A 1993 Report on Presbyterians For Renewal. A Special report for "RENEWING THE CHURCH", by Robert Longman Jr.

Part 1 of the descriptive part of the
report. Copyright Robert Longman Jr., all rights reserved.


The Presbyterians For Renewal are unique among mainline and evangelical
renewal movements in many ways. For example :

While there were several renewal groups in both the United and Southern
Presbyterian bodies, when the two denominations merged, those groups did
*not* merge. PFR set out from the start to be discontinuous, to be
something *new*. Many of PFR's current leaders were people who had
distanced themselves from the earlier renewal groups, in part because
the groups were combative, politically aligned with the economics of the
'New Right' extremists, and excluded women and minorities through social
sleight-of-hand. In particular, the United Presbyterian group (with
the apt name of PUBC) was seen to have definite schismatic tendencies,
and despite their lewd initials had a deep phobia about human sexuality
issues. The PUBC people are still there in PFR, though the most
extreme of them have exited for the PCA. PFR's character is different.
Its leadership is different. Schism is explicitly rejected, and some
of them fought hard to keep the huge Highland Park PC in Houston from
leaving the PCUSA.

PFR from the very outset, in the Covenant of Renewal which marks its
members, pledged to work "energetically and constructively" in their
denomination. That pledge all by itself separates it from some renewal
groups, which actively undermine their denominations' programs. Renewal
groups are, by their very nature, an implicit challenge to their
denomination's leadership, in that if the leadership was 'doing right'
there would be no need for renewal groups. With PUBC, that challenge
to leadership was explicit, and such challenges as a rule end up being
destructive and start breaking off into turf wars, schisms, and enduring
scars. Ample proof can be found in virtually every stage of US
Presbyterian history. Of course, some wonder if PFR's commitment to
the constructive approach is more than talk. But the PFR presence in
many denominational and congregational activities -- youth ministry,
hospice support, the Wee Kirk Conferences, seminary training, and world
missions, to name a few -- has been as constructive as promised. And
in the recent battles over the Human Sexuality Study, PFR worked closely
with many people who are in no way aligned with PFR to present to the
whole church a conservative Presbyterian approach to sexuality; while it
was war, it was waged broadly and aimed at consensus-building. Not all
is well, though. Many Presbyterians are very disappointed in the level
of monetary support PFR-folks were able to muster up for new PCUSA
evangelistic efforts. Some black Presbyterians note that among the PFR
-aligned congregations are several who in the past two decades left
their old inner-city locations for sprawling buildings in lily-white
suburbs.

Which brings up another unique pledge given by PFR : it pledges itself
"to pursue social justice....and to combat racism and sexism". In most
denominations, those terms are used almost exclusively by those who the
renewalists *oppose*. Many renewalists believe that those who have
social justice as a major concern have Scripture as a minor concern.
That is an untrue stereotype, but one which is regularly reinforced by
social justice leaders who more often than not fit that stereotype and
insist on others conforming to it. Such is true in the PCUSA, too.
PFR, in its attempt to be more honestly Scriptural, supports many
aspects of the drive for inclusiveness and social justice. For
instance, Hispanic PCUSA leader Virgil Cruz was PFR president for the
1991 term, and Executive Director Betty Moore is perhaps the PFR
official that PCUSA leaders are most involved with day-to-day. Many
PFR churches held Dr. King Day activities, and several regional board
members are supporters of Bread For the World. And while PFR never
allows social justice concerns to dominate their written materials, it
is almost always present in more than just a passing reference.

However, there are limits to their inclusiveness concerns, mostly
arising from their loyalty to Scripture. The foremost of these is on
the matter of homosexuality. PFR members believe homosexual activity
to be a sin, and that practicing homosexuals must never be allowed as
ordained ministers or high church officers. This puts them firmly in
line with almost all of Christian tradition, and also brings them into
open conflict with gay/lesbian groups, especially PLGC. PLGCers
generally see PFRers as backward-looking, deeply prejudiced,
fundamentalist, legalist, and sexually stuck-up. Frankly, that mostly
reflects PLGCers' own rather bitter and blinding prejudices against its
opponents whomever they are; they can't see that for the most part it
just ain't so. However, PFR's positioning against PLGC raises tough
and legitimate questions about what (aside from hospice) PFR people are
going to do about AIDS and AIDS hysteria, of how PFR could work against
the rising level of assaults against homosexuals, or why PFR has not
supported the general rights of homosexuals as Americans to live and
work as other Americans do in the society at large. Even if
homosexuals are 'sinners' as PFR sees them, surely they don't deserve to
be beaten, nor socially forced out of an American society that is jam
-packed with other unrepentant sinners, each of whom Christ died for.
Even moderate PCUSA leaders are very disappointed with PFR's response in
not vigorously, unequivocably, consistently, and publicly going that far
in support of gays and lesbians. These moderates do not want PFR to go
and embrace the gay rights platform or ideology; however, they *are*
looking for PFR to show its unconditional love for the sinner. It is,
for those moderates, a major roadblock to their potential involvement
with PFR.

Feminists have problems with PFR, too, but those problems are much more
Biblically explicable. There is no evidence at all that PFR is anti-
woman nor virulently anti-feminist; many women are involved in it, and
PFR sometimes draws upon feminist ideas. PFR doesn't believe in
quotas, is not at all friendly to pro-choice purism (though many members
hold views best categorized as 'limited pro-choice'), and abhors what
they see as forcing Scripture into a feminist (or any other)
straightjacket. But that should be seen as something not aimed at
women or feminism, only at aspects of the feminist platform. Not that
PFR is free of sexism by any stretch; some women who have tried to be
leaders have (according to their own testimony) been made quite
uncomfortable, and PFR has not yet seriously tackled the task of how to
give them the space they're due. But the will to deal with it is
there; they may well be at a loss to know how to do it.




The most unique aspect about PFR among renewal organizations is that it
is one organization, not a loose confederation of small groups
coalescing to present an occasionally-united front such as the Episcopal
PEWSACTION. It attempts to make a unified stance on PCUSA matters
across the board. It has, of course, sub-organizations and specialized
ministries, but the most basic thing is unity. That PFR is able to be
that way in a church that has such a rancorous history (and especially
rancorous within dissenters' ranks such as theirs) is amazing, even
miraculous.

There are several reasons for these uniquenesses among renewal
movements.

One stems from the combative history of US Presbyterianism. Virtually
everybody has felt the pain, the damage, and the diversion from mission
created by these wars; virtually everybody left in the PCUSA wants no
more of it.

Another stems from the fact that there are virtually no more true
Fundamentalists left within PCUSA, as individuals or congregations.
Almost all of them left earlier to join the 'split-Ps' such as the
Orthodox Presbyterians, PCA, Bible Protestants, and even the Christian &
Missionary Alliance. This fact became all the more obvious when the
last spinoff church, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, was made up of
those who saw themselves as *non-Fundamentalist* Evangelicals. The
bulk of PFR support comes from people who may be right-of-center within
the PCUSA but are *left*-of-center as self-identified Evangelicals go.
The PFR support base has far more in common with the mass of the PCUSA
than the splitters did; indeed, there are many non-PCUSA mainline
observers who feel that PFR's support base is much closer to PCUSA's
mass than are PCUSA's denominational officals. I didn't originally
believe that myself (and still don't quite), but the Human Sexuality
battle in '91 gave strong evidence in favor of those observers'
analysis.

A third reason involves personalities. In particular, PFR's character
is in no small part due to years of hard work from leading mainline
renewalist Dr. Richard Lovelace. Through his books, newsletters and
denominational contacts, he helped to create a sense of togetherness
among those seeking renewal of the Presbyterian church. PFR is marked
by his insistance on involvement of women and minorities, his focus on a
personal piety which retained a public dimension, and his persistant
warnings to would-be schismatics that they would not achieve their
purpose by splitting. Lovelace's 'unitive' thrust has been the aspect
of his approach that other denominations' movements have most ignored
and most needed. Another individual whose mark is large albeit quiet
is current exec director Betty Moore. Some of PFR's leaders show the
influence of Dutch Reformed thinking, especially that of Lewis Smedes,
Richard Mouw, and of the Reformed Journal/Perspectives writers. Oddly
enough, two United Church of Christ figures also added touches to the
character of PFR, by way of their writings : Donald Bloesch and Gabriel
Fackre. [[ Former UCCers are commonly found in PCUSA ranks, the most
prominent of which is Elizabeth Achtemeier; it's where the German
Reformed contingent of the UCC is slipping away to. In a sense, this is
due to failure of renewal there.]]

A fourth factor is that of the parachurch youth organizations,
especially Youth Specialties in El Cajon CA; former Wittenburg Doornik
Ben Patterson edited PFR's *reNews* newsletter until this month, and
many of its adult supporters took part in YS, Campus Life or Youth For
Christ programs when they were younger. The YS event tour includes what
is to some extent a whistle-stop mini-tour of Presbyterian Evangelical
congregations, as that is the heart of YS support. In the same vein,
the Billy Graham crusades have added numbers, vigor and identity to
mainline renewal. Without the Graham effect, mainline renewal would
have little support at the congregational level and would have no sense
at all of being a movement.

A fifth is their own relative unity on theological matters. For
Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists, and the UCC, there is substantial
disagreement on many major matters between those flying renewal banners.
For instance, ELCA Lutheran 'renewal' involves old-line Pietists,
Charismatics, orthodox Confessionalists, closet Missourians, High-
churchers, and those shaped by the Evangelical movement. The
differences are strong, historical, and definitive. Their coalescing is
(unfortunately) mainly a practical matter of having not enough power by
themselves to address their common concerns about the state of their
church; they undermine each other constantly with snipings and
stereotyping.

While the PFR people have theological differences, those are few and
almost never definitive. Their styles are much more alike than dislike.
Their firm loyalty to a Calvinist view of Word and Sacrament and to
Calvin's Institutes leaves them less room to vary. There is a strong
though strained identity with Evangelicalism rather than conciliar
mainline belief. There is still a sense of common Presbyterian history
among PFRers, and a clear recognition that they are in this together.

Will PFR's uniqueness continue in the future? I think so, since it is
rooted in what makes the PCUSA Presbyterian. Furthermore, I'm
convinced that once the astrological spell of Reaganism wears off (as it
will with time), some of the split-Ps will be convinced (by the Bible,
if nothing else) to rethink their approach, become more Evangelical than
Fundamentalist, more politically Christlike than politically right-wing,
and they will develop real relationships with PFR churches that might
lead to new church mergers or at least much more cooperation with the
PCUSA. If that happens, I hope PFR will play a crucial role in
reconciling the parts of the Reformed movement. But it will have to
win more than defensive battles on the PCUSA Assembly level to do it.
PFR will have to lead the church to a true change of *heart*, a refocus
on Jesus as found in the Scripture, a keener ear as to what the prophets
were really saying (as against the ideological agenda that some pathetic
parts of the PCUSA fly under the banner 'prophetic'), and a rededication
of the church to the missionary task at hand in this great mission field
known as the USA.

Robert Longman