If It Quacks Like a Duck, It Might Be a Presbyterian

Perhaps an Inconsistent One




My friend, Rachel Miller, who blogs at A Daughter of the Reformation is concerned about the importation of Roman Catholic practices into Presbyterian churches. She lists six things that bother her :
  • Eucharistic Liturgy  
  • Intinction
  • Monastic Retreats
  • Contemplative Prayer
  • Vestments
  • Observance of Ash Wednesday/Lent

Her conclusion: 
In the end, I’m not sure why so many Catholic practices are finding their way into Reformed Presbyterian churches. It seems to me that these things have the “feel” of worship, and maybe that is the attraction. Maybe there is boredom or discontent with our own traditions. Maybe there is a desire to “do church” differently. Whatever the reason, maybe we should stop and reconsider. All of these things are part of a religious tradition that our spiritual ancestors broke away from. Maybe we should give more thought as to why. 

I want to offer a few comments about several statements Rachel makes in expressing her concerns (I will not comment on contemplative prayer or monastic retreats as I know nothing of them), but first a little context: 

I was a student at Reformed Theological Seminary in the "old days" (1969-72). The faculty was a mix of Southern Presbyterian and Dutch Reformed ministers. The faculty member who taught worship and preaching was the Rev. Richard Allen Bodey, a Presbyterian Church, U.S.A. ("Northern"), formerly United Presbyterian, minister. Mr. Bodey introduced us very low-church, evangelical, conservative Presbyterians to a strange new world...
  • the liturgical calendar including, not only Christmas and Easter with which we were familiar, but Advent, Lent, Ascension, Pentecost, and Trinity
  • an ordered worship that moved from approaching God (e.g. adoration, confession), to hearing God (e.g. Scripture lessons, sermon), to responding to God (e.g. offering, prayers, sacrament)  
  •  use of The (Presbyterian) Book of Common Worship, with multiple Scripture readings, written prayers, corporate confession of sins, assurances of pardon, a Communion liturgy - which borrowed from the liturgies of the ancient, the the liturgies of Continental Reformed, and the liturgies of the English Protestant church before the Puritans
  • distinctive clerical clothing including the use of a collar, the Geneva gown, and stoles  
Projects included preparing a year's calendar indicating the liturgical seasons and appropriate colors, writing collects and other prayers, memorizing the whole Communion service, and planning services for a year with lessons and hymns. 

Was all this Reformed and Presbyterian? Mr. Bodey, who appreciated the post-World War II liturgical renewal movement, was sure it was. Other faculty members found it too "high church."

Now to Rachel's concerns.

About Eucharistic liturgy she writes: 
First, while there are many opinions and preferences on liturgical style in worship, there is more going on here than simply responsive readings. Some churches have begun to borrow liturgy from the Catholic Eucharist mass to use in their own communion services. Most often what is used is the “mysterium fidei”

Minister: Let us proclaim the mystery of faith:

All: Christ has died.

Christ is risen.

Christ will come again.
These words are absolutely true. Christ has indeed died, risen, and will come again. But it’s important to consider the origin and meaning of this piece of liturgy.

This liturgy comes from the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The purpose of the liturgy is to consecrate the host or Eucharist for the celebration of the communion rite. The mysterium fidei comes from the part when the priest consecrates the wine, turning the wine into the blood of Jesus.

This is important because the “mystery of faith,” according to the Catholic church, is that once the bread and wine have been consecrated they are transformed into the actual body and blood of Christ. Which is why the consecrated elements, bread and wine, are held up for veneration. In fact, the entire celebration of the Eucharist liturgy is to offer up Christ as a sacrifice to God each and every time...
...Why would any Reformed Presbyterian believer want to return to Eucharistic liturgy in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper? We certainly don’t believe that the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Jesus. Words have meanings, and liturgy has a history. Is our own liturgical history so empty that we need to borrow words from a ceremony whose very meaning is contrary to all we believe?
If "there are many opinions and preferences on liturgical style in worship" what opinions and preferences are acceptable? I think what she is getting at is that there are allowable opinions such as favoring  "traditional" or "contemporary" worship. One may prefer singing Psalms only, or Psalms and historic hymns, or praise and worship songs alone or combined with Psalms and/or hymns. One person might prefer that worship be lead by a minister while someone else would prefer worship led by a worship team or praise band. In other words, the problem with the use of the "mysterium fidei" is that it does not fit within her list of acceptable opinions and preferences. The problem for her is because of its connection with the Roman mass. Other practices are allowable despite their being derived from charismatic worship. (If it walks like a charismatic and quacks like a charismatic, is it a charismatic?)

The word "eucharist" ("eucharisteo": "to give thanks) is a term for the Holy Communion (the Lord's Supper) that is derived from the Bible. All three Gospel accounts and the Pauline account record our Lord's giving thanks as he instituted the sacrament. The Supper is "the Thanksgiving."

Now, what about the "mysterium fidei" or the "mystery of faith." This, too, is a Biblical concept derived from 1 Timothy 3:9 ("They (deacons) must hold the mystery of faith with a clear conscience") and 1 Timothy 3:16:


Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness:
He was manifested in the flesh, 
vindicated by the Spirit,
seen by angels,
proclaimed among the nations,
believed on in the world,
taken up in glory.

What about "the mystery of faith" that "we confess" - that "Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again"? A mystery in the Bible is not something eerie or mystical, but rather something that cannot be known by human observation or reason but must be revealed by God. The proclamation of the mystery is the proclaiming the faith God has revealed to us in Christ and by apostles and prophets. (It is worth noting that some Roman Catholics are not happy with either the word "proclaim" - preferring "acclaim" - or with the placement of the proclamation in the liturgy as it is no longer a part of the consecration itself but comes after the consecration.)


It appears that the objection is that, when Presbyterians confess the mystery of faith in the celebration of the Lord's Supper, while the words as they stand in no way confess a belief in transubstantiation or sacrifice on an altar, they are saying words that Roman Catholics, who do believe in such things, say as part of the Mass. What then if the Apostles Creed or the Nicene Creed or "Jesus is Lord" is said? Or, what if the Presbyterian minister as he gives the invitation to and the exhortation at the Table should choose to say: "Christ has died. Christ is risen. Christ will come again"? Is this allowed? What if "Come, Ye Disconsolate" (first two verses by Irish Catholic, Thomas Moore) is sung as a Communion hymn? Unless you are willing to go all the way and prescribe a liturgy for the Lord's Supper, then the fact that the people say something true, that is also said by Roman Catholics, is no objection at all. It is a matter of freedom within the limits of directed worship (Presbyterians have directories for worship). 

Concern about the use of the "mysterium fidei" leads to a consideration of the practice of intinction
A related topic is the practice of intinction. Intinction, or dipping the communion bread into the wine, is a practice that originated with the Catholic and Eastern churches. One of the most common reasons given for the practice within those churches was to reduce the risk of spilling the consecrated wine. Remember, once the wine has been consecrated it is believed to be the actual blood of Christ.
Most of the current arguments for intinction, such as reducing the time it takes to celebrate communion and being more hygienic than drinking from a common cup, are more pragmatic. Some ask why it even matters how we celebrate communion.
Intinction
I was present recently at an Episcopal funeral that was attended by a goodly number of Presbyterians. When an old (in two senses) Presbyterian minister friend went to the rail to receive Communion, I observed that he both knelt and received by intinction. Inasmuch as he is a traditional conservative Presbyterian and a member of a Presbytery that would frown on intinction, I went to him after the service and said, "If I ever get mad at you, I am going to report this to your Presbytery!"


For a history and critique of intinction by a Presbyterian minister readers may wish to consult a paper by Lane Kiester. The early practice of intinction was probably related to giving Holy Communion to the sick. Eventually it became the common practice of the Eastern Church. But it was rare in the practice of the Western Church till rather recently. The 1948 Lambeth Conference approved it as an option for Anglicans, though receiving in both kinds separately remained normative. It is now approved as one option for Roman Catholics.

Ms. Miller is right that where intinction is practiced among Presbyterians (and other Protestants) the justifications are pragmatic. (1) Numbers and time: My first experience with intinction came at a large gathering of Presbyterian missionaries in Turkey. Ministers who were present were asked to distribute. We were given chalices and asked to dip the wafers into the wine. It was a purely practical arrangement based on the number of communicants and the time to commune each. (2) Health or squeamishness: When I ribbed my Presbyterian minister friend about his communing by intinction, he acknowledged to me that it was because he did not want to drink from the common cup. 

I allow but do not encourage intinction in my parish. I believe that communing should include two distinct receptions on the part of the communicant - eating and drinking. Among Protestants who practice intinction it is, so far as I can tell, an issue of hygiene. (One study has shown that the risk of getting a disease by receiving from the common cup is very minimal, but is slightly greater where a purificator - or cloth - is used after each communing person drinks from the cup.) 

For the same reasons that I would prefer that people not commune by intinction, many Presbyterians object to the practice. But where it is practiced, it is not an import from Roman Catholicism. It is a practice that is used for practical reasons where the common cup - which I believe is the proper way - is used. Put simply Presbyterians who practice intinction do not wish to drink after one another. 

About vestments she writes: 

Equally curious is the move towards wearing Catholic style robes and vestments, including the increasingly popular clerical collars. There is nothing intrinsically
Jonathan Edwards
wrong with robes and stoles and collars of various shapes and colors. However, incertain styles are strongly associated with particular religious traditions that we are not part of as Reformed Presbyterian churches. While I agree that these robes, etc. are visually striking, if a pastor wants to wear a robe, why not a traditional Geneva gown? Why look like something we aren’t?"

Charles Hodge
in Cravat
With regard to the collar, it is likely that it was invented by a Presbyterian - the Rev. Donald Mcleod of the Church of Scotland. Reformed ministers often added the "preaching bands" which are attached to the collar (see Edwards) when in the pulpit. It was adopted and adapted by other churches including Anglicans, Lutherans, and Methodists. The practice of Roman Catholic priests wearing the collar as daily wear did not become widespread till after Vatican II the cassock was increasingly abandoned. It might reasonably be said that the wearing of the collar is not a case of Presbyterians going Roman but of Romans going Presbyterian. Be that as it may, if there is "nothing intrinsically wrong" with collars and vestments, then there is nothing wrong with them. They are a matter of preference.

Then Rachel questions the observance of Lent by Presbyterians:
Last, an appropriate one for this time of year, many churches have begun celebrating Ash Wednesday and Lent. I have absolutely nothing against prayer, fasting, and reflecting on Jesus and His death and resurrection. However the historic practice of observing Lent is more than that...
Many articles have been written about Lent and why Reformed believers should question the practice, but what is important to remember is that the purpose of Lent, historically, is penance and the earning of merit towards salvation. It is a practice so antithetical to the doctrine of justification by faith alone. If something is a sin, we should stop doing it, but not just for 40 days. If something is not a sin, we are free to enjoy it or not. Our lives should be always marked with sober reflection of our sin and of our salvation.
Presbyterians who are interested in a criticism of the observance of Lent from the perspective of the Regulative Principle of Worship may want to consult Roland Barnes "Why I Don't Observe Lent" , an article from which Rachel quotes.

There are several things worth noting. First, no church teaches that one is free to commit sins during the rest of the year but should put them away during Lent. Lent,
like the old Communion Seasons of the Scottish Church, is a time of self-examination, repentance, and abstinences as a way of focusing on spiritual things. It is something like walking with our Lord through his 40 days in the wilderness so that we focus not only on our sins but also on the trials and sufferings of our Lord for our salvation.  

Second, the statement "what is important to remember is that the purpose of Lent, historically, is penance and the earning of merit towards salvation. It is a practice so antithetical to the doctrine of justification by faith alone" is incorrect. The practice of a short period of fasting before Easter was in existence when the Council of Nicaea met in A.D. 325. Observance of Lent as meritorious is a Middle Ages development. The observance of Lent was not rejected by all the Reformed, as this from the Second Helvetic Confession demonstrates:
LENT. The fast of Lent is attested by antiquity but not at all in the writings of the apostles. Therefore it ought not, and cannot, be imposed on the faithful. It is certain that formerly there were various forms and customs of fasting. Hence, Irenaeus, a most ancient writer, says: "Some think that a fast should be observed one day only, others two days, but others more, and some forty days. This diversity in keeping this fast did not first begin in our times, but long before us by those, as I suppose, who did not simply keep to what had been delivered to them from the beginning, but afterwards fell into another custom either through negligence or ignorance" (Fragm. 3, ed. Stieren, I. 824 f.). Moreover, Socrates, the historian, says: "Because no ancient text is found concerning this matter, I think the apostles left this to every man's own judgment, that every one might do what is good without fear or constraint" (Hist. ecclesiast. V.22, 40).

The Reformed Church of England retained Ash Wednesday and Lent. Those who wish to see the Ash Wednesday service as it was in the time of close cooperation between Thomas Cranmer (Protestant martyr) and the Protestant King Edward may find it at this site for the 1549 Book of Common Prayer.

Here is the problem for Presbyterians who object to Lent: Do you keep Christmas? Palm Sunday? Good Friday? Easter? Do you observe Advent - perhaps as a time of of singing Christmas hymns, Christmas choir and children's programs, Christmas- themed sermons? Why? And, if those, why do you draw the line at Lent? 

There are thorny issues Presbyterians face regarding the Regulative Principle of Worship. There are those who observe it strictly. Their goal is to do nothing with regard to worship that is not approved by Scripture by precept or approved example. Things get sticky when it comes to issues such as what may be sung in worship. Only Psalms, no hymns? Why metrical Psalms rather than Psalms that can be chanted literally? What about offerings as part of worship? Seasons for missions or stewardship? A missions moment? Why a Geneva gown when academics no longer wear robes? If not the Geneva gown, why the suit? Why not tee shirts, shorts, and boat shoes?

During most of my 65 years as a Presbyterian I observed inconsistent Presbyterians (Whitman: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds..."). Even relatively strict ones, who would prefer not to celebrate Christmas or not to sing hymns, do so as a concession to their congregations. My wife was once a member of a Presbyterian church, where the senior minister would have preferred not to celebrate Christmas, but during one December every morning sermon, every evening sermon, and every prayer meeting meditation was on a Christmas theme. There are strict regulative principle Presbyterians whom are to be respected for their consistency. But the vast majority construe the principle very broadly.

In my ecclesiastical connection now we don't observe Christmas at all - except for twelve days beginning December 25 and ending January 5. Before December 25 we observe Advent (and sing not a single carol) and beginning January 6 we celebrate Epiphany. We follow the prescriptions of the Book of Common Prayer, not the suggestions of a Presbyterian Directory. This makes me more strict about worship than almost all Presbyterians.

If it quacks like a duck, it might be...


a Roman Catholic Duck
a Charismatic Duck
a Presbyterian Duck
a Baptist Duck
or the oddest of ducks -
a Reformed Episcopal Duck

































The PCA Has Got to Get Its Mind Right on Race

No Place for Cool Hand Luke







      

Boss Paul: You got your mind right, Luke? 

Luke: Yeah. I got it right. I got it right, boss.



It is a great burden be righteous and among the unrighteous. If you are righteous, and they are unrighteous, you've got to get their minds right.

This is acutely so if you are a righteous Christian, and you and unrighteous Christians are living together in the church. You must convince them they are wrong; you must get them to repent; you must straighten out their thinking; you must get them and keep them on the path of righteousness.

Let's say you and I believe that homosexual practice is morally evil, that homosexual practice is subject to ecclesiastical discipline, and that no two Christian persons may with God's or the church's approval be joined together in a homosexual marital relationship. 

After that we have differences. You believe that that homosexual practice should be criminalized and that the legal system should arrest, prosecute, and punish those who are guilty of homosexual practice. You believe the society should discriminate against avowed homosexuals. You believe society should not allow civil partnerships nor homosexual marriage. On the other hand I am against using criminal sanctions, against civil discrimination, could live with civil partnerships, and, while I see great complications if civil marriages are allowed, am not so opposed to them as you. 

So far we are OK as fellow believers. We have different political views. You are a social conservative, and I am a libertarian. We might even both be members of the same political party! What is important is that we can both be members in good standing of the same church and can eat the bread of our Lord's sacrificed body and drink the cup of his shed blood.

But let's suppose we both are convinced that our positions are righteous and the other's unrighteous. Our differences, as we see them, are Biblical, theological, and moral. What now? Well, we need the church to declare our view as righteous and call the other to repentance. 

Last week I commented twice about the talk of Michelle Higgins at the Urbana Missions Conference sponsored by InterVarsity Christian Fellowship: This Does Not End Well for the PCA and Why This Does Not End Well for the PCA

Let me be clear. If Ms. Higgins wants within our political system to support declaring Robert E. Lee a traitor, paying reparations to African Americans, boycotting Walmart, requiring preferential treatment of all minority groups by the government, redistributing the wealth, putting Martin Luther King on Mt. Rushmore, and disenfranchising white Mississippians, we are political opponents. I would declare that Robert E. Lee is one of my heroes. I oppose reparations, boycotts, preferential treatment, and redistribution. I not only would not put Martin Luther King on Mt. Rushmore but might sandblast off some on there now. I am opposed to disenfranchising of any Mississippians. 

But the nature of our differences cannot be confined to politics - for her. She believes the side she takes is the side of righteousness and that my failure to agree with and support her is unrighteous. So in the end, if we were still in the same denomination (I was a Presbyterian from birth till 2013, a Presbyterian minister from 1972 till 2013, and a PCA minister from 1973-2013) she and those who agree with her would be wanting me to get my mind right - for the sake of Christ, the church's witness, righteous treatment of the poor and disenfranchised, and the good of my own soul. 

I say that on the basis of her own speeches and writing. I say, too, on the basis of what others have written. Consider letters published by PCA Pastors at the  Gospel Reconciliation and Justice Network

E.C. Bell thinks the Duncan-Lucas Resolution was much too moderate:
There is no question that the personal resolution proposed at the Chattanooga GA raises an issue that needs to be addressed, but does the resolution mark a change in the PCA either culturally or theologically?... It could be argued the resolution is a continuation of the conservative culture and theology that has defined much of the Presbyterian history in America... The Presbyterian Church, ... has enjoyed a great deal of prestige for most of this nation’s history. We have not been immune to the siren song of temporal status and wealth and we have made the ethical compromises necessary to maintain it. It is not easy to give up old idols. Today we may feel compelled to ask forgiveness for the sinful results of that idolatry, but still be disinclined to abandon those idols altogether. The timing and limited scope of the personal resolution... seem to fit naturally in our cultural and theological tradition: a long standing commitment to the idols of cultural and institutional stability, even if that means the delay of justice for the oppressed. This commitment has rendered us all but incapable of recognizing any current cultural and social injustices that we are participating in and benefiting from. If we continue in our historic pattern, which has been marked by unbending commitment to a cultural ‘conservatism’ and follow an underdeveloped doctrine of sanctification, we are condemning ourselves to a future of belated apologies and ongoing kingdom impotency. 
We cannot expect long held cultural and theological sins and errors to be instantly acknowledged. Nor can we underestimate the difficulty those enslaved to sins have in repenting... What is regrettable is that we have had no culture of pastoral engagement seeking to address these issues; no patient but purposeful plan to be used by the Holy Spirit to rescue our brothers in Christ from the bondage to this sin. .... We have even redefined racism so that it does not include segregation...We seem content to confront and discipline a particular set of sins in our churches...but not an officer of the church...Have we left such people in positions of power because we doubted the power of the Spirit to apply the work of Christ to bring about change in their lives? If the willingness to adopt a position of ‘moderation’ (refusing to address directly the old racists’ need to repent) exists because the battle caused by calling sin “sin” might have harmed the institutions, this has profound implications for the spiritual care of our people. (See more of Bell below.)
Barry Henning thinks the problem is western society including the Reformed church from the time of the Reformation:
One of the major contributing factors that has provided us with the theological rationale to function as a church without genuine reconciliation has been a redefinition of the kingdom of God to fit a majority culture and individualistic culture point of view. We have too often conflated the “good news of the kingdom of God” with only personal salvation and justification. That has led us reading passages about the kingdom for the poor and kingdom justice as simply and only a reference to an attitude of the heart of the individual sinner seeking personal salvation and a standing of forensic righteousness in Christ. We have actually exchanged the amazing announcement of the kingdom of God and the anointing of the Messiah to bring his actual (not only forensic) justice/righteousness to the nations of the earth (Isaiah 42) and to announce good news to the poor and to set the captives free (Isaiah 61, Luke 4) as the means for seeing his kingdom come into this world, to a gospel of only personal, individualized salvation. This redefinition and individualizing allows us to be complicit in the cultural sins of racism and oppression and economic greed on both a personal and structural level...Very closely tied to this is the history of the white, western church as part of the dominant culture. Because the history of white, western Christianity became entangled with the majority culture power structures, including during the Reformation and later in the founding of the United States, we have increasingly stumbled over the nature of the kingdom of God. We have accepted all along the “natural ethnic division of the church” as a practical reality. Dutch Reformed, German Lutheran, French Catholics, Scots Presbyterian, English Episcopalian. The lure of cultural power within those nation groups helped rationalize this reality. Perhaps the highest expression of an ethnocentric, dominant culture church in the Protestant tradition that we still extol today as the model we all aspire to, was the work embodied in the life of Abraham Kuyper. That model has led us too often with a working definition of the nature of the kingdom of God in its greatest expression, as primarily focused on shaping world views...(See more of Henning below.)
It is too weak to call this the Social Gospel. The old Social Gospel was tame and conservative stuff compared to this. This is Reformed theology (not there there is anything historically Reformed about the theology but that the writers are PCA ministers) drinking at the well of Liberation Theology. It's leftist politics baptized with the Bible. 

Therein is the problem.

This, of course, is the way it is with cultural and political liberalism. It cannot relent till conservatism admits how wrong it is, does penance, gets reeducated, and begins to practice righteous liberalism. But this is more, and it is more dangerous, for the reason that it resides in the church. In society liberalism will say, "All enlightened, right-minded, and good people see things as we do." In the church it is, "All Biblically enlightened, Biblically right-minded, Biblically good-hearted, and Biblically righteous people see things as we do." You can't say, "We have a difference about political and social matters, and we can charitably disagree about these matters as Christians while being united by our faith." No, these are matters of Biblical and Gospel righteousness. Those who disagree must get their minds right - whatever it takes.

Last week a PCA minister posted the first of my two Blogs of last week on a PCA Facebook discussion page and invited comments. You can sense of level of tolerance for those whose minds aren't right:
His evidence is anecdotal (I once sat in an office with a black minister), he slams half of last year's General Assembly, he accuses good men of being persecutors of the faithful for trying to bring Morton Smith to repentance, and he selectively quotes from the most uncharitable sources. Further, he doesn't give any biblical rationale why what he's saying should be accepted. It's an anonymous hit piece from an anonymous blogger, a private spirit...
Mr. Curmudgeon is associating (even identifying?) right wing republican political conservatism with orthodox Christianity. "Progressive" is a dirty word to him. What's interesting is that his association is itself a mild form of heresy in that he is suppressing and limiting a critical yet long neglected application of the true gospel.
 His gross misapplication of the term "social gospel" to modern evangelical concerns for social justice betrays him. 60-70 years ago (in his day), the social gospel was a SUBSTITUTION of the true gospel. Today, the social gospel is seen by "progressive" evangelicals as a RAMIFICATION and long neglected APPLICATION of the true gospel. Two completely different concepts that he fails to grasp.
Curmudgeons aren't usually lovers. Jesus calls us to love our neighbors as ourselves. No caveats. Peter calls us to be completely devoted to one another in love. You cannot be a curmudgeon in Jesus name, but you can repent of the bad tempered, surliness and lack of love for your brother in Jesus name and for his sake. This will have a social effect for the kingdom that is both now and not yet.

Did anybody notice the photo leading the article and appearing in this post? It appears to be a still frame from a video. From all the thousands of still frames to choose from, someone choose this particular frame. I've got to believe that, considering the tone and content of the article, that it wasn't by accident. All of you who are white: without knowing her identity, what was your very, very initial split second reaction when you first glanced at it? I don't know about you, but my sinful, white culturalized heart said: "Angry black woman. Black rage. Look at her shaking her fist." I think the chooser of that still frame insidiously meant to evoke that reaction from from the dark side of me and other white people like me. Both the chooser of this frame and my split second reaction shows the ingrained, insidious and subconscious nature of racism.
Wait now. I watched the video and read the blog. But for the original poster to post a link from a former PCA pastor critique of our race initiative seemed to be a bait to incite a reaction. Just didn't seem helpful to the situation. Was he not aware conservatives would react to wealth redistribution?
It is impossible that the PCA will embrace what these authors think must be embraced and remain a theologically conservative, much less a confessionally Reformed, church. I will agree there is a Gospel issue at stake. Adopt the views of the Gospel Reconciliation and Justice Network, and you will in less than a generation lose the Gospel.

Bell: E.C. Bell grew up in the PCA and is a graduate of both Covenant College and Covenant Theological Seminary. He has assisted in the planÆŸng of PCA churches in Northern California, Colorado, and Oregon. He currently serves as the pastor of Chehalem Valley Presbyterian Church in Newberg Oregon. The Moderate Approach There is no quesÆŸon that the personal resoluÆŸon proposed at the ChaÆ©anooga GA raises an issue that needs to be addressed, but does the resoluÆŸon mark a change in the PCA either culturally or theologically? I would suggest that there are reasons to suspect the answer is, “no.” It could be argued the resoluÆŸon is a conÆŸnuaÆŸon of the conservaÆŸve culture and theology that has defined much of the Presbyterian history in America. It is seen in Dabney’s culturally driven exegesis and Northern Presbyterian’s unwillingness to acknowledge the plight and injusÆŸces plaguing immigrant workers in northern factories and mines. It is seen in the acÆŸon of Edward V. Ramage, Moderator of the synod of the Alabama Presbyterian Church in the United States, when he signed the infamous “Call for Unity” in April of 1963. Dr. King’s powerful response in his “LeÆ©er from a Birmingham Jail” revealed the injusÆŸce of Ramage’s and the other pastors’ request. The nature of power is to seek to maintain the status quo. The Presbyterian Church, in her various forms, has enjoyed a great deal of presÆŸge for most of this naÆŸon’s history. We have not been immune to the siren song of temporal status and wealth and we have made the ethical compromises necessary to maintain it. It is not easy to give up old idols. Today we may feel compelled to ask forgiveness for the sinful results of that idolatry, but sÆŸll be disinclined to abandon those idols altogether. The ÆŸming and limited scope of the personal resoluÆŸon, some forty years aÅŒer the founding of the PCA, seem to fit naturally in our cultural and theological tradiÆŸon: a long standing commitment to the idols of cultural and insÆŸtuÆŸonal stability, even if that means the delay of jusÆŸce for the oppressed. This commitment has rendered us all but incapable of recognizing any current cultural and social injusÆŸces that we are parÆŸcipaÆŸng in and benefiÆŸng from. If we conÆŸnue in our historic paÆ©ern, which has been marked by unbending commitment to a cultural ‘conservaÆŸsm’ and follow an underdeveloped doctrine of sancÆŸficaÆŸon, we are condemning ourselves to a future of belated apologies and ongoing kingdom impotency. The opportunity presented by the proposed resoluÆŸon is not simply the much needed confession of parÆŸcular sins of omission or commission but the opportunity to ask the deeper, far more difficult quesÆŸons, “Why did it take so long?” and “What kind of changes do we need to make to break the paÆ©ern?”


The pracÆŸcal unwillingness to address racism on an insÆŸtuÆŸonal level betrays an unwillingness to address the issue on an individual level. I believe this serves to highlight the weakness in the PCA’s pracÆŸcal view and expectaÆŸon of sancÆŸficaÆŸon. There is no doubt that sancÆŸficaÆŸon will be incomplete this side of glory. It is also important to note that pastorally the work of the Spirit in sancÆŸficaÆŸon is oÅŒen slow and gracious. It has been wisely noted that if the Holy Spirit were suddenly to reveal all of our sin at once it would be overwhelming. We cannot expect long held cultural and theological sins and errors to be instantly acknowledged. Nor can we underesÆŸmate the difficulty those enslaved to sins have in repenÆŸng; parÆŸcularly if they see the sin as a foundaÆŸonal part of their heritage. What is regreÆ©able is that we have had no culture of pastoral engagement seeking to address these issues; no paÆŸent but purposeful plan to be used by the Holy Spirit to rescue our brothers in Christ from the bondage to this sin. Instead there has been resistance to addressing segregaÆŸonist TE’s or RE’s. We have even redefined racism so that it does not include segregaÆŸon. In 2014 Greenville Seminary argued in response to criÆŸcism of its establishing a chair for a segregaÆŸonist faculty member, that segregaÆŸonist views are not racist. RedefiniÆŸon of a sin so that it is no longer a sin is a tragic surrender and troubling denial of the power of the gospel. We seem content to confront and discipline a parÆŸcular set of sins in our churches that are oÅŒen sexual in nature (adultery, homosexuality, sexual promiscuity), but not an officer of the church who thinks slavery and segregaÆŸon are biblically defensible posiÆŸons and should be the law of the land. Have we leÅŒ such people in posiÆŸons of power because we doubted the power of the Spirit to apply the work of Christ to bring about change in their lives? If the willingness to adopt a posiÆŸon of ‘moderaÆŸon’ (refusing to address directly the old racists’ need to repent) exists because the baÆ©le caused by calling sin “sin” might have harmed the insÆŸtuÆŸons, this has profound implicaÆŸons for the spiritual care of our people. Tragically the indifference could also be seen as profoundly judgmental and arrogant. Have we in effec


Henning: Barry Henning is founding pastor of New City Fellowship of St Louis, MO where the church has been living and working out issues of reconciliaÆŸon and jusÆŸce since 1992 in the urban areas of North St. Louis and University City. New City St Louis is a diverse congregaÆŸon represenÆŸng roughly 20 different naÆŸons and has extensive ministries in Job Training, Immigrant Housing, Tutoring, Medical Care, Home Repair, University Student Kingdom Discipleship, Legal Services, a diverse ChrisÆŸan School, and AdopÆŸon and Foster Care. New City has jointly formed an internaÆŸonal mission agency called Kingdom RestoraÆŸon Society with acÆŸve church/board parÆŸcipaÆŸon from Kenya, The DemocraÆŸc Republic of Congo, Togo and Burma. We also work with churches in Pakistan, India, Honduras, Zimbabwe and London, England. Barry and his wife Ann live in an inner-city community in St. Louis and have 4 married children and 20 grandchildren.


One of the major contribuÆŸng factors that has provided us with the theological raÆŸonale to funcÆŸon as a church without genuine reconciliaÆŸon has been a redefiniÆŸon of the kingdom of God to fit a majority culture and individualisÆŸc culture point of view. We have too oÅŒen conflated the “good news of the kingdom of God” with only personal salvaÆŸon and jusÆŸficaÆŸon. That has leÅŒ us reading passages about the kingdom for the poor and kingdom jusÆŸce as simply and only a reference to an aÆ«tude of the heart of the individual sinner seeking personal salvaÆŸon and a standing of forensic righteousness in Christ. We have actually exchanged the amazing announcement of the kingdom of God and the anoinÆŸng of the Messiah to bring his actual (not only forensic) jusÆŸce/righteousness to the naÆŸons of the earth (Isaiah 42) and to announce good news to the poor and to set the capÆŸves free (Isaiah 61, Luke 4) as the means for seeing his kingdom come into this world, to a gospel of only personal, individualized salvaÆŸon. This redefiniÆŸon and individualizing allows us to be complicit in the cultural sins of racism and oppression and economic greed on both a personal and structural level, while sÆŸll leaving us convinced we can effecÆŸvely disciple the culture into the kingdom through an intellectual exercise in personal discipleship and Bible study without actually enacÆŸng the lifestyle of Jesus and the Apostles. Very closely ÆŸed to this is the history of the white, western church as part of the dominant culture. Because the history of white, western ChrisÆŸanity became entangled with the majority culture power structures, including during the ReformaÆŸon and later in the founding of the United States, we have increasingly stumbled over the nature of the kingdom of God. We have accepted all along the “natural ethnic division of the church” as a pracÆŸcal reality. Dutch Reformed, German Lutheran, French Catholics, Scots Presbyterian, English Episcopalian. The lure of cultural power within those naÆŸon groups helped raÆŸonalize this reality. Perhaps the highest expression of an ethnocentric, dominant culture church in the Protestant tradiÆŸon that we sÆŸll extol today as the model we all aspire to, was the work embodied in the life of Abraham Kuyper. That model has leÅŒ us too oÅŒen with a working definiÆŸon of the nature of the kingdom of God in its greatest expression, as primarily focused on shaping world views through the systems and structures of the culture - including the arts, science, poliÆŸcs, economic structures and educaÆŸonal insÆŸtuÆŸons. While all these things are certainly meant to be redeemed, the unchangeable fact that God has called the weak and lowly and the despised things of this world to be the source of confounding the wise and strong is lost on us. The ministries of Jesus and the apostles and many church leaders around the world today, and even in the immigrant church in the U.S., would find it hard to fit in the structures and aspiraÆŸons of our denominaÆŸon. As the Scriptures are read from the perspecÆŸve of the poor and oppressed and excluded minoriÆŸes,

One of the major contribuÆŸng factors that has provided us with the theological raÆŸonale to funcÆŸon as a church without genuine reconciliaÆŸon has been a redefiniÆŸon of the kingdom of God to fit a majority culture and individualisÆŸc culture point of view. We have too oÅŒen conflated the “good news of the kingdom of God” with only personal salvaÆŸon and jusÆŸficaÆŸon. That has leÅŒ us reading passages about the kingdom for the poor and kingdom jusÆŸce as simply and only a reference to an aÆ«tude of the heart of the individual sinner seeking personal salvaÆŸon and a standing of forensic righteousness in Christ. We have actually exchanged the amazing announcement of the kingdom of God and the anoinÆŸng of the Messiah to bring his actual (not only forensic) jusÆŸce/righteousness to the naÆŸons of the earth (Isaiah 42) and to announce good news to the poor and to set the capÆŸves free (Isaiah 61, Luke 4) as the means for seeing his kingdom come into this world, to a gospel of only personal, individualized salvaÆŸon. This redefiniÆŸon and individualizing allows us to be complicit in the cultural sins of racism and oppression and economic greed on both a personal and structural level, while sÆŸll leaving us convinced we can effecÆŸvely disciple the culture into the kingdom through an intellectual exercise in personal discipleship and Bible study without actually enacÆŸng the lifestyle of Jesus and the Apostles. Very closely ÆŸed to this is the history of the white, western church as part of the dominant culture. Because the history of white, western ChrisÆŸanity became entangled with the majority culture power structures, including during the ReformaÆŸon and later in the founding of the United States, we have increasingly stumbled over the nature of the kingdom of God. We have accepted all along the “natural ethnic division of the church” as a pracÆŸcal reality. Dutch Reformed, German Lutheran, French Catholics, Scots Presbyterian, English Episcopalian. The lure of cultural power within those naÆŸon groups helped raÆŸonalize this reality. Perhaps the highest expression of an ethnocentric, dominant culture church in the Protestant tradiÆŸon that we sÆŸll extol today as the model we all aspire to, was the work embodied in the life of Abraham Kuyper. That model has leÅŒ us too oÅŒen with a working definiÆŸon of the nature of the kingdom of God in its greatest expression, as primarily focused on shaping world views through the systems and structures of the culture - including the arts, science, poliÆŸcs, economic structures and educaÆŸonal insÆŸtuÆŸons. While all these things are certainly meant to be redeemed, the unchangeable fact that God has called the weak and lowly and the despised things of this world to be the source of confounding the wise and strong is lost on us.

The paradigm of our culture and of a great many of our churches is one of educaÆŸonal and financial power, personal efficiency, task accomplishment and someÆŸmes a rather naive idea that we are the change agents for the whole world. This isn’t all of us all the ÆŸme; but it is a part of most of us a good deal of the ÆŸme. We can hardly talk about starÆŸng a project without turning to quesÆŸons of “naÆŸonal model” and “global impact” within a few sentences. The model and the teaching of Jesus, the apostles and the early church is that the kingdom moves forward in humble circumstances. It’s not just individually that God’s power is made known in weakness, it’s also corporately. The one church that is the most piÆŸful in John’s leÆ©er-message from Jesus is Laodicea. It is the one with the most cultural power, and the biggest blinders. The theme of God choosing to lead his people in humility runs all the way through the history of Israel (Deut 17:14ff, 20:1ff and virtually every O.T. godly leader you read about) and into the fullness of the expression of the kingdom in the life of Christ (Phil 2 and too many passages to list), the apostles (see esp. 1 Cor 4:1ff and 4:16), and the church (I Cor 1:26ff). The fundamental reasons for God direcÆŸng his people into these humble, dependent condiÆŸons are centered on the issue of the Israel being a people “for the poor” and then, when the full expression of the kingdom comes in Christ, the church pursuing a kingdom that is focused for the benefit of the poor and oppressed.  When we come to the poor and minoriÆŸes who are not part of the dominant culture, from posiÆŸons of cultural power, we naturally tend towards paternalism. Which is one of the other reasons we have the need to imitate Christ and the Apostles by embracing humble circumstances: it is the boasÆŸng in human power (of any kind) that actually feeds division (1 Cor 1:10ff). If we do not see this as a theologically revealed paradigm for the church and something which we must pracÆŸcally embrace as Israel was called to and Jesus and the apostles lived out, and most of the church around the world lives with, I don’t know that we will ever experience large scale reconciliaÆŸon because our paternalism will always be a barrier.  The implicaÆŸons, of course, are preÆ©y revoluÆŸonary (cataclysmic to our current systems). Our colleges, seminaries, church buildings, pastor’s salaries, missionary support levels, church planÆŸng strategies and world mission endeavors would all change and include more of a deliberate move towards the poor, instead of seeking to bring the poor up to our standards and comfort level. Again, some things are happening here. But it is not what is driving the thinking of the church structurally as a whole. Currently we are viewed by too many in and outside of the United States as a willing conspirator with the western cultural abuses of wealth, power and paternalism. The church in this humble, reconciled posiÆŸon would be a genuinely propheÆŸc voice against those cultural abuses and a voice from the reconciled naÆŸons for God’s glory in his jusÆŸce and compassion through the kingdom of Jesus our Messiah and Lord. With these changes the poor would be valued and genuinely embraced, deep reconciliaÆŸon would be fostered and there would be a real sense of the kingdom of God being lived out in the body of Christ that would be our small part in the greatest apologeÆŸc any culture can witness for God sending Jesus as the Messiah for the world.



Why This Doesn't End Well for the PCA

Black Lives Matter
the PCA and the Future

Michelle Higgins,
Director of Worship and Outreach, South City Church (PCA), St.Louis




Yesterday I concluded my Blog about Michelle Higgins' talk at the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship Urbana Missions Conference with, "This does not end well for the PCA."

A friend asked on Facebook, "Can you elaborate what you mean when you say this will not end well for the PCA? That statement can be taken a number of ways, and I'm curious to know what you mean."

Since I have resolved not to enter into political or religious controversy on Facebook or Twitter, I am writing this follow-up to try to answer the question.

I grew up and was ordained to the ministry in the Presbyterian Church, U.S. My pastor from junior high to college graduation (1969), who was, perhaps, the most key leader among the founders of the Presbyterian Church in America, often included a petition for  "victory in Vietnam" in his pulpit prayers. I remember listening from the backseat of a car to a conversation between him and another minister in which he commented, "Generally if a man's politics are conservative, his theology will be conservative." Then, after I graduated from seminary (1972), I attended the meeting of the Synod of Florida at which Dr. Albert Win lectured on a proposed new confession of faith, a female administered the Lord's Supper, and the body debated whether to endorse Caesar Chavez's efforts to organize farm workers in Florida and whether to petition the President to pardon draft resisters who had fled to Canada. 

These anecdotes illustrate the political/social divide within the PCUS that contributed to the founding of the PCA. These were not the most important issues. Biblical inerrancy and authority, the Deity of Christ, the message of the Gospel, and the primacy of evangelism and missions were far more important issues. But at the same time there was underlying, a sometimes spoken, sometimes unspoken, conflict between conservative and liberal political/social views. 

Can those who hold conflicting political/social views walk together? Can the later Francis Schaeffer walk with Jim Wallis? In my opinion only tenuously and temporarily. Why? Because of the tendency to see political/social views as Biblical or Gospel issues. If some see gun rights, a strong military, law and order, advancement by merit, skepticism about or opposition to the welfare state, and free market capitalism as issues of Biblical authority while others see racial justice, white hegemony, economic inequality, peace, and government's responsibility to redress economic and social problems as Gospel issues, you have a fundamental conflict that makes it hard to live together. If you take the first view you are almost certainly a Republican, and if you take the second you are almost surely a Democrat. Now a Republican might take something from the Democrat list, and a Democrat from the Republican list, while remaining in their respective parties. As with political parties so with the church. Some in the church are able to include a progressive value among their generally conservative values, and some are able to include a conservative value among their generally progressive values. But that does not remove the fundamental tension between liberal/progressive and conservative views and values.

The one social/political issue that has united the majority of political/social conservatives with the minority of progressives in the PCA is opposition to abortion. However, Michelle Higgins said at Urbana said that evangelicals are "are too busy withholding mercy from the living so that we might display a big spectacle of how much we want mercy to be shown to the unborn" and that abortion protests by evangelicals is ”activism that makes you comfortable." This suggests that there is at least a developing tension if not a divide over abortion. Ms. Higgins is also committed to Black Lives Matter. To get some idea of other tensions that may develop note this statement from the homepage of their website: "Black Lives Matter affirms the lives of Black queer and trans folks, disabled folks, Black-undocumented folks, folks with records, women and all Black lives along the gender spectrum."

Yesterday I wrote, "This is political progressivism, liberation theology, and social gospel. Historic theological orthodoxy cannot long cohabit with this liberal version of orthopraxis. One or the other will have to move out." 

Here is what I mean. In general when political and social issues get balled up with Biblical authority and the Gospel, orthopraxis (right practice defined in terms of social/political issues rather than personal conformity to Biblical morality) will be elevated to equality with orthodoxy (right doctrine.) This happens with conservatives as well as the liberals. There are those who believe that, if do not believe Jesus taught you must arm yourself, or if you believe that women may run businesses and hold political office, you deny Biblical truth. I do not believe in the conservative social gospel any more than I believe in the liberal one.

But the reality is that the social gospel is mostly identified with political/social progressivism. The social gospel at first is viewed as an expression of the Biblical gospel. Michelle Higgins and her father Mike believe they are living out the Gospel by practicing civil disobedience and getting arrested. The Gospel is that Jesus saves you from the condemnation and control of sin, but also that Jesus means to save society from sins such economic inequality and Western domination. Salvation has as much to do with domestic and foreign policy as it does with personal morality. The social gospel starts out as the camel with his nose under the tent and eventually takes over the tent. Orthopraxis begins as secondary to orthodoxy, becomes equal with orthodoxy, and eventually changes orthodoxy. Progressive orthopraxis and historic orthodoxy don't stay married. One will get a divorce. 

Last summer at the PCA General Assembly Drs. Duncan and Lucas, I am certain, believed in their Resolution as true and right. But one of the effects of their resolution is that the genie of the social gospel is out of the bottle, and it's not going back.








This Does Not End Well for the PCA



Black Lives Matter 

Moves to the Forefront


Michelle Higgins Speaking at Urbana



The threads of history can weave strange cloth.


I became interested in InterVarsity Christian Fellowship in college. I was much impressed when Pete Hammond spoke at an after-Christmas retreat sponsored by my home church. I was also a devoted reader of HIS magazine. When I went to seminary in 1969 I enjoyed a good friendship with George Hunsberger. who had strong ties to IVCF, and appreciated the interaction George facilitated with Pete during Pete's visits to the Reformed Theological Seminary campus. I talked seriously with both of them about becoming an IVCF worker. Later, when I became a campus minister with Reformed University Ministries, I knew we were building on a foundation laid partly by IVCF, and all our campus minsters made much use of books published by InterVarsity Press in our work with students.

In the spring of 1970 I sat with George and several other Reformed Theological Seminary students in the office of the Rev. William Jones, pastor of the Faith Presbyterian Church on Bailey Avenue in Jackson, Mississippi. We met to discuss how seminary students might become involved with and assist Mr. Jones, the only black minister in Central Mississippi Presbytery. That night Mr. Jones said, "I guess it wouldn't hurt to have some of Morton Smith's theology here."

George Hunsberger graduated from the seminary that summer, and his first post-seminary ministry was with InterVarsity Christian Fellowship in Florida. George was ordained in and remained in the PCUS (now PCUSA). It was a joy to Susan and me that, when I was ordained in 1972, George made the effort to attend. George went on to become Dr. Hunsberger, graduating cum laude from Princeton Theological Seminary with a Ph.D., and today is Professor Emeritus of Missiology at Western Theological Seminary.

Dr. Smith, who was the founding professor and Professor of Systematic Theology at RTS, went on to become a founder and first Stated Clerk of the Presbyterian Church in America. Later he became Professor of Systematic Theology at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary. He lives in retirement at age 90.

I went on to become me.

The fruit of that meeting in Mr. Jones office was that I was his summer assistant for the next two summers. I taught Vacation Bible School, played softball on the back lot, and hung around the office. One afternoon Bill, who had left for the afternoon, decided to circle back by the church and intervened when he found me being confronted by some unhappy teenagers (why, I cannot remember.)

These threads of history have been woven into a cloth that strains the eyes if you spend much time looking at it.

Those familiar with conservative Presbyterian history will know that one of the reasons the Presbyterian Church in America was founded in 1973 was the conviction by ministers, elders, and members that the Presbyterian Church in the U.S. was exchanging the Biblical Gospel for the Social Gospel. Among the moral concerns was the practice of civil disobedience in support of the Civil Rights Movement by some PCUS ministers.

No more. At last summer's General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America, Dr. Ligon Duncan, Chancellor of Reformed Theological Seminary, and Dr. Sean Lucas, Professor of Church History at the Jackson Campus and Senior Minister of First Presbyterian Church in Hattiesburg, MS, introduced a Resolution calling upon the church to acknowledge its covenantal and generational racial sins and to confess that members and churches had not only failed to support the Civil Rights movement but in some cases had actively opposed it. One of the goals of the authors of the Resolution was to promote racial reconciliation in the denomination. After much discussion the Assembly, believing the Resolution needed to be perfected, did not adopt it but deferred the matter to next summer's Mobile meeting of the Assembly.

In the immediate aftermath of the Assembly a number of ministers felt it incumbent upon themselves to call attention to Dr. Morton Smith's unenlightened racial views, to encourage others to renounce him, and to call upon him to do public penance. It appears to me unseemly that a father of the the church should be circled by modern day bulls of Bashan.

Now the PCA finds itself right in the middle of Black Lives Matter thanks in part to the ministry of the Rev. Michael Higgins. Dr. Higgins is a retired U.S. Army Colonel and has served as Dean of Students at Covenant Theological Seminary. He is the pastor of South City Church, a PCA congregation in St. Louis. He is committed to civil disobedience in the cause of racial justice and has been arrested.

In the last week, however, it is Dr. Higgins' daughter, Michelle Higgins, who has put the Presbyterian Church in America at the forefront of Black Lives Matter because of a talk she gave at the Urbana Missions Conference sponsored by InterVarsity. The Conference was led in worship by a team wearing Black Lives Matter tee shirts. Then Ms. Higgins spoke.

What did Ms. Higgins say? The Christian Post reports:

The activist explained that, when it comes to social issues, society is unwilling to admit that minorities live with harsh realities like police brutality, mass incarceration and portions of society whose actions suggest that "black bodies are grotesque ... " Instead, society has fallen in love with " ... being comfortable and being correct." 
Higgins issued strong medicine when she challenged the conduct of the Evangelical Church. "We have committed adultery with white supremacy. The Evangelical Church has taken the dominance and power of Eurocentrism and made it its side piece, or part-time lover. ... The Evangelical Church in North America is convinced that African worship is weird. The Evangelical Church is perpetuating 'white is right,' and that is a burden that none of us can bear, especially my white brothers and sisters. ... God wants to relieve you of the burden of being in control."
Some of what she said upset the Pro-Life Movement. The Life Site News commented:
A keynote speaker at InterVarsity Christian Fellowship’s Urbana missions conference criticized the pro-life movement as “a big spectacle” on Monday in St. Louis where 16,000 evangelical Christian students gathered together.
The comment came from Michelle Higgins... during her discussion (video) on racial injustice. “We could end the adoption crisis tomorrow. But we’re too busy arguing to have abortion banned. We’re too busy arguing to defund Planned Parenthood,” charged Higgins. “We are too busy withholding mercy from the living so that we might display a big spectacle of how much we want mercy to be shown to the unborn. Where is your mercy? What is your goal and only doing activism that is comfortable?”
All this could be taken as just another evangelical leftist statement made at a Conference sponsored by an increasingly progressive evangelical ministry organization - except that Ms. Higgins is a member of the Presbyterian Church in America. A graduate of Covenant Seminary, she is Director of Worship and Outreach at her father's church. The Urbana website brochure described her in this way:
A native of St. Louis, Michelle Higgins is actively engaged in the #BlackLivesMatter movement through participation in civil disobedience, leadership development, logistics, and administrative support in both sacred and secular spaces. Michelle holds an MDiv at Covenant Theological Seminary. She is a proud supporter of local activism groups MCU (Metropolitan Congregations United), MORE (Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment) and OBS (the Organization for Black Struggle), through which she has learned a great deal about collaboration and solidarity. She is also the director of Faith for Justice, a Christian advocacy group. She serves as an organizer for the Leadership Development Resource Weekend (LDR Weekend), an annual gathering founded to address the core concerns of dignity, identity, and significance for people of color.
During the recent Christmas season, she wrote on her blog in favor of "people over profit":
If profit is the language of corrupt systems, then people are the centerpiece of systems renewed by justice. For this reason, Faith for Justice is answering the call to participate in a movement that esteems people over profit.
“People over profit” means that human beings matter more than money, plain and simple. On the daily, it means that our quality of life is not connected to the type and number of items we have in our closets or cabinets. So we choose not to define our political value by the amount of money we spend. Instead, we strive for access to power structures that SEE the people they serve, and see us truly, as equals.
If our dollars speak louder than our pain, then we must use our dollars to “kind of redistribute the pain” as Dr. King described in his famous speech the day before he was assassinated.
There has long been a greater concern for wealth and acclaim than healthy relationships, and little attention given to alleviating the struggles of underprivileged people. This is why we disrupt the daily habits that distract us from addressing our privileges. Habits like absentmindedly avoiding small businesses that enrich our communities are easily changed by directing money to businesses owned by people of color as often as we can.
This is political progressivism, liberation theology, and social gospel. Historic theological orthodoxy cannot long cohabit with this liberal version of orthopraxis. One or the other will have to move out.

This does not end well for the PCA.