The Board of Directors of the Covenant Network has approved a new Call to Covenant Community, inviting congregations and individuals to renew their commitment — or make one for the first time — to the Covenant Network’s work for inclusion and unity in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).
Since the first Call to Covenant Community in 1998, thousands of Presbyterians have joined the effort to see lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) people fully included in membership and leadership in the PCUSA. And while we rightly celebrate the passage of G-2.0104b, returning historic and just standards for examination and ordination, the new Call reminds the church that there is still much work to do.
All are invited to read the new mission statement and Call to Covenant Community – and to sign on by clicking the “JOIN” button at the left of the page.
Call to Covenant Community
With the help of God’s grace, the Covenant Network of Presbyterians is called to strengthen the Church of Jesus Christ by furthering the inclusion of persons identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer (LGBTQ) that was signaled by the adoption of G-2.0104b; by supporting sessions and presbyteries as they apply these ordination standards; and by working for the unity of the church, engaging in conversations with those with whom we disagree, seeking understanding and reconciliation. In this crucial time in church and culture, the Covenant Network remains committed to serving the church, believing that Jesus Christ has already made us one and that we are better equipped to carry out our larger ministry and witness when we are together.
As individuals and congregations committed to the Covenant Network of Presbyterians, we are called to:
- Serve the PC(USA), supporting its mission, honoring its historic understanding that “God alone is Lord of the conscience,” and by God’s grace, working for the unity of the church.
- Bear witness to Christ’s love with kindness and compassion in the midst of conflict as we seek to live together with differences in perspectives, beliefs, and practices.
- Welcome in the name of Christ all whom God calls into community and leadership in God’s church, including LGBTQ persons.
- Ensure that sessions and presbyteries are able to ordain those called and gifted by God.*
- Provide support for LGBTQ members and friends, and comfort those wounded by former church policies and practices.
- Commit financial resources to this ministry generously and regularly.
*G-2.0104b : “Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life. The council responsible for ordination and/or installation shall examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of ordered ministry. The examination shall include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions for ordination and installation. Councils shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.”
Approved by the Board of Directors, September 2012
My husband, Bill, and I left our hometown Presbyterian Church because they would not adopt the new language that allows ALL to serve as leaders. We have found another Presbyterian Church 25 miles away that is very loving and inclusive. It was hard to leave our home church, but the decision was the right one.
I have followed the work of the Covenant Network over the years and it has influenced my thinking in positive ways. However this call to community fails to grasp the true nature of the PC(USA)’s predicament. Disagreement over homosexuality is a very small factor in the lack of unity and togetherness in the PC(USA). In fact it is likely, in my view, that many of today’s dissident evangelicals will eventually follow PC(USA) evangelicals like Jack Rogers and Mark Achtemeier and change their minds on the issue of the Bible and homosexuality. One possible precursor of that change may be influential megachurch Willow Creek which has had women in preaching and teaching leadership since its inception. It’s a very short step from Willow Creek’s exegesis of the so-called “problem passages” on women in church leadership to the Covenant Network’s exegesis of the so-called “problem passages” on homosexuality.
Contrary to the implication of this call to community, homosexuality has relatively little to do with the PC(USA)’s lack of unity and togetherness which has much more to do with the fact that the PC(USA) is becoming functionally unitarian, less and less a place where people are introduced to Jesus. If Covenant Network folks showed the same passion for introducing people to Jesus that they show for normalizing homosexuality, the PC(USA) would enjoy the unity and togetherness the Covenant Network calls for, evangelicals wouldn’t be leaving and the future of the PC(USA) wouldn’t be so bleak.
It is hard not to admire the Covenant Network. Even those of us who strongly disagree with their goals and work must acknowledge that their laser sharp focus, communication skills, and ability to organize and unite is nothing short of impressive.
We see another example of the Covenant Network’s expertise and skill in this new call to covenant. Once again it pulls people in from the margins, unifying, focusing, and equipping people to a common task. And once again I am (frustratingly) impressed. My frustration rises from the fact that I disagree with the Covenant Network. I believe its goals and aim are unfaithful and its work has led to the splitting of the church (even as it has, perhaps ironically, brought deeper unity to a part of the church). Of course the larger church is divided on this. Some agree with me. Some (more and more it appears) agree with the Covenant Network and its work and aim. This of course has led to a growing division between left and right, liberal and evangelical even as it has (ironically) furthered unity within each group. From the midst of our growing division between each side and parochial unity growing within each side I affirm your call to think afresh and decide afresh to join in covenant community.
For me and my church this means separation from the Presbyterian Church I have been a part of for 53 years in order to enter into a new covenant relationship with a new covenant people. The Covenant Network, with its allies, supporters, and friends, has won and the Presbyterian Church (USA) now belongs to them. And with this progressive victory (and defeat of the evangelical position) I find I belong to a church with which I may no longer be in covenant relationship. Thus it is time for me to enter a new covenant. As the Covenant Network has successfully suppressed and marginalized the voice of those with whom it disagrees I find that I have been forced out of the church of my birth and made to find a new covenant community.
Thus I, with my church (an numerous other churches), am in the process of leaving the PC (USA). We are preparing to enter into a new covenant with people whose passion rises above a cultural agenda and focuses instead upon the Lord Jesus. I am turning from one covenant community that has clearly and repeatedly expressed that I am not welcome to another that with me and my congregation yearns to be a part of a people overwhelmed by their love for Jesus, a people who desire to live for him and honour him and proclaim him with all the love and adoration he has brought into our hearts.
I have no doubt this new call to covenant will bring yet deeper unity to the progressive wing of the church. As the Covenant Network has successfully, even brilliantly, unified a large part of the church around its values and work it has simultaneously made clear to us on the evangelical side of the church that we are not welcome. Thus we, with you yet in very different ways, turn afresh to be a part of a new covenant. For you it will be in the new unity you have created. For me and others it will be outside the PC (USA) in the new unity we are bringing to life.
I appreciate the range of views expressed here. As the new Executive Director of the Covenant Network, I’m pleased to be joining an organization that, as Dr. Patterson notes above, has a long history of bringing together disagreeing voices for good conversation and frequently unites varying perspectives in common cause.
While I largely appreciate the respectful tone of Dr. Patterson’s comments above, I would take issue with one description he makes of CovNet’s work (work that has taken place largely before I came aboard). He writes: “As the Covenant Network has successfully suppressed and marginalized the voice of those with whom it disagrees I find that I have been forced out of the church of my birth and made to find a new covenant community.”
I don’t believe Covenant Network has “suppressed and marginalized” any voice. On the contrary, CovNet has made the unity of the church part of its mission from the beginning. It fought for a Book of Order change that made LGBTQ ordination possible without requiring any presbytery or session to ordain anyone it did not discern was called. CovNet has expressed great hope for a future in which the full theological spectrum can move forward together as one body, and has participated in every dialogue requested by national church leadership or evangelical leaders, and initiated dialogues of its own. If there is any group that feels “marginalized or suppressed,” it is not because of the Covenant Network’s actions. And if any groups feel this way, then by all means, let me recommit our organization to reaching out to them in Christian love.
Brian Ellison, executive director, Covenant Network
Very well put, Dr. Patterson. I suspect that if you and your church discerned in the progressives the same zeal for Jesus that they have for normalizing homosexuality, your church would see a real prospect for unity in Christ despite disagreement on homosexuality and maybe stay around for a while. But you correcty discern that the progressives are redefining PC(USA) theology just as they are redefining Biblical sexual ethics and marriage and that the PC(USA) is increasingly unitarian and less and less trinitarian. Mr. Ellison’s call for unity is laudable but he fails to grasp that you can sit in the progressives’ churches for decades and never be invited to devote your life to loving, following and serving Jesus. Whatever unity he is talking about isn’t really unity in Christ.
Come to my church! We MOSTLY talk about loving, following and serving Jesus! And it is out of loving, following and serving Jesus that we are a Covenant Network Church and I serve on the board.
It’s astonishing to me that there are some who would accuse the Covenant Network of driving a wedge in the denomination over homosexuality. The organization was only born when discrimination and marginalization of some of God’s people was institutionalized. THAT was the wedge.
Mary Lynn Tobin, co-moderator
So nice to connect with you again, Mary Lynn! I enjoyed the conversation you and I had some months ago. If indeed your church is making disciples of Jesus, I would love your church but I’m sure you’re aware of how rare that is becoming in the PC(USA). One of the largest flagship churches in your denomination is searching for a new senior pastor. There’s no indication in the church’s job description that a candidate should be a Christian or show any aptitude for introducing people to Jesus or even that the job description is the job description of the pastor of a Christian church. There are a gazillion examples of that syndrome all across the PC(USA). But I agree with you that it’s not fair or accurate to accuse the Covenant Network of driving a wedge in your denomination.
Perhaps Brian Ellison has not read some of Doug Nave’s replies to postings on this website prior to the 2012 General Assembly, for indeed there were postings marginalizing those who took views at odds with his; and he did so in his role as a Director of the Covenant Network and chief legal expert for those seeking to change the polity and doctrine of the PC(USA) from our historic/orthodox Reformed/Presbyterian tradition firmly established on the Lordship of Jesus Christ and under the authority of Scripture as rule for faith and life.
A perspective for Brian Ellison and the Covenant Network to consider is whether to intercede any further in the complaint against Santa Barbara Presbytery and its decision to adopt a Union Presbytery. The approach outlined in the Network’s website article toward the Union Presbytery is NOT consistent with the Network’s Mission Statement and Call to Covenant. I call the Board of Directors to account for their involvement with this complaint and to reject that approach by deciding to implement the specifics of their own Covenant that point toward grace and eagerness to find ways to live together. Following your document, you must choose to include, encourage and tolerate approaches to the polity of the PC(USA) that work toward union in Christ, for without polity changes like a Union Presbytery, the PC(USA) will shrink into a denomination of a very narrow affiliation with the theologically like-minded folks who agree with Doug Nave and use polity to push Presbyterians apart.
The Covenant Network has affirmed that is not what you desire, but this case offers an opportunity for the Covenant Network to proceed either in the manner of God’s grace, welcoming differences and seeking understanding and reconciliation; or to walk away from a broad view of polity and doctrine toward a narrow focus that excludes those with different theological conclusions.
As I have stated elsewhere, the Covenant Network never ceases to amaze me – I am intrigued by the juxtaposition of these two items posted on your website:
A. Regarding the action of Santa Barbara Presbytery (PCUSA) to establish a Union Presbytery with the ECO Presbytery of the West: “The complaint …. was drafted by Covenant Network Director Doug Nave, who is serving as counsel to the complainants.”
B. Regarding a call for a new Covenant and Mission Statement, the Network affirms: “With the help of God’s grace, the Covenant Network of Presbyterians is called to strengthen the Church of Jesus Christ by…..working for the unity of the church, engaging in conversations with those with whom we disagree, seeking understanding and reconciliation. In this crucial time in church and culture, the Covenant Network remains committed to serving the church, believing that Jesus Christ has already made us one and that we are better equipped to carry out our larger ministry and witness when we are together.” and “As individuals and congregations committed to the Covenant Network of Presbyterians, we are called to:
Serve the PC(USA), supporting its mission, honoring its historic understanding that “God alone is Lord of the conscience,” and by God’s grace, working for the unity of the church.
Bear witness to Christ’s love with kindness and compassion in the midst of conflict as we seek to live together with differences in perspectives, beliefs, and practices.
Welcome in the name of Christ all whom God calls into community and leadership in God’s church…”
The statement is a noble sounding platform of faith in God’s grace that seems in stark contrast to what the ecclesiastical legal expertise of Doug Nave is seeking to preclude – a union presbytery (sounds like unity within the church to me) and Union Presbyteries and Synods were a primary way that the northern and southern streams of American Presbyterians came to be reunited in 1983, So the Network (of which Doug Nave has long served as a Director on their governing board) affirms the welcoming of all whom God calls, and states it is working for unity; for conversation, understanding and reconciliation.
The Board should answer how the use of a judicial proceeding drafted by a Director reflects the Covenant Network’s call for “kindness and compassion in the midst of conflict?” Is this approach a way to live out the covenant to “seek to live together with differences in perspectives, beliefs, and practices?”
The approach outlined in the Network’s website article toward the Union Presbytery is inconsistent with the Network’s Mission Statement and Call to Covenant. I encourage the Board of Directors to reconsider their involvement with this complaint and to decide to implement the specifics of their own Covenant that point toward grace and eagerness to find ways to live together in the midst of our differences. Choose to include, encourage and tolerate alternative approaches to the polity of the PC(USA) that allow for differences, for without them the PC(USA) will shrink into a denomination of a very narrow affiliation with the theologically like-minded folks who agree with Doug Nave. You have affirmed that is not what you desire, and this case offers an opportunity for the Covenant Network to proceed either in a manner of inclusion and tolerance; or to walk away from a broad, gracious view of polity and doctrine into the narrowness of judicial proceedings.
To the Board of Advisors: I challenge you to review this Leadership statement posted above your names: “The Covenant Network of Presbyterians is a broad-based, national group of clergy and lay leaders working for a church that is simultaneously faithful, just, and whole. We seek to support the mission and unity of the Presbyterian Church (USA) in a time of potentially divisive controversy. We intend to articulate and act on the church’s historic, progressive vision and to work for a fully inclusive church. We are committed to finding a way both to live out the graciously hospitable gospel we have received and to live together with all our fellow members in the PC(USA).”
Are judicial proceedings against Santa Barbara Presbytery’s Union status reflective of gracious hospitality? I offer they are not, and urge you to advise against this ungracious approach; and find creative and alternative measures to reduce divisive controversy within the PC(USA).
One of the writers above takes issue with my work as legal counsel for several groups of congregations, pastors, and elders who have sought review by higher church councils of their presbyteries’ efforts to re-impose the “fidelity and chastity” provisions of former G-6.0106b as local requirements for ordained service.
Several points might be noted in response.
First, the Covenant Network does not seek to initiate legal cases – rather, we provide support to faithful Presbyterians and church councils who decide to bring a case, or are challenged in one, and then request our assistance. While our Constitution provides for judicial review as one way to ensure that the actions of church bodies are constitutional and appropriate, we do not encourage the bringing of cases, but provide support where necessary.
Second, we affirm that a vital part of the Presbyterian tradition is our belief that God alone is Lord of the conscience (F-3.0101) and that we owe each other mutual forebearance in disagreements that do not go to the very essentials of the faith (F-3.0105). Our history shows that we Presbyterians have struggled to remain faithful to these principles from time to time (before our recent disputes about sexual ethics, we had the same struggle over women’s ordination, and our history yields other examples before that). Nonetheless, these principles have served Presbyterians very well, helping us to avoid and, where necessary, to heal numerous breaches over the last two hundred years.
Following the church’s recent amendment of its ordination standards, some who opposed that reform have argued that “tolerance is a two-way street,” and that local councils should have the freedom to impose sexual ethics on which a local majority agrees. Councils have tried to do this in various ways, including the adoption of so-called “sexual misconduct policies” and efforts to unite with a putative “denomination” (the Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians) that would impose exclusionary constitutional requirements of its own. However, such local policies merely seek to impose on a smaller part of the church exclusionary rules that the whole church has already found to be improper. Local councils that try to impose such policies oppress the conscience of local members who are in the minority every bit as much as former G-6.0106b oppressed consciences nationwide.
Every Presbyterian has the constitutionally guaranteed right to follow his or her conscience in non-essential matters of the faith. However, no Presbyterian has the right to impose his or her views about non-essentials on others, or a claim to others’ mutual forbearance for such efforts. Where true essentials are not at issue, claims for tolerance cannot provide a shield for intolerance.
A majority of the church now affirms our traditional respect for freedom of biblically formed conscience in application of our ordination standards. Some Presbyterians, doubtless acting in faithfulness as they see it, are unhappy with that. The fact remains that the church can come together in unity, faithfulness, and the generous grace of Jesus Christ when all of us stop trying to impose our individual beliefs in this area on other faithful Presbyterians who also have searched the Scriptures and their consciences and come to a different view.
I concur with Mr. Nave’s view that the issue of ordination standards is now settled and that attempts to re-impose G-6.0106b on smaller sectors of the church are contrived and divisive. However Mr. Nave’s references to essential and non-essential tenets of the faith are no longer valid. With the possible exception of matters of race, gender and social justice, there aren’t any essential tenets in the PC(USA) any longer.
Jim Caraher’s posting reveals two observations: “the issue of ordination standards is now settled” AND “there aren’t any essential tenets in the PC(USA) any longer” that raise questions and further discussion. Ordination standards for the PC(USA) are now left to the council responsible for ordaining/installing an individual candidate for Ordered Ministry, but as how settled that is over time, we will see; and furthermore that reflects on the vast number of Christians world-wide who do not agree with the new language of the PC(USA) regarding ordination and the very few denominations that do agree with the PC(USA).
The second observation helps clarify the odd position the Covenant Network finds itself in. For on the one hand it affirms inclusion in its new Statement: “and by working for the unity of the church, engaging in conversations with those with whom we disagree, seeking understanding and reconciliation”; at the same time its chief legal expert on PC(USA) polity, and a Director of the Board counters my concerns by asserting I want to impose my views of non-essential matters of faith on others:
Mr Nave states: “Every Presbyterian has the constitutionally guaranteed right to follow his or her conscience in non-essential matters of the faith. However, no Presbyterian has the right to impose his or her views about non-essentials on others, or a claim to others’ mutual forbearance for such efforts. Where true essentials are not at issue, claims for tolerance cannot provide a shield for intolerance.”
Mr. Nave of course does not define what the essentials are because his view of presbyterian polity reserves that definition to the council of the PC(USA) involved in a individual’s ordination examination. The “essentials”, if there are any, are determined for that individual on that day in that particular council of the PC(USA). So it is obvious under that polity, no individual Presbyterian has any standing in imposing a view on any other individual Presbyterian be it an essential tenet or not. Councils are the only authorized way to impose views, and only essential tenets may be imposed on those in ordered ministry.
Mr. Caraher observes the practical result of that polity renders, in what some would define as an extreme situation presently in the PC(USA), references to essential and non-essential tenets of faith no longer valid. Effectively the Book of Order becomes the authority for faith and the PC(USA) Confessions have no practical use as guidance or instruction for understanding and implementing Scripture in matters of faith. Historical doctrines of the catholic and Reformed faith are all optional.
Mr. Nave affirms a polity with supremacy of the Book of Order by asserting that a “majority of the church” (PC(USA)) “now affirms our traditional respect for freedom of biblically formed conscience in application of our ordination standards.” Not sure who “our” is; but I am one of many Presbyterians in the PC(USA), acting in faithfulness as they seek guidance from Scripture, that see the actions of a majority of the Presbyteries in revising the manner in which ordination standards are applied as inconsistent with Scripture and the Confessions of the PC(USA). It is not a matter of being “unhappy” with the change in the Book of Order, but of seeing ordination as an matter of essential tenets with standards beyond the Book of Order questions; and therefore that the majority of Presbyteries acted in error, as councils do from time to time.
My posting was a call to the Board of the Covenant Network to take its own statement to heart and
act with “kindness and compassion in the midst of conflict” and to “seek to live together with differences in perspectives, beliefs, and practices” by engaging in conversation not church disciplinary actions.
In responding above, Mr. Nave seems to dismiss my concerns by his view that anyone in the PC(USA) that expresses a theological opinion or hazards a statement on doctrine, is trying to impose an individual view on others. I do wonder how his statement: “The fact remains that the church can come together in unity, faithfulness, and the generous grace of Jesus Christ when all of us stop trying to impose our individual beliefs in this area on other faithful Presbyterians who also have searched the Scriptures and their consciences and come to a different view.”; works in the context of a council of the PC(USA) facing an ordination and there being a vast degree of individual views on “standards” per G-2.0104b, as the elders of that council are guided by Scripture and the Confessions in discerning ability and commitment to fulfillment of the constitutional questions? How will council members joyfully submit in those instances?
Certainly I could go on and discuss the truncated quote of F-3.0101 used by the Covenant Network and Mr. Nave that ignores the broad, historical view of that element of American presbyterian polity observed when the whole section of F-3.01 HISTORIC PRINCIPLES OF CHURCH ORDER is considered:
“F-3.0101 God Is Lord of the Conscience
a. That “God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the
doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary to his Word, or
beside it, in matters of faith or worship.”
b. Therefore we consider the rights of private judgment, in all matters that respect
religion, as universal and unalienable: We do not even wish to see any religious
constitution aided by the civil power, further than may be necessary for protection and
security, and at the same time, be equal and common to all others.
F-3.0102 Corporate Judgment
That, in perfect consistency with the above principle of common right, every Christian
Church, or union or association of particular churches, is entitled to declare the terms
of admission into its communion, and the qualifications of its ministers and members, as
well as the whole system of its internal government which Christ hath appointed; that in
the exercise of this right they may, notwithstanding, err, in making the terms of communion
either too lax or too narrow; yet, even in this case, they do not infringe upon the
liberty or the rights of others, but only make an improper use of their own.
F-3.0103 Officers
That our blessed Savior, for the edification of the visible Church, which is his body, hath appointed officers, not only to preach the gospel and administer the Sacraments, but also to exercise discipline, for the preservation of both truth and duty; and that it is incumbent upon these officers, and upon the whole Church, in whose name they act, to censure or cast out the erroneous and scandalous, observing, in all cases, the rules contained in the Word of God.
F-3.0104 Truth and Goodness
That truth is in order to goodness; and the great touchstone of truth, its tendency to
promote holiness, according to our Savior’s rule, “By their fruits ye shall know them.”
And that no opinion can either be more pernicious or more absurd than that which brings
truth and falsehood upon a level, and represents it as of no consequence what a man’s
opinions are. On the contrary, we are persuaded that there is an inseparable connection
between faith and practice, truth and duty. Otherwise it would be of no consequence either
to discover truth or to embrace it.
F-3.0105 Mutual Forbearance
That, while under the conviction of the above principle we think it necessary to make
effectual provision that all who are admitted as teachers be sound in the faith, we also
believe that there are truths and forms with respect to which men of good characters and
principles may differ. And in all these we think it the duty both of private Christians and
societies to exercise mutual forbearance toward each other.
F-3.0106 Election by the People
That though the character, qualifications, and authority of Church officers are laid
down in the Holy Scriptures, as well as the proper method of their investiture and institution,
yet the election of the persons to the exercise of this authority, in any particular society,
is in that society.
F-3.0107 Church Power
That all Church power, whether exercised by the body in general or in the way of representation
by delegated authority, is only ministerial and declarative; that is to say, that
the Holy Scriptures are the only rule of faith and manners; that no Church judicatory
ought to pretend to make laws to bind the conscience in virtue of their own authority; and
that all their decisions should be founded upon the revealed will of God. Now though it
will easily be admitted that all synods and councils may err, through the frailty inseparable
from humanity, yet there is much greater danger from the usurped claim of making
laws than from the right of judging upon laws already made, and common to all who profess
the gospel, although this right, as necessity requires in the present state, be lodged
with fallible men.
F-3.0108 The Value of Ecclesiastical Discipline
Lastly, that if the preceding scriptural and rational principles be steadfastly adhered
to, the vigor and strictness of its discipline will contribute to the glory and happiness of
any church. Since ecclesiastical discipline must be purely moral or spiritual in its object,
and not attended with any civil effects, it can derive no force whatever but from its own
justice, the approbation of an impartial public, and the countenance and blessing of the
great Head of the Church universal.”.
So here I am one of those in the PC(USA) that is “persuaded that there is an inseparable connection between faith and practice, truth and duty. Otherwise it would be of no consequence either to discover truth or to embrace it.” This persuasion is what led me to see a disconnect between the Covenant Network’s stated desires of seeking unity through conversation for understanding and reconciliation, AND engaging in the particular disciplinary action concerning Union presbyteries. As I mentioned in my previous posting, reunion of the PCUS and the UPC, was accomplished in some large part through Union presbyteries; and I join with the Covenant Network to say conversations on ways to walk together as followers of Jesus Christ are more effective than the polity route of Mr. Nave..