairman of the Board of Directors and chief executive officer of the Presbyterian Lay
Committee.
Footnotes
1. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/09/100924-science-animals-guambrown-tree-snakes-mouse-tylenol/
2. nFOG G-1.0503.
3. nFOG F-1.01.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Ibid.
Ibid.
See, e.g. nFOG F-1.0402, F-1.0403, and F-1.0401.
nFOG G-1.0302.