Home
----------------------------
---------------------------- ---------------------------- ---------------------------- ----------------------------
----------------------------
----------------------------
----------------------------

"I applaud Jim Reichley for stating that our church is in trouble because we hesitate to affirm Jesus's claim that he is, now and always, "the way, the truth, and the life." For sure, we do not affirm it intellectually. Very little theologically-oriented preaching or teaching occurs in the PCUSA. We supposedly sophisticated Presbyterians treat the Bible as though it's a pleasant add-on to life rather than -- as our Reformation forbears knew it to be -- the most profound picture of reality that exists.
New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote in his column: "Rigorous theology provides believers with a map of reality . . . . Rigorous theology helps people avoid mindless conformity. . . . Rigorous theology delves into mysteries in ways that are beyond most of us." These ideas have biblical, Christian implications, but you couldn't prove it by our church life. What an irony: a New York Times columnist promotes rigorous theology -- and churches of the PCUSA ignore it!
Our church could not be in worse trouble."

   - Ann White, Washington, D.C.

“Because of the depth of the mystery surrounding our faith, and the indescribable glory of the Transfigured Christ, it is only natural that humans would try to enclose that mystery in buildings, art, music, images, prayers, disciplines, and all the other practices that spring from our natural religious impulses.  Over time these become identified with the core of the faith itself.  But they are not. 

The real spirit of the Reformation is to strip away that which "the church" has added as layers of tradition, human power, and human culture atop the foundation, which is Christ, as described in the Gospels.  This subtractive effort continues to this day. 

Remember, when the Bible refers to "truth", it does not mean aletheia, some abstract Greek concept of a philosophical system; it means Jesus Christ, who said "I am the truth".  It is the concrete, personal, Jewish conception of truth. 

I just returned from Europe, including a visit to Prague.  In the center of the main square is a monument to Jan Hus, one of the earliest reformers of the church, who with Wycliffe was denouncing practices such as indulgences.  He was burned at the stake at this location in 1415 by leaders of the church.  They were defending the "truth" by burning a heretic.  They did not treat murders with such cruelty, but heretics were burned without mercy, without even an offer for final rites. 

For such arrogance the church has earned its reputation.   So when a church leader says, quoting Paul, "the church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth", beware!  Usually he (and it is usually a he) is really defending some historical fungus that has encrusted itself on the barren cross of Jesus Christ. 

We Christians live in the hope of the resurrection that comes only from Jesus.  So long as we serve as messengers of that hope, the church will thrive, because the world is full of desperate people in need of hope.  If we get distracted from that message, we have nothing to offer the world, and we will become as dead as the cathedrals of Amsterdam.”

- Paul Arveson, Rockville, MD

"I have questions for two of the essay writers about the issue of the PCUSA's declining numbers.
For Larry Hayward:  You say, "Our gift and calling as Presbyterians lies primarily with the life of the mind  So we will always be a minority."  But isn't there a biblical mandate to ALL Christians to preach the Gospel to heart, mind, will, imagination?
For Deborah McKinley:  You say declining numbers are good because dead branches are being "pruned."  But shouldn't we care that our sisters and brothers (the dead branches) are being lost to Christ because of OUR inadequate preaching and teaching?
For both Larry Hayward and Deborah McKinley:  Do numbers really not matter, as you claim?  The Acts of the Apostles shows that numbers DID matter to the apostolic church, whose leaders preached to large numbers at a high intellectual level.  Does their model for us really not matter?”

- Ann White, Washington, D.C.

"I will respond to the important questions that Ann White asks concerning my essay. Concerning her first question:  My participation in this project was based on its title "Whither the PCUSA?"  The title was not "Whither the Holy Catholic Church?" or "Whither Christianity?"  In that context I continue to believe that within worldwide Christianity, "the gift and calling" we have as Presbyterians -- based primarily on the historical roots we have in Calvin's thoughtful explication of reformed theology in the midst of the Reformation following its initial impetus -- lies primarily with the life of the mind.  I emphasize the word "primarily."  Certainly within our preaching and teaching there are calls for action, expressions of (hopefully) authentic emotion, and uses of the gifts of imagination and artistry.  But our "primary" gift and calling lies with the life of the mind.  This is our modest but important contribution to the larger Christian church, and, as I say, "not...the only way of being Christian, perhaps not even the best way," but the way we have historically exercised the gifts God has given us.

In addition, I am not sure that there is a Biblical mandate for "all" Christians to preach the Gospel, better yet to preach the Gospel "to heart, mind, will, and imagination."  Preaching is one of the gifts of the spirit, but not one to which all are called. Furthermore, even among those called to preach, I do not believe that we preach "to" the "heart, mind, will, and imagination."  Rather, we preach to individuals and congregations who have gathered; we preach the Gospel in and for the people God has brought to us.  We preach "from" our "hearts, minds, wills" and with (hopefully) our "imaginations."  Most of all, when we preach, we are seeking to proclaim the Word of God, trusting, as Paul writes, that "faith" will come through its "hearing," and that those who hear, as Tyndale has written, "may apply the medicine of scripture, every man to his own sores."  Every woman too.

To Ann's second question, "Do numbers really not matter, as you claim?"  I make no such claim.  In fact, I say in my essay, "Numbers matter."  In my own congregation, we regularly monitor worship attendance, levels of participation in mission, education, and fellowship, visitors to our church, baptisms, tithes and offerings.  In the four churches I have served, each has shown increases in membership nearly every year.  But I still maintain, as I wrote, that:  "most people live more by the heart than the head, more by the hands than the mind.  So we will always be a minority...but at our best we can present [the Gospel] in such a way that people who appreciate thought will respond."  That response that, though coming from a minority, will enrich the witness of the "holy catholic" church both worldwide and in our culture.

Finally, I must take issue with Ann's last comment:  "The Acts of the Apostles shows that numbers DID matter to the apostolic church, whose leaders preached to large numbers at a high intellectual level.  Does their model for us really not matter."  It seems to me that the earliest apostles were amazed and grateful for the large numbers who became Christians in the earliest days of the church, but I am not sure that their focus was on reaching such numbers per se. Even in the earliest days when growth was high and the movement was in its infancy, the results varied from city to city, place to place.  In Athens, which is perhaps the most relevant "model" for those of us who seek to speak to those who live primarily by the mind, among those who heard Paul's preaching about "the resurrection of the dead," "some scoffed...others said, 'We will hear you again about this'...and some...joined and became believers..." Sounds like Easter Sunday, PCUSA."

 -The Rev. Dr. Larry R. Hayward, Alexandria, VA