It looks like it is not only Anglicans establishing new, non-traditonal church structures in the US. The following article from Crosswalk provides details about the new non-geographic presbytery which was formally approved at the recent Evangelical Presbyterian General Assembly.
New Wineskins Yearn to be Filled with the Spirit
They left because they were tired ”“ tired of merely standing in the pews on Sunday, tired of leaders who denied the truth of Scripture, tired of seeing their numbers dwindling. They were also thirsty — thirsty for a filling of the Holy Spirit and thirsty to reach out in their communities. The men and women who formed the New Wineskins Association of Churches (NWAC) ”“ a splinter group of the Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA) ”“ saw the new wine of the Holy Spirit being poured out across the world. They saw lives being transformed and longed to be part of the movement.
Gerrit Dawson, co-moderator of the New Wineskins, says, “We realized we needed new wineskins and it’s not really about denominations at all. It’s about being missional, out-turned congregations. That’s where the real deal is. The rest is peripheral to our calling.”
According to Dawson, conservative Presbyterians have for years been troubled by signs of increasing liberalism in the PCUSA such as drifting from the Trinity and the denial of absolute truth. Some tried to take a stand within the denomination. But actions by the PCUSA’s 217th General Assembly, such as a move toward the ordination of homosexuals, rang a final warning bell for the conservative Presbyterians. “For years we have mourned our denomination’s unfaithfulness and we have grieved its actions,” says Dean Weaver, a New Wineskins co-moderator. “We have labored faithfully for renewal.”
So, on Feb. 9, 2007, representatives of the New Wineskins voted unanimously to pursue refuge within the conservative Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC) after the EPC proposed to establish a temporary, non-geographic presbytery for dissident PCUSA congregations.
According to EPC Moderator Paul Heidebrecht, “The Holy Spirit drew us toward the New Wineskins. We are truly impressed by the mission-driven polity of the NWAC.”
On June 22, the move became official when the 27th General Assembly of the EPC officially created a New Wineskins Transitional Presbytery. Transitional membership commenced on the adjournment of the 27th General Assembly and will end on June 30, 2012.
The full article is here. (h/t Pat Dague)
Some background links from “Reformed Pastor” David Fischler:
New Wineskins Press Release (June 22)
David Fischler’s June 22 live blog of EPC Assembly vote on the Transitional Presbytery proposals
EPC General Assembly Q&A on Transitional Presbyteries
And from the EPC website, there is this:
Structure for Receiving Churches and Pastors Transitionally, Approved by the 27th General Assembly of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, June 2007
———
Interestingly enough, after we had prepared the above text as a draft for posting, we continued our “blog crawl” and reached “The Lead,” one of the blogs that make up the Episcopal Cafe site. They’ve posted a short entry yesterday on a June 24 Washington Times article about how the EPC is coping with explosive growth. Here’s what The Lead has to say:
We, of course, don’t hear about the small denominations that folded or merged. Denominations that start from a tiny base – and have survived – more than likely are experiencing high growth. No doubt PCUSA has lost some members due to controversial issues – and gained or held onto others for the same reason. But what newspapers rarely mention, when pointing out the declining membership in the mainline denominations, is that conservative denominations tend to have higher birthrates, and in mainline denominations the birthrate hovers at or below replacement.
Besides, PCUSA isn’t merely following the times. It is following its moral compass – even if that means those more attracted to religion are turned off by the change in direction.
Is anyone surprised by this spin? But it really does strike this elf as pretty incredible denial.
[i]But what newspapers rarely mention, when pointing out the declining membership in the mainline denominations, is that conservative denominations tend to have higher birthrates, and in mainline denominations the birthrate hovers at or below replacement.
[/i]
hmmm, methinks we’ve heard this from TEC before, namely from KJS in several of her interviews. All the problems of mainline denominations are NOT based on theological revision, but rather on — low birthrates!
#1, More so, KJS has even stated in several interviews that those in conservative denominations who have higher birthrates are idiots, and that a denomination having a birthrate below replacement is something to be proud of.
The dynamics in this are interesting. There are probably a number of PCUSA churches that would leave, but for the concern about fighting over the property. So the situation in the Episcopal Church (as well as the fight that has erupted in some of the PCUSA churches) is being watched carefully.
The other thing, however, is that there are many in the PCUSA who believe the battle is not lost, the momentum is changing and that we should stay and fight. The declines in church membership are coming primarily out of the liberal side of the church. Meanwhile, the “evangelical” side of PCUSA is growing substantially, fueled primarily by strong influxes of young clergy from evangelical seminaries like Fuller in California. One of our pastors, for one, thinks that over time the evangelicals will prevail in PCUSA.
One thing about Presbyterians is they are more feisty than the good-mannered Episcopalians. I think it comes from all that Scots and Scots-Irish heritage. Beware when they start bringing out the bagpipes.
Rolling Eyes comments “More so, KJS has even stated in several interviews that those in conservative denominations who have higher birthrates are idiots…”
Wonder if #2 could provide a substantiating reference to any of the “several interviews” of the Presiding Bishop in which she referred to anyone as “idiots”?
Here is where she touts the superior intelligence, and morals, of the non-reproducing Episcopalians.
Doug Martin — you are so right! Bishop Jefferts Schori would nevah say anything so gauche and tawdry. I am certain that she would not use the word “idiots”!
Rolling Eyes, you should be ASHAMED of yourself!!! Our Dear Leader would never let the word “idiots” come out of her mouth.
Instead she would say this in the New York Times November 19, 2006 interview:
[blockquote]”How many members of the Episcopal Church are there in this country?”
About 2.2 million. It used to be larger percentagewise, but Episcopalians tend to be better-educated and tend to reproduce at lower rates than some other denominations. Roman Catholics and Mormons both have theological reasons for producing lots of children.
“Episcopalians aren’t interested in replenishing their ranks by having children?”
No. It’s probably the opposite. We encourage people to pay attention to the stewardship of the earth and not use more than their portion.”[/blockquote]
Rolling Eyes. Kneel, varlet.
Kneel and repent of your putting that tawdry word into Bishop Jefferts Schori’s mouth.
; > )
PS: if you are a Roman Catholic, may I recommend these fine wares from CafePress? Perhaps a mug, or t-shirt, or magnet?
http://www.cafepress.com/thekatestore.88953504
http://www.cafepress.com/thekatestore.88284924
“Wonder if #2 could provide a substantiating reference to any of the “several interviews†of the Presiding Bishop in which she referred to anyone as “idiotsâ€?”
Actually, Doug, it was so easy to find those examples you requested that numerous other posters beat me to it before I had a chance to respond. It’s all about being informed. Ya know, keeping friends close, and enemies closer. Do try to keep up! 😉
Still waiting for the reference Rolling Eyes.
It’s all part of that thing about “Thou shalt not bear false witness”.
Sarah is correct, The PB would not say that, and that is well worth remembering.
Doug, you do realize that the back and forth on this issue, in particular your last response, makes you look incredibly foolish, right?
Not that I’m using the word “idiot” …
Tut tut, Doug, lighten upp a little. NO, she didn’t use the word “idiot.” What she did imply – not say – is that the increasing congregations are made up of people who are not well educated. When she connects this with birthrate, she is implying that the weak intellect and the uneducated mind have, as a cognate of their inferiority, a certain animal hunger for sex which they are ill-equipped to control. In short, they are bluestate, rednecked, and underclass. Her remarks above are arrogant, supercilious and condescending, and they are intensely class-biased. YOu” may wish to defend her. I read her remarks and would like to punch her in the nose a few times, maybe black an eye or two. (Precisely what I’d like to do to Michael Moore, only I would give him a few more licks because he is piggy as well as smug and dishonest.) But then, I’m a New Hampshire Swamp Yankee, carry a rifle in the back window of my pickup truck during hunting season, and sometimes listen to country music. Egad. (I also own an ATV named Alice) Ignorant and Brutal in Maine
RE: “Doug, you do realize that the back and forth on this issue, in particular your last response, makes you look incredibly foolish, right?”
Now, now, Cabbages . . . Doug Martin got far more than he expected, and after a bit of thinking, that was the best response he could come up with. Give him credit — in a pinch it had to do.
; > )
“It looks like it is not only Anglicans establishing new, non-traditonal church structures in the US.”
No, of course not. The IRD has been interfering in the internal affairs of several churches.
Tin Foil Alert!! Looks like the nefarious IRD is spreading its money in an ecumenical fashion! :bug:
RE: “The IRD has been interfering in the internal affairs of several churches.”
“Interfering” meaning traditional Episcopalians, Methodists, Lutherans and Presbyterians on the staff of the IRD working with fellow traditional Episcopalian, Methodists, Lutherans and Presbyterians in their respective churches.
Ain’t it awful!
Re: “Ain’t it awful!”
Now that IS funny…
I never cease to be amazed at the enormous power that reappraisers and various paranoids attribute to the IRD. They’ve got 14 people on their staff–14!–and they are supposed to be bringing about schism in large mainline denominations with memberships in the millions and bureaucrats in the hundreds or thousands. The IRD has no power to do anything–what they do is report news, offer opinions, and occasionally suggest resolutions that others may present at denominational gatherings. If you think that IRD is somehow responsible for the crisis in Anglicanism or in the PCUSA, all I can say is, you need an extra layer of aluminum on that tin foil hat. And do check under your bed for monsters before you go to sleep tonight.
You know, I keep on waiting to get my big checks from IRD for creating dissension in the churches, but for some reason they can’t find my mailing address.
I did such a good job in the Episcopal Church I had to leave and go to the Presbyterians. Now I’ve got them on the ropes too. I can’t figure out whether my next assigned target will be the Southern Baptists or the Assembly of God. Now those guys will be a tough nut to crack.
[blockquote] The IRD has been interfering in the internal affairs of several churches. [/blockquote]
I thought I left all the conspiracy theorists when I left Manila (that’s in the Philippines for our geographically-challenged readers — or maybe according to +KJS, our non-Episcopalian brethren!). ;-P
“Still waiting for the reference Rolling Eyes.
It’s all part of that thing about “Thou shalt not bear false witnessâ€.
Sarah is correct, The PB would not say that, and that is well worth remembering.”
Oh, this has got to be a joke…
I bristled at the reference to EPC as conservative. Orthodox to be sure, but they ordain women.
Warning to Anglicans crossing my path, with thanks to Jim:
“One thing about Presbyterians is they are more feisty than the good-mannered Episcopalians. I think it comes from all that Scots and Scots-Irish heritage. Beware when they start bringing out the bagpipes.”
I’m from WV, which is a Scotch Presbyterian state, in spite of its image…
Randall