Category Archives: Blog

Does it Matter in the Long Run?

Posted on by

The denial of “balance and respect for both definitions of marriage” appeared to be a watershed moment at General Assembly 2022.[i] It revealed what many in orthodoxy have suspected – or feared:

  1. That The Presbyterian Church in Canada (PCC) is officially “affirming” in accordance with the adoption of Pathway ‘B’– “inclusion” – in 2019.
  2. The “liberty of conscience and action” regarding participation in ordinations etc. and adherence to traditional definition of marriage approved in 2021 as part of Remits ‘B’ and ‘C’ are just accommodations which will probably be lifted in time.
  3. Each year, the thin welcome mat of liberty would be gradually nipped and tucked until nothing remained.
  4. Assuming the online gatherings of GA over the past two years (which resulted in the parallel definitions of marriage) aren’t successfully challenged in a secular court as illegitimate then the PCC is likely on its way to being fully affirming.

A bit of recent history. Recall the report the Special Committee re Implications of Pathway ‘B’ (Inclusion) which stated in its report to 2019 General Assembly: “No minister or elder currently serving (or actively preparing for ministry) should be forced to change their convictions. At the same time we understand that if inclusion becomes the doctrine of our church that, following a reasonable time of transition . . . those wishing to serve as ministers or elders need to accept this doctrine as a part of the whole doctrine and life of the church.” The key words were “time of transition.”

Are we, who adhere to Biblical orthodoxy, relegated to slow decline within the PCC?

Maybe. Maybe not.

Consider that while much attention centred on the “balance and respect” debate – which resulted in some memorable quotes and a very divided court – another decision may produce results in the long run.

A greater majority (155-33) supported the creation of the Office of Cross Cultural Liaison, suggesting support from across the theological spectrum.[ii] It was a cornerstone recommendation from the Special Committee which recognized the fact that the non-Euro elements of the PCC have been a “growing edge in the denomination . . . Over the last 20 years while the membership in the denomination has dropped by 55,000 members, the non-Euro Canadian presence in the denomination has doubled.”

The recommendation was more than just a tangible step to righting wrongs and encouraging a welcoming environment for Korean, Chinese, Arabic, Hungarian people and other congregations and people who have been marginalized.

It’s also common sense:

“If the church were a business where one section of the business had doubled over the previous 20 years, while the rest of the business had shrunk by 45 percent, the business would be putting resources and energy into the growing section of the business. The data strongly suggests that time and energy is called for to be put into this growing part of the church.”

The new office will enjoy wide-ranging power and responsibility with General Secretary (top bureaucrat) status and will answer directly to General Assembly.

A significant factor in the poor treatment sustained by non-Euros is the fact that the large majority of Korean, Chinese, Arabic, Hungarian and other congregations hold to conservative theological views. There’s a colonial mentality at work:

“An ethos exists throughout the Euro Canadian elements of the denomination that non-Euro Canadians are not really part of The Presbyterian Church in Canada until they have been assimilated into the dominant culture. This ethos frequently underlies acts of welcome which often have the goal of making the newcomers “like us” as quickly as possible.”

“Like us” means progressive and inclusive.

Let’s add it up. If “diverse Presbyterians” are offered a place at the table, and if most of them adhere to orthodoxy, and if their presence is the source of growth, then would the lack of “balance and respect” even matter in the long run? Of course, this all hinges on them remaining within the fold.

This is a long game, with results that would bear fruit after many of us have departed. Can we wait that long?

Footnotes:
[i] The Special Committee Responding to Petitions 1 and 2 (2021) from the two Korean-language presbyteries alleging generational “silencing, slander, ridicule, racism and “mistreatment” to ethnic groups recommended, among other things, that Assembly “instruct the Assembly Council, the General Assembly Office and Life and Mission Agency and Committee to Nominate Standing Committees and the other boards and committees of the church to ensure that there is balance and respect for both definitions of marriage in all correspondence sent to congregations, sessions, presbyteries and synods; the delivery of resources and workshops, and the membership of the boards and committees of the church; also that the Assembly Council provide progress reports on the balancing of the two definitions of marriage in the life of the church to the General Assemblies of 2023 and 2024” (SCP-009). Commissioners approved an amendment by a vote of 106-85 to remove all references to “balance.” The amended motion (“That the General Assembly instruct the Assembly Council, the GAO and LMA and Committee to nominate standing committee and the other boards and committee of the church to ensure that people are not excluded from serving based on their theological conviction of either definition of marriage endorsed by the GA”) carried by an even slimmer margin: 100-89.

[ii] Commissioners approved the following: “That the General Assembly approve the creation of the Office of Cross-Cultural Liaison and that it be staffed to accomplish the tasks and roles outlined above; and that this recommendation be referred to Assembly Council for implementation with members of the Special Committee on Petitions Nos. 1 and 2, 2021” (SCP-005.) An amendment to downgrade the office from General Secretary status to that of Associate Secretary was defeated, 65-122. The “tasks and roles” are fully outlined in the report of the Special Committee Responding to Petitions 1 and 2 (2021). All reports to General Assembly can be found at https://assembly.presbyterian.ca/#/committee.

Stand Our Ground

Posted on by

Good news! The church is growing!

The latest annual statistics from the Center for the Study of Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary indicate that there are fewer atheists around the world today (147 million) than in 1970 (165 million) and the report expects the number to continue to decline into 2050.

Almost 2.56 billion people will identify as a Christian by the middle of this year. By 2050, that number is expected to reach 3.33 billion. The two fastest growing Christian groups around the world are evangelicals and charismatics. In 1900, less than 1 million people around the world identified as Pentecostal or charismatic Christians. By 2050, that is expected to number 1 billion.

This year, 93 million copies of God’s word will be printed, up from 54 million in 2000 and 5 million in 1900.

The numbers are real, of course. But they don’t tell the entire story.

The sad part – for us in North America, at least – is that virtually all of the growth is taking place in Asia, Africa and South America. Christianity in the global North (Europe and North America) is growing at a yearly rate of about 0.13 per cent compared to 1.79 per cent in the global South (Africa, Asia, Latin America, Oceania). Africa, at 2.77 per cent, leads the way.

The growth areas include some of the planet’s poorest and most-repressive nations.

As I’ve stated in this space in recent months, the world is undergoing an upheaval not seen since the 1960s. We are disobedient, distrustful, disoriented, diseased, disrupted, and divided – everywhere we go, it seems, including the church.

At our annual Renewal Day last Saturday, speaker Rev. Dr. Stephen Farris – dean emeritus of St. Andrew’s Hall, former professor of preaching and 140th moderator of General Assembly – reminded us of the first church fight, described in Acts 6:1-6, in which the Greek believers complained that their widows were not getting a fair share of the food compared to the Hebrews. The result was the creation of the office of Deacon. It was a new structure and pattern that met the needs of both parties. Among the deacons was Stephen the Martyr, whose preaching was so powerful that it resulted in his arrest and death by stoning. Among the approving witnesses to his death was Saul, soon to be named Paul. Put it together: a food fight led to a chain of events which resulted in the emergence of the man whose letters make up most of the New Testament — among other things.

What does this have to do with the rapid decline of the Christian faith in the West and North and the rise in the East and South? The common message is that the church grows in places of turmoil and thrives in spite of uncertainty.

In the West, there is less tolerance for the church and its narrow gate. We are rightly concerned. But consider that much of the global East and South (where Christianity is thriving) groans under much worse conditions. It’s in those places that the church is most alive. I do not believe that’s a coincidence.

Rather than fear the rise of woke culture in the global West and North, perhaps we should let it happen for the sole purpose of standing our ground. Rather than create safe spaces or even depart from The Presbyterian Church in Canada, perhaps we simply need to dare to speak the truth. (Nothing against those who are actively planning to leave – it just might not be for everyone.)

Let’s refuse to watch our words for fear of offending anyone. Stand our ground. Accept whatever verbal attacks or measures come our way. Accept it with joy, that we might be worthy of enduring persecution. Human hands can and will try to suppress the Word. But the Holy Spirit is stronger.

Prayer and Care

Posted on by

In recent weeks, many Canadian provinces have ended their mask mandates. For the first time in almost two years, we see each other’s faces in grocery stores and perhaps also in church.

And yet for the most part there is no feeling of liberation or great cry of joy. To be sure, we like it. But there’s a feeling that all of this could just be temporary. We’ve experienced the roller coaster ride of tightening and loosening restrictions as the waves hit and subsided then roared again.

I can tell you that my congregation is being very cautious. We’re not going out of our way to invite people to remove their masks. We’re still roping off pews and keeping the six-foot separation. As well, we’re reminded that General Assembly will be online, as will the Renewal Fellowship’s annual meeting on April 30.

We’re in an unsure situation. We feel insecure. Will we have a normal summer? That was the bold promise of our political leaders at this time in 2020 and 2021. Are we too jaded to be optimistic anymore?

The Oxford English Dictionary defines jaded as “Tired, bored, or lacking enthusiasm, typically after having had too much of something.” Too much of the emotional ride, for sure.

In a perfect world, those who know the Lord would not be tired, bored or lacking in enthusiasm. But that perfect world is to come. In the meantime, here we are.

The Prophet Isaiah records the Lord’s powerful, energizing words. Chapter 40 is a balm for anyone who needs a charge.

“Comfort, comfort my people,” it begins. It concludes with this: “He gives power to the weak and strength to the powerless. Even youths will become weak and tired, and young men will fall in exhaustion. But those who trust in the Lord will find new strength. They will soar high on wings like eagles. They will run and not grow weary. They will walk and not faint.” (Isaiah 30:29-30, NLT)

The promise was not just to the nation of Israel in exile. It’s for all throughout history who choose to believe.

Sometimes we need to gather together to be reminded of that promise. We are invited to share our frustrations and our hope. Wherever we find ourselves, we are better together.

Prayer and Care in a Divided World

Posted on by

As we work towards the renewal and revival of the church in accordance with Biblical orthodoxy, The Renewal Fellowship is focusing on two priorities in 2022: prayer and pastoral care. To be effective in those two things, we need to understand our church and the world in which we exist. The following essay is intended to shed light on cultural, political and economic trends in an effort to address our prayer and pastoral needs.

What in the world is going on?

Just when the pandemic appears to be over, and a sense of normalcy begins to return, protesters  converge on our nation’s capital and refuse to end their occupation of the streets surrounding Parliament. Key border crossings have been blocked. Similar protests are now erupting in other nations. The federal cabinet grants itself unprecedented powers to intervene.

While it would be nice to dismiss these as the final acts of frustration from the COVID-19 pandemic, I believe they’re part of a larger malaise. Consider that it’s virtually impossible to find someone who does not have a strong opinion about these matters. Try having a calm discussion about this with someone who does not share your opinion. It’s almost impossible.

There’s something deeper going on.

So let’s widen our view.

Canadian politics: The rise of the People’s Party in 2021, whose supporters include many who have never voted, seldom vote, or those who believe the Conservative Party has moved too far towards the political centre. This mirrors the growth of right-wing parties in Europe [1] and in other nations.[2]

U.S. politics: The world’s bastion of democracy elected a non-politician (anti-politician) as president who divided the nation and refused to accept his defeat four years later, resulting in a low-level attempt by a few of his most rabid supporters to overthrow the government. During all of this, the nation was torn apart over the reaction to the killing of an African-American man at the hands of a white police officer.

Culture: The emergence of those who refuse to accept the gender with which they were conceived and born, who create new identities, is tacitly encouraged by the public school system and wider culture.

Faith: The new federal law banning conversion therapy suggests that scriptural orthodoxy is a “myth.”[3] Denominations are continuing to divide themselves over their responses to these issues. And every new poll on faith finds fewer people identify with a particular faith, let alone practice it.[4]

This is just a sampling.

Our world is in the midst of a profound crisis. There is a growing body of thinkers, writers and academics – secular and church alike – who are convinced that the world is in the midst of changes seen only once every two or three generations.

Some observers downplay these issues, saying they’re nothing compared to the ravages of two world wars and a Great Depression which did arguably more damage. We need to grow up, they say. Wars and deprivation did produce more immediate human suffering. But those conflicts all had clear villains. We were united in our desire to go into battle. And we won. The difference with today’s challenges is that in many situations we don’t know who the enemy actually is. And when we are faced with adversaries, we discover to our horror that they are our friends and neighbours.

Lord, show us what we need to know.

I had the honour in December of sitting in on an online conference organized by Wycliffe College where the guest speaker was Ed Stetzer, a professor at Wheaton College and Executive Director of the Billy Graham Center in Chicago. He’s a leading thinker in the field of missiology, the study of mission and how the church might understand secular culture and respond.

Stetzer believes that the world is in the midst of a profound shift, something he calls a “cultural convulsion” which happens every 60 years. (Writer and critic David Brooks calls it a “moral convulsion.”[5]) The theory was proposed by the late Harvard political scientist Samuel P. Huntington, “who noticed that these convulsions seem to hit the United States every 60 years or so: the Revolutionary period of the 1760s and ’70s; the Jacksonian uprising of the 1820s and ’30s; the Progressive Era, which began in the 1890s; and the social-protest movements of the 1960s and early ’70s. These movements share certain features. People feel disgusted by the state of society. Trust in institutions plummets. Moral indignation is widespread. Contempt for established power is intense.”[6]

While those eras appear to be centred on America, that nation does not operate in a vacuum. The French Revolution was happening at the same time as the American separation from Britain. Similar social and democratic reforms took place in Canada and in Western Europe during these periods.

Assuming the 60-year theory holds, we now find ourselves on the cusp, or in the midst of the next convulsion, with its own smorgasbord of troubles. In Stetzer’s view, we may see COVID-19 as the main issue, but he believes it’s only one of many forces. There are actually six pandemics going on – only one is associated with a virus. Stetzer labels each with a ‘D’ – Disease, Distrust of authority, Damage from technology, Disorientation or Disconnect from identity, Disruption to mental health and Division in the church.

I took his framework and filled it out.

  1. Disease. COVID-19 hit like a wave and no health authority was completely prepared. Authorities reacted with what they knew at the time, which was limited. Measures varied from place to place. We adapted as our knowledge grew. All lives were affected. We experienced suspension of liberties, mandates and limitations on movement.
  2. Distrust of authority. Pandemic regulations have provided fresh fodder for libertarians. A significant minority are skeptical of vaccine safety; the fact that this group includes nurses and people of profound faith does not escape my attention. Throughout the pandemic, announcements and rules were often changed. Leaders and elites were found to ignore travel restrictions. And when protests emerged after the George Floyd murder, the same government leaders who were admonishing people for gathering in groups were participating (and being photographed) in massive gatherings of solidarity for justice.
  3. Damage from technology. We are connected online like never before. But we are disconnected. Picture couples in a restaurant and families at the dinner table each buried in their devices. There’s the inability to behave ourselves online. Social media is an emotional hothouse. It’s not uncommon to see friends sign out for a period of time, making a solemn declarative post about the need to sign off for a time: there’s only so much vitriol a person can take. When I share or post on a hot-button issue, I’m much more likely to get responses. A recent share of an inconsequential Tweet from a rising politician slamming the leadership of the prime minister produced 23 reactions and 41 comments, some of which produced long tangents dimly connected to the original topic. Compare that with the Bible verse that really spoke to me one morning back in late October. I felt a Holy Spirit nudge to shout it in a mountain top post. It was Psalm 57:11 – “Be exalted, O God, above the highest heavens. May your glory shine over all the earth.” And yet only six reactions and a single comment. (“Amen” to you also, sir.) Social media has opened vast amounts of knowledge and platforms for sharing and debate like never seen in human history. Are we any smarter? Is our discourse any better? Is the world a better place?
  4. Disorientation or Disconnect from identity. Gender confusion and dysphoria is a perfect example. “People aren’t sure who they are,” Stetzer says. “This has multiple, multiple ramifications. Because when we hear identity in today’s conversation, gender identity, we’re seeing the conversation about gender dysphoria and gender identity in ways that we haven’t talked about in depth and just in ways we never expected to accelerate so quickly, but it’s more than just that, it’s the rise of nationalism. Nationalism is on the rise, all over.”
  5. Disruption to mental health. The mental health implications of the last few years will be generational. In Ontario, for example, a recent survey found one in four Ontario residents reached for mental health support last year – a significant increase from 17 per cent the year before.[7]
  6. Division in the church. What’s happening here in the PCC is just one small example of what’s ripping apart other denominations and congregations. Deeply-held opinions on the issues of our times are causing ruptures in evangelicalism.[8]

Stetzer predicts that the pandemic will end. I hope so. But the cultural convulsions will continue and the divisions will deepen. “The vitriol, in a way that has not happened since the 1960s, is seeping into churches and/or the denominations,” he said.

Churches are hardly monastic. We are fully integrated into our geographic and secular political, social, and economic systems. Jesus talked about His followers being different; He described it in John 17 as “belonging.”

“I’m not asking you to take them out of the world, but to keep them safe from the evil one. They do not belong to this world any more than I do. Make them holy by your truth; teach them your word, which is truth. Just as you sent me into the world, I am sending them into the world. And I give myself as a holy sacrifice for them so they can be made holy by your truth.” John 17:15-19, NLT

To whom we belong and to whom we answer is clear: it’s our God in Three Persons.

From that, I propose three questions.

How do we survive in (or adapt to) this culture? We saw a lightning-fast response from congregational leaders in the early weeks of the pandemic, scrambling to continue worship online. Most of us accept that some form of hybrid congregation will become a permanent feature of church life: there will be those who participate in person and those who take part online, with a migration back and forth between the two groups. Survival is a deeper issue. In the face of declining attendance and revenue, we simply have to make use of whatever the Lord has provided. It could mean selling the real estate and operating out of our homes and coffee shops. It could also mean more bivocational ministry.

A second question: How do we respond to the hot issues of the day? Take the pandemic measures and vaccination mandates for example. Some churches marched in line with health authorities, closing and reopening only when allowed, then mandating vaccination for in-person attendance. They were among those voicing support for mandatory vaccinations, citing the Christlike command to care for the vulnerable, be our brother’s keeper and Paul’s command to submit to government authority.  Other churches brazenly defied restrictions and continued to gather in person, unmasked and unvaccinated in compliance with the divine command to refuse to allow anything to get in the way of worship. To them, it’s a fight for religious freedom and rights: if restaurants and liquor stores can remain open, so should we. Many churches find themselves somewhere between those two extremes.

Then there’s politics. The Ottawa and border protesters have plenty of church support – some right on the front lines. There are also many believers who see it as insurrection. One minister told me he’d have no problem if the military removed them by force.

With mental health, identity, technology, and culture, we can ask how to respond as the hands and feet of Christ. There are ways.

Regarding our inability to have civilized conversations over matters of public interest, the church could act as a model. We’d have to get our own house in order first. The Presbyterian Church of ours is deeply divided over how we view Scripture and see the role of the church – is our primary focus to spread the Gospel word for salvation or should we be focused on justice? I don’t believe we have ever had a concerted effort to have a national discussion on HOW to co-exist. Perhaps we need to start in our congregations and presbyteries. Anywhere.

But I wonder if a more important question might be: How do we become renewed via all these cultural shifts? Consider that the last “convulsions” birthed something new and lasting. The 1960s produced amazing music which had a lasting effect on the church. The impact of contemporary Christian music is powerful. Out of the hippie culture came the “Jesus movement.” Styles of worship and liturgy changed. We were no longer compelled to be the church of our grandparents.

Finally, I’m going to suggest that there is an even larger question. Huntington, the author of the 60-year theory, asked not which side you are on, rather “who are you?” We are increasingly identified not by race, culture, or nation but by gender, sexual orientation, religion, race, social background, social class, or political outlook. “I identify as …” is becoming the new introductory line in our bios.

Huntington’s question sent a Holy Spirit shiver down my side. It was a clear nudge from the Creator. Isn’t this the primary question asked by every believer: “Who am I?” So I ask: Who or what are we? According to our Scriptures and theology, we are beings created in the image of a perfect God, yet our souls are separated from our Creator by the presence of sin. Enter redemption through the sacrificial death of the Son of God. We are born again. We live, because Christ lives in us. That is who I am.

I’m going to invite every reader to ask that question of themselves. And then, in light of our answers, return to the earlier questions. We might need to churn this over prayerfully until we know how to act.

Footnotes:

[1] https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-54895-7_14 accessed Feb. 16, 2022

[2] https://ctc.usma.edu/the-globalization-of-far-right-extremism-an-investigative-report/ accessed Feb. 16, 2022

[3] The preamble to Bill C-4, which passed into law in January, states: “Whereas conversion therapy causes harm to society because, among other things, it is based on and propagates myths and stereotypes about sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression, including the myth that heterosexuality, cisgender gender identity, and gender expression that conforms to the sex assigned to a person at birth are to be preferred over other sexual orientations, gender identities and gender expressions. . .” https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-4/royal-assent

[4] https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/75-006-x/2021001/article/00010-eng.htm accessed Feb. 16, 2022

[5] Collapsing Levels of Trust Are Devastating America – The Atlantic accessed Feb. 16, 2022

[6] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/10/collapsing-levels-trust-are-devastating-america/616581/ accessed Feb. 16, 2022

[7] https://ontario.cmha.ca/news/1-in-4-ontarians-access-mental-health-help-the-highest-rate-during-the-pandemic/ accessed Feb. 16, 2022

[8] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/04/opinion/evangelicalism-division-renewal.html?smid=fb-share&fbclid=IwAR17pH-zYAHkm7q8hVS5O3SMlMlhaYsHSGZRmx-p9NkeIYG0hnx2QMskjSk accessed Feb. 16, 2022 (may need subscription to access)

No Middle Ground

Posted on by

This blog represents the thoughts of the author. While they may reflect the theological position of The Renewal Fellowship, they should not be seen as an official statement.

A recent survey from Renewal Fellowship asked readers where their minds were at four months after the historic change in doctrine of the Presbyterian Church in Canada (PCC). It was hardly a scientific survey, but the responses mirrored what we’ve been hearing in conversations: In general, “We are staying in the PCC for now, while waiting to see what the next General Assembly enacts.”

Within the tent of orthodoxy (defined roughly as those who aren’t comfortable with the formal adoption of parallel definitions of marriage by General Assembly in June) are those who are actively planning to depart no matter what (if they haven’t already), those who are being called to remain within the PCC and those who are hoping and praying for a positive response to the 31 overtures calling for action on the gracious dismissal study and 21 overtures seeking denominational restructuring along theological lines.

Big thanks to Barb Ferrier for taking many hours to research and compile a listing of all overtures submitted since 2015, all overtures on Gracious Dismissal, all overtures on Theological Separation, and a summary of all overtures on Gracious Dismissal and Theological Separation. It's a rich compendium of insight.

The “tent” analogy is a generalization and suggests that there are no firm boundaries; there’s movement within the camps — and great mutual love and co-operation also, for the record.

It’s the response to the overtures that has the attention of many, especially those who are in a “wait and see” mindset. As previously communicated here and in social media, we are actively praying for the members of Assembly Council (AC), who are actively discerning recommendations to General Assembly.

The AC has established (from its membership) a Departures/Alternate Governance Working Group, consisting of Brenda Butler, Henry Han, Peter Kinch (convener), Jeff Murray, Barb Sargent, Linda Shaw, John-Peter Smit, plus Clerks of Assembly Stephen Kendall and Don Muir. The group made a progress report to the November 21-24 Council meeting and hopes to make a final report to the next General Assembly.

As this group works actively to discern a possible response, I would suggest that three things need to be made abundantly clear. (These imperatives are not just to the working group but to the wider denomination, especially those who identify as progressive.)

First, the wider denomination is invited to recognize the profound sense of dis-ease over the changes in doctrine. The paucity of scriptural underpinnings supporting this doctrinal shift is deeply alarming to a significant number of active leaders in the denomination. They are looking for common ground and certainty in both canon and polity as presented in Matthew 7:24-27.

Second, we are invited to recognize and accept that on all sides of our theological spectrum, we are deeply entrenched. The aforementioned survey attracted most of its responses from ministers, which was not surprising. But what did catch our attention was that the most insightful answers came from non-clergy. Two of them hit the nail on the head.

“There is no middle ground,” wrote an Ottawa-area elder.

Said a Quebec elder: “A kingdom divided cannot stand.”

Pause and reflect on those.

Middle ground is defined as standing between two or more conflicting and opposing positions. Parallel definitions, anyone? I don’t think anyone can claim with any seriousness that there’s no appreciable division in the PCC.

On that note, there is, thirdly, an opportunity here to take bold leadership as denomination and seek accommodation for all. Realistically, “parallel definitions” of marriage and “liberty of conscience” are non-starters for many who either describe themselves as orthodox or as progressive. For them, the language of the remits does not provide middle ground. So, let’s allow birds of a feather to flock together or for others to leave the nest. What a wonderful opportunity to end the infighting.

I echo the prayer posted in recent weeks on the Pray for the PCC group on Facebook.

“May all voices, especially those in the minority, be heard, acknowledged and incorporated into any decision. May this not be a place where a weak majority, a 50+1, rules the day. May the Council be willing to submit to the awesomeness of God, whose ways may not be politically attractive or expedient or immediately gratifying but pave the way for kingdom living. Amen.”

Drawing Guidance From Nature

Posted on by

Lessons from Squirrel Land.

Picture a collection of old trees, filled with squirrels darting up and down the trunks and back and forth across the branches. They are frenetically active. Two squirrels are chasing one other with a walnut in its mouth. Theft? Covetousness? Fun and games? Squirrels just do what they are wired to do.

This time of year, they gather food for the winter. It’s part of a basic, mundane life: hibernation, reproduction and watching for predators. Activities change according to the season and the immediate need. Seasons come and go, but in general, squirrels don’t change. They don’t allow weather to get in the way. They are mindful to the climate, the geography and adapt to whatever season or threat is presented. Seasons turn to years, decades, centuries and the lowly squirrel continues the lifestyle and lifecycle ordained by God.

Culture and technology don’t interfere with the squirrel life because they have no concept of changing times. They carry on with the mission. (Hold on to that thought.)

Let’s also assume that the squirrel has no concept of being, other than the instincts they have in order to survive as individuals and as a species. They are hard wired to react to the changing seasons and to immediate threats, either from within the species or from a predator. They just carry on.

God wills the squirrel to simply be a squirrel. Do the instinctive thing and survive. End of story. There is no choice in the matter. I don’t believe for a second that a young squirrel makes a conscious decision to BE squirrelly, or to venture out and seek a new kingdom, a purpose beyond gathering nuts. In this sense, squirrels are somewhat robotic.

Humans, of course, are different. (True, many of us simply survive without much existential thinking. But even the most basic of human lifestyle still requires life choices.) Arguably the biggest difference between humans and animal life derives from our creation in God’s image and the ongoing struggle between God, who wants our attention and submission and worship, and the enemy, who comes to lie and divert and get in the way of any effort made by ourselves or God to achieve a divine connection.

As a result, we quite often allow the enemy to have its way. We take the easy way. We seek dominance over nature and fancy ourselves as our own gods. We worship ourselves. We seek to master the universe and control nature rather than accept that some things are not meant to change. We try to change God, which is a pointless and futile exercise, rather than allow God to change and control us.

Like the squirrel, humans have instincts. But because we are created in the image of God, we are invited to rise above them. We have awareness of ourselves as spiritual beings with souls which are lasting.

We think, we philosophize, we seek order and an understanding of purpose. We advance in our knowledge of the universe, the planet, the use of technology and understanding of human nature.

Despite the differences between humans and squirrels, I suggest that we can learn something from our furry friends, whose scurried lives are vibrant reminders of the following facts:

  1. God has a purpose and plan for us, which must be sought, understood and followed if we are to survive and thrive.
  2. It’s necessary to take immediate action to protect against predators.
  3. Stock up for dormant seasons.
  4. God provides convenient tree trunk hollows and underground spaces to live, sleep and grow – protected from elements and predators.
  5. There is absolutely nothing we can do to change the seasons or the larger culture of change around us.

It’s that fifth point which is most important. We can do nothing, apparently, to prevent the culture from invading the courts of the church. We can only carry and seek the unchanging will of God and be the true, authentic church. We can anchor ourselves in Christ.

(Of course, on this note, we must constantly be aware of the sin of pride. We must always be humble and admit that we are fallen and there is darkness in each one of us. We are called to exhibit grace and speak what appears clearly to be the truth but to do so with love more than conviction.)

What does all of this mean for us?

Cue the squirrel.

  1. Refuse to allow any climate or predator to get in the way of what God wants us to do. Point no fingers at each other. Rather, point to Christ — crucified, risen, His Spirit with us. Point to the accuracy and reliability of Scripture.
  2. Protect against the enemy, whose aim is to steal what faith we have and to kill. Like squirrels who flock together, we offer pastoral care to all those who are weathering this season of change.
  3. Gather the spiritual fuel we require – via prayer, mutual care, submission and study – to carry out our missions. Keep active and focused on the essential for spiritual survival.
  4. Create places of safety in the midst of the culture. Since 1983, the Renewal Fellowship has strived to promote and protect orthodoxy, but the spiritual forces which sought change were too strong. The soul of the institution, as a spiritual representation of Christ, went down with a single word during General Assembly: “carried.” Now, we seek to create smaller, more local, places of safety, such as a presbytery or congregation which adheres to scriptural integrity. Stay ’n pray, distance or depart – it doesn’t matter.
  5. Work according to the season. Pray early and often.

If all of this sounds a lot like what we should be doing anyway, you’re probably right.

Carry on, like the squirrel.

Cultures change, but Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today and forever.

How Now Do We Talk?

Posted on by

The 2021 federal election marked a new low for civil discourse in postmodern times. Leaders being confronted by protesters from other parties is par for the course but hurling eggs and handfuls of gravel at them was something new.

We should not be surprised. It was the logical next step from the online anger which has seethed for many years. I know it well. One of my many tasks as a newspaper editor was to monitor online commenting and remove anything that might be considered libellous lest we be named as co-accused in civil action. After a while, we gave up and closed comments altogether.

There is nothing new about confrontation in the public sphere. It’s part of the human condition. It’s why we learned in elementary school the rules and practice of debate. How quickly we forget the opening and closing handshakes.

I appreciate banter and sometimes I get into it. I’m a political animal, and I’m also an ideologue. Where on the spectrum does not matter for the purpose of this essay. Let’s just say I am convinced that one side of the left-right continuum is mostly correct. I have voted in every election in which I’m eligible to cast a ballot. That includes student council. I have volunteered on campaigns at every level. I was president of a riding association’s youth wing back in the day.

Of course, I am also a believer. My faith is fused into my steadfast belief that Canada is a great nation, amazingly blessed by our Maker. For the most part, we are a place of peace, freedom, order and security from domestic and international threats. I believe our democratic institutions are a gift from God and need to be protected. I love to point to preamble of the 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which states that “Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.”

So I freely shared the posts of the political party I support. I advised the local candidate, who was glad to hear the views of a local pastor. It was humbling and encouraging.

(Of course, there is a separation. I don’t tell my congregation directly how to vote. Just vote. It doesn’t matter for whom or what. My neighbour put up a sign on his front lawn during the federal campaign which said, “just vote.” Amen. Federal voter turnout as a percentage of those eligible to cast ballots was 66 per cent in 2019.  Provincially, it’s typically a lot less. Municipal turnout in most places never cracks 50 per cent.)

I often share my political views on Facebook. It’s an implicit encouragement to others to get thinking and be engaged. Another implied message is the necessity of an informed vote; making a decision based on facts, not assumptions.

Unfortunately, some responses to my political post sharing have had nothing to do with the issue at hand. Sadly, many of these commenters are fellow political animals – former colleagues and municipal politicians. “Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story,” the old adage goes. Reality is being replaced by perceptions. When I politely suggested that they check the facts, there was no reply or they made a response that was off topic.

Perhaps that’s the underlying problem: people believe what they want to believe. They see and hear what they want to perceive. And it’s fueled by emotion, anger and frustration.

I believe strongly that the separation of passion and emotion from reason is essential in the democratic decision-making process, and it’s one reason behind our historic national peace. And yet I see cracks in that armour. I have a sense that the politics of division we saw in the United States in the lead-up to the 2016 election has now seeped into the Canadian political consciousness. Pelting pebbles at the Liberal leader and eggs at the Peoples’ Party leader at campaign stops are a new low.

We live in an angry world.

________________

But the church is different, right?

Sadly, no.

Witness the vitriolic Facebook reply from a Presbyterian minister to another who likened the passing of the remits to apostasy: “I no longer consider you a friend in any sense of the word.” Ouch. Facebook friendship is a bit of a misnomer (a better term would be an association or perhaps acquaintance) but being “unfriended” on Facebook over theological differences seems extreme.

Apparently, some of us are incapable of associating with those whose opinions are different. Others might continue the “friendship” but are unable or unwilling to engage in respectful dialogue.

Consider the saga of the Facebook group “A gathering place for members and friends of The Presbyterian Church in Canada,” which had 2,437 members when volunteer administrators locked its doors in early April of this year. The shop still stands and all comments (unless previously removed) were in plain view as of mid September.

The group was created in 2007 by friends of the PCC as an open place of discussion. It’s not an official voice of the denomination, which maintains its own page. The fact that it lasted 14 years is a minor miracle. We have been divided theologically for decades. Liberals and progressives have been bent on moulding the PCC into a kinder and gentler church. Those in orthodoxy have been working to hold the line against any movement towards doctrine that might be more in line with secular thinking. Many progressives recoil and state that they are simply moving us to something more Christlike, suggesting that those who stand in opposition are operating out of a false dichotomy advanced by a patriarchal, sexist and homophobic church for several thousand years. It’s a back and forth, never ending no-win debate.

“Let’s ‘up’ our politeness and thoughtfulness a bit please,” one of the administrators posted in 2018. It was an oft-repeated plea.

The administrators of the page have taken a few hits in recent years for either shutting down conversations or removing certain individuals or from being overly tolerant. It was a no-win situation. It’s worth noting that the admins are of many theological mindsets and thus represented the wide diversity of thought and practice within the PCC.

The final straw for “gathering place” occurred in the wake of debate over the selection of an Anglo male as nominee for moderator of 2021 General Assembly. He was among three ministers on the ballot; the others were an aboriginal woman and a Caribbean woman. The ballot was put to a ranked vote by members of presbyteries. It was the same process used for many years. As soon as the nominee was announced, questions were raised.

Here’s an excerpt from the post which got the “gathering place” debate going: “Indigenous, Black and Asian people are disproportionally suffering in Canadian society. Systemic racism is active in our Canadian institutions. Education, Social Services, Health, Law, Politics, and Church. And, in this context we corporately choose a white male over an Indigenous woman or a Black woman to Moderate the Assembly of our Church? I weep.”

There were several thoughtful posts and replies. Much of it was mutually respectful. I point to one notable exchange between Rev. Harris Athanasiadis and Rev. George Robertson – ministers on different ends of the theological spectrum – who bantered back and forth. It was thought provoking and delightful and if you have a few hours, check it out. Sadly, their exchange produced very few “likes.” Most of the attention went to the more-entertaining and pithy comments. It didn’t take long for emotions to flare. A mere one day later, a page administrator shut down the conversation, citing the need to avoid personal comments.

But the lid on this boiling pot wasn’t going to contain the steam. Two days later, someone made a fresh attempt to rekindle the fire: “This conversation started with a very simple question – ‘what does this election say about the church?’ . . . What bothers me the most is the intentional misunderstanding of the issue at hand. Nobody has, or will ever, claim that the vote was racist by nature. Nobody believes that the voters said to themselves, ‘I’m only comfortable voting for the white one’. We are simply asking why, again, we have decided that a white man is the most qualified. Why does it ALWAYS seem as if the white male is the most qualified?”

Discourse is too polite a word to describe much of what followed. A few deliberately poked the bear. Like political barbs, a number of responders strayed from the facts and made hay from stereotypes. It got nasty. In one noteworthy exchange, a progressive and a conservative each blamed the other of being either racist or Marxist.

Two days later, commenting on that thread was closed. Shortly after, the page as a whole was closed to any new posts.

“We’ve never seen such a volume of posts and such a lack of civility on here before,” one of the volunteer administrators posted.

“A gathering place” now stands as a snapshot in time, a memorial to our fractious nature. It might be reopened. Or not.

I am a fervent defender of free speech, no matter how odious the comments. I see nothing wrong with the original questions posed. I adhere to the belief that there is no incorrect question. (Yes, they can be loaded, baited and passive aggressive, but that’s the right of the poser.)

The challenge for all of us in a supposedly free and democratic nation is to engage one another in respectful dialogue and debate.

Is an intelligent, well-moderated and mutually respectful conversation possible? I’m a perennial optimist, so my answer is “yes.” All opinions are worthy of consideration. Yes, even the most outlandish. Even those which are clearly being advanced by the enemy.

“Worthy of consideration” does not mean we agree in whole or part. “Consideration” means that we recognize that the suggestion, proposition or question is the result of a thinking and feeling person who was created in the image of God.

Dwell on that.

_________________

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,” is the universal credo in defence of free speech.

Free speech is a rare gift. Only in very recent human history – measured by a few hundred years – has it had any measure of practice in our nations and cultures. This is why scripture doesn’t contain much direct encouragement for those who advance freedoms of speech. These are human rights, after all. The true freedom advanced in scripture is of a spiritual nature.

The closest encouragement, in my mind, are the words of our Lord as he proclaimed the Kingdom: “I tell you the truth.”

The truth will set us free once we know it and embrace it, the Lord stated in John 8:32. But he also shrugged off state control: give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar. What’s more important is to be free from the wiles of the devil.

Scripture is clear, however, on the dangers of unbridled discussion.

“Likewise, the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark.” James 3:5

We have been warned in no uncertain terms how our words and speech are powerful and dangerous.

Do we have ears to hear?

______________

We find ourselves in uncharted territory.

Theological divide has resulted in an official change in doctrine after remits ‘B’ and ‘C’ were adopted at 2021 General Assembly, allowing the coexistence of two “parallel” definitions of marriage and the “liberty of conscience and action” granting elders and ministers the right not to participate in the ordinations, inductions and installations of those in same-gender marriages or relationships.

The division is more than formally recognized — it’s been codified. Expect a a rewritten Living Faith to come.

How all of this fits with our ordination vows not to take any divisive course is an excellent question, one that was raised during the two-year discussion between the creation of the remits and their final approval. A satisfactory answer may not be possible. Nor resolution.

Interestingly, the same vow is followed by a pledge “to seek peace and unity of Christ among your people and throughout the Holy Catholic Church.”

Which brings us to the question, “How now shall we talk?”

One solution for those who don’t want to remain is simply to depart, which many have done. The exodus from the PCC has been going on for decades. While people can freely leave, it’s not easy for a congregation, which does not own its building. Efforts to allow congregations to leave the fold (for any theological reason) resulted in a carefully-researched and detailed proposal to allow “gracious dismissal,” which has still not been formally received by the council which commissioned it on behalf of General Assembly. There are also overtures calling for the creation of separate theological wings of the PCC, each with its own doctrine. Even if these initiatives are accepted as viable alternatives, it will take years to settle.

And then there are those who are content to stay. (Or they are simply not being called to depart.) Remaining faithful to orthodoxy might be a challenge, which creates a greater need than ever to lift one another up. But that’s only half of the challenge. There are the folks on the other side of the parallel definition. How do we talk to one another?

_______________

I had coffee recently with a colleague from seminary. It had been several years since we talked face to face. It never ceases to amaze me how folks with shared experiences have a certain bond. No matter how long the separation, it only takes a few minutes for the ice to break when we meet.

I should point out that my friend and I do not share the same theological outlooks on some key matters. Yet as we shared our experiences of working in ministry – trials and tribulations, joys and sorrows, hopes and dreams – our theological differences of opinion didn’t seem to matter.

It got me thinking about our seminary days. Our cohort was diverse. We knew that we came from different theological perspectives but we didn’t dwell on that because we had more-urgent things on our minds: getting through the next Greek exegesis, finishing our papers on deadline, working together on group assignments and completing that week’s readings. Get through it and graduate.

Out of the tests and trials of seminary, lifelong bonds were formed. We attended each other’s ordinations and inductions. We shared the early experiences of venturing into new callings.

Eventually, we entered the “real world,” where theological differences started to matter. Church politics reared its head. Innocent days ended. Many of us settled into different cohorts based on shared theology.

Is it possible, in the real world of working ministry, to rediscover that childlike innocence we experienced in seminary? Our Lord does ask us to be like little children. Like seminary students focused on the task at hand, what if we were so focused on our collective calls that we paid no heed to our significant differences in theology and doctrine? It might be a naïve question. But, as noted above, all questions are valid.

I can think of one immediate stumbling block, and it’s agreeing on exactly what that collective call, that priority, should be. Is it the noble cause of social justice, feeding the hungry and fighting for fairness and equity? Is it the wonderous challenge of introducing Christ to those who don’t know Him? Salvation or encouragement? Prophecy or community? That’s just a taste. Our calls are as diverse as the needs.

And yet, with God, are all things not possible?

In addition to his work with Renewal Fellowship, Andy Cornell is minister at St. Andrew’s Dresden, Ontario

Fresh Focus for a New Season

Posted on by

This blog represents the thoughts of the author. While they may reflect the theological position of The Renewal Fellowship, they should not be seen as an official statement.

I read a frightening statistic recently.

“Only 29 per cent of Christians believe that reaching unreached people around the world is 'very urgent.' ”

It's a quote from the Barna Group, the American research firm which specializes in faith and culture. I don't believe that it's far from the truth. (It could be even worse in Canada.) It holds up against recent research. In 2017, Barna asked churchgoers about The Great Commission. Only half had ever heard of it. It rang a bell for some, but only 17 per cent were actually familiar with it.

Yes, that's scary. It's frightening for the simple – and I would suggest “obvious” – reason that there is nothing more important for the church than to do our part in rescuing souls from eternal separation from God. Life is a blink of an eye compared with what's to come.

(It also begs the question: what on earth do we think church is about anyway? Also: what in blazes are pastors doing?)

Most denominations, congregations and believers simply do not place a high priority on evangelism. Tragically, it's only a few in Christendom who genuinely take it seriously.

The pandemic made it worse. Yes, being online allowed us to reach out in a new way. And yes, some of us received new people into our midst because of online technology – or at least we welcomed some back who haven't been able to be with us in person.

But in our race to adapt and go online – and establish protocols for meeting in person – evangelism went from the back seat of our churches to the storage room. Something that was already weak became even less of a priority.

It's time for that to change. And what better time than now, when we emerge from what we hope and pray are the final waves of COVID-19 and we enter a new church season.

Let's be reminded of what The Great Commission is, as stated in Matthew 28:18-20.

    All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. (NIV)

I love how Jesus sets this up with a reminder that He is the Son of God. He is holy and heavenly royalty. “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” He is God in human form. And if we truly believe that, then we are obligated to listen and follow everything He says in His final words before He ascended to heaven. “Therefore” is the kind of word which should make listeners or readers pause and open their eyes, ears, hearts and minds to what follows. Skin should tingle as we take it in.

“Go” means to move, with purpose and in complete faith. “Make disciples” means to actively work to a specific goal.

“Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” This is not just for ministers. We are the priesthood of all believers. Notwithstanding what our denomination teaches – that the sacrament of baptism is to be administered only by teaching elders and those ruling elders who have been commissioned by presbytery – the truth is that real baptism is not a ceremony but rather being present to prayerfully and lovingly guide someone as they give their heart and mind – indeed, their entire eternal being – over to God in Christ.

There is nothing in this world or the next that is more important than this.

What will it take for the church to wake up to this? A church which does not make evangelism its chief priority is turning a blind eye and deaf ear to the will of God.

I am not aware of any 12-step program how to make this happen. And if anyone tries to sell you on one – buyer beware.

However, we can start by getting some encouragement from the apostle Paul – the great church planter – who was not particularly good on his feet. He was a powerful letter writer and brilliant theologian, but hardly a candidate to lead a megachurch. Not much to see in person, from what we glean from Scripture.

What he had was the ability to submit his entire being to the loving mercy of God, the brotherhood of Christ the Shepherd and the awesome capable power of the Holy Spirit to operate in ways that are unseen and beyond our abilities.

As Paul says, “Now all glory to God, who is able, through his mighty power at work within us, to accomplish infinitely more than we might ask or think.” (Ephesians 3:20 NLT)

Read it carefully and take in each word. “Mighty … power … at work … within us … infinitely more.” Do we believe God can do all that? And I mean, do we believe with all of our heart, soul, strength and mind? If so, let's live it and proclaim it.

Let all of us – teaching elders, ruling elders, members, and adherents everywhere – stop, drop, and pray for however long it takes to receive that power and hear our Lord's voice. For some of us, it will be the first time in quite a while. For others, it may be in a new and powerful way. Or it may even be the first time.

We are powerless on our own. We need Him. Allow Him to work.

As we emerge from pandemic distancing and as church programs (such as they are) fire up once again, we are invited to put aside pointless and destructive theological disputes which are orchestrated by the devil. Let us admit that we will never be able to reconcile our differences, at least not on human terms.

Shake off the dust and move on to what is more important.

Departure Gate, Destination Unknown

Posted on by

This blog represents the thoughts of the author. While they may reflect the theological position of The Renewal Fellowship, they should not be seen as an official statement.

Precisely 60 seconds after the adoption of Remit ‘C’ by General Assembly, which allowed the call, election and ordination of those in same-sex partnerships, a motion was made to investigate the establishment of a separate theological synod for those who adhere to traditional standards.

The timing spoke volumes. It was evidence that the compromises in the remits, allowing parallel definitions of marriage and liberty of conscience regarding participation, failed to bridge the theological divide.

“A large number of congregations cannot accept this,” said the mover.

It wasn’t just about integrity. There was a practical concern.

“I bring this motion really to plant a seed … and perhaps stave off people or even churches leaving the denomination… . I am also really concerned about the sustained division within the church. I believe that by creating a separate theological space … the church can preserve its deeply held theological perspectives,” he explained.

The bid failed by roughly the same proportion that adopted the remits.

Some of those who spoke against the motion promised conservatives that they would be given the same safe space others have lacked for decades.

Give peace a chance, they said.

“Trust each another… Trust the new process for a year, for six months, but for longer than 30 seconds. Give God a chance to make us into a new people,” said one detractor.

But in the hearts and minds of many in orthodoxy, trust had already been broken, the process had already been lengthy and the denomination had walked away from God. The remits were non starters.

The departures have begun.

“I have had some people leave, or about to leave, from both ends of the spectrum,” one Ontario pastor told me recently. “Someone said they were leaving the congregation because they couldn’t be associated with a church who wouldn’t marry same-sex couples, and then two weeks ago someone said they couldn’t support a church in a denomination who would tamper with the definition of marriage.”

In another congregation, session exercised its liberty of conscience as promised in Remit ‘C’ and issued a statement upholding traditional marriage. It was met by a mixture of resignations of liberal-minded members and applause from others.

Behind the scenes across the PCC, ministers, elders and congregants are supporting one another in online gatherings and letters of encouragement.

While most departures so far have been in dribs and drabs, that was not the case in Trenton, Ontario, where in late June, all five members of St. Andrew’s session handed in their letters of resignation.

“This has been a difficult decision as I have served the Lord through The Presbyterian Church in Canada for many years in three congregations,” wrote clerk of session and representative elder Alan Brewster.

Citing 2 Timothy 4 and Jeremiah 6:16, he pointed to the remits as contrary to scripture. “I believe The Presbyterian Church in Canada is interpreting the scriptures to agree with society’s opinions at the expense of the truth.”

Fellow elder Andy Van Bodegom said he has been preparing for this possibility for years. God’s word “stands in opposition to the plurality of the definition of marriage. God’s word stands in opposition and I can do no less,” he wrote, citing 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and Ephesians 2:12. “The denomination is (if not already so), headed toward a state of apostasy,” he added.

Elder Sue Van Bodegom has attended St. Andrew’s Trenton for her entire life – baptized, confirmed, married, and raising a family there.

“I love my church but I realize I do not own it, nor does it own me. I have one Master to whom I answer and that is Jesus Christ. Being brought up on His Word and being faithful to it is what is important to me. Knowing that the Church is straying from it by passing remits ‘B’ and ‘C’ breaks my heart and I do not wish to continue being a part of it. Resigning from the eldership was not an easy decision but it was necessary,” she wrote.

She added: “I want it known that I love my brothers and sisters who are LGBTQI oriented and in no way do I mean to be hurtful. My prayers are with them.”

While the resignations were noteworthy, so too was the manner in which they came about. Interim moderator Rev. Jennifer Cameron was fully aware of their discomfort after Assembly, so she reached out a pastoral hand.

“I thought about the position they were in, knowing the challenges faced by the congregation over the past seasons of transition, and tired after waiting and wondering how things would unfold in the denomination,” she wrote in In a July 12 letter to the congregation.

“I felt led to open a door for them to be relieved of the burden of leadership, so they might sit alongside you in the congregation as brothers and sisters and discern a path forward with you. I approached the Elders with this prayerful insight and raised the possibility of them resigning as an act of care for them. Just to be clear, I did not seek these resignations, but made the Elders aware that they had options.”

For now, the elders remain in the congregation and are working with Cameron to maintain a semblance of stability until presbytery can appoint assessor elders.

“I will … if needed, assist my brothers and sisters in Christ as they discern their next steps,” said Brewster.

Andy Van Bodegom added: “I will … stay with my church family until their future is decided. After that I will be leaving the PCC. Like Luther said many years ago, ‘Here I stand, I can do no other.’ ”

Cameron said she appreciates their servant leadership: “I respect these elders. They are unbelievably gracious.”

As noted in her letter: “They love the Lord and this congregation and did not want it to seem like they were walking away from their commitments. It is quite the opposite.”

Like travellers approaching the departure gate with no immediate destination in mind, the Trenton elders – and many in their congregation – are watching and waiting. Theological separation in the PCC may still happen, as formal responses to the myriad of overtures calling for theological synods have yet to happen. At the same time, the report on the feasibility of gracious dismissal also awaits formal consideration.
One thing is for sure: they and others who have resigned in recent weeks are not alone.

Hungarian Congregations Speak Out

Posted on by

This blog represents the thoughts of the author. While they may reflect the theological position of The Renewal Fellowship, they should not be seen as an official statement.

What’s inclusive for some is having the opposite effect for others.

A group of Hungarian Presbyterian congregations is the latest to go on the record about feeling excluded by the ongoing liberal theological drift in The Presbyterian Church in Canada.

“We sadly observe and experience that our beloved Church we have belonged to for decades as Hungarian Calvinists goes into a direction that may exclude us,” states a petition signed by the ministers of six congregations.

The May 21, 2021 statement describes how the PCC provided a welcome home for “Calvinist Reformed Hungarian immigrants arriving to Canada” at various times in the last 100 years. They describe being “received graciously, lovingly by The Presbyterian Church in Canada. We joyfully joined this denomination because of our confessions and traditions were very similar to the Canadian Presbyterians.”

They resisted the push toward an inclusive theological agenda in recent decades. The 2019 remits proposing dual definitions of marriage and the ordination of those in same-sex marriage represent a line they refuse to cross. The remits are on General Assembly’s June 6-9 agenda for approval.

The petition is the latest official statement by PCC ethnic congregations. It follows petitions by both Korean-language presbyteries, a statement from a coalition of Chinese congregations and a letter from a large Arabic congregation.

Rev. Miklos Szigeti, of First Hungarian Presbyterian Church in Vancouver, said in an email, “We just wanted to support our beloved brothers and sisters and also to demonstrate our unity.”

The petition appears to speak for most of the Hungarian-language congregations in the PCC. Szigeti said his Hungarian cohorts feel that those who are advancing a liberal theology are “pushing us with power to accept that is against the revelation of God – but we are unable to be in unity with that.”

The petition does not seek a specific remedy.

“We will listen to the Lord and also to our Korean, Chinese and other ethnic brothers and sisters. We are praying and waiting,” Szigeti wrote.

The Hungarian petition – signed by ministers from congregations in Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal – is too late to be received by this year’s General Assembly, but it provides powerful support for the landmark petitions by PCC’s Korean-speaking congregations.

In March, Western and Eastern Han-Ca presbyteries joined forces to adopt petitions alleging that they are being treated as “nothing more than a marginal group whose voice is deemed as one which can, and should be ignored.” They accuse the “primarily Anglo-driven dominant culture” of the denomination for sidelining the beliefs of ethnic minorities, most of whom adhere to conservative theology.

In response, GA’s Bills and Overtures Committee is recommending the appointment of a special committee to consider the allegations and report to a future Assembly.

The Han-Ca petitions are backed by a coalition of six Chinese congregations, known as the Chinese Consultation. In a May 10 statement, they declared a similar experience as the Koreans. The Chinese statement accompanies a letter asking General Assembly not to approve the remits.

In April the session of Chapel Place Presbyterian Church – an Arabic-speaking congregation in Markham, Ont. – released its own strongly-worded letter to the Clerks of Assembly, supporting the Han-Ca concerns.

General Assembly meets online June 6-9.