Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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.