FOP/ECO Ecclesiology: Presbyterian?

In a recent piece on the Fellowship of Presbyterians website (http://www.fellowship-pres.org/are-we-flirting-with-congregationalism/), Fuller Theological Seminary President Richard Mouw attempts to convince his readers that “congregationalism” is not what you really think.  It is instead a most Presbyterian virtue that should be embraced by the church.  Mouw attempts to show that the ecclesiology of the FOP/ECO is in truth very Presbyterian.  While Mouw’s attempted ecclesiological gymnastics are impressive, they are hardly convincing.

Bits of Mouw’s article are important ideas for the church to hear.  We need to rethink what it means to be Presbyterian in our polity and to rethink the roll of the session in the local church.  We need to reclaim the importance of the local church to the wider ministry and mission of the church.  On those broader issues, I am in agreement with Mouw.

Unfortunately, when he shifts his attention to giving theological justification of the Fellowship of Presbyterians/ECO movement’s ecclesiology, his argument comes off the rails.

A bit of context here is important.  The FOP/ECO began under the leadership of disaffected Evangelicals in the PC(USA) who felt that the theological direction of the church was veering too far toward a more progressive perspective.  The precipitating event was the adoption of ordination standards that make faithfulness to Christ rather than a narrow sexual ethic the deciding question for suitability for ordained office.  Other issues that have been building for a number of years include debates over the ownership of church property, questions of limited vs. universal salvation, feminist theology and what some Evangelicals characterize as the “domination” of the General Assembly and denominational office (although no specific examples of such domination are offered).  The FOP/ECO is a hybrid denomination, with some churches disaffiliating from the PC(USA) and joining FOP/ECO, and a loose-knit fellowship of congregations still affiliated with the PC(USA).

The FOP/ECO is, according to its leadership, the antidote to these problems.  It is the perceived issue of “domination” that Mouw addresses.  This new church body, both in its denominational and its fellowship forms, gives congregations great latitude.  Because these churches have sessions made up of Ruling Elders who guide and lead the church, Mouw argues their polity is not Congregationalist.  Technically he is correct.  Unlike the United Church of Christ and other Congregationalist traditions, the FOP/ECO model is Presbyterian inasmuch as the church session is indeed the governing body of the congregation. 

Theirs is not Congregationalist ecclesiology.  It is Baptist.

The session in an FOP/ECO church operates much like the Deacons in a Baptist congregation.  They are elected by the congregation but do not need the congregation’s assent to act on its behalf.  Perhaps a better name would be the Fellowship of Baptisty Presbyterians.  Mouw goes to great lengths to argue that this model is in fact Presbyterian but he offers no examples other than a handshaking tradition in the Dutch Reformed Church.  If, as Mouw argues, the answer to the question "Where does authority reside?" is that it rests fundamentally with the church session, that is not Presbyterian.  Is it truely Baptist though?

The reason for focusing so much authority and investing so much responsibility in the church session is, according to FOP/ECO leaders, to remedy the perceived “domination” they see in the current PC(USA) structure.  As a matter of practice, however, the FOP/ECO actually exerts far more dominance over their congregations; a very non-Baptist practice.

In the PC(USA), the principles of freedom of conscience in matters of belief and deference by higher governing bodies toward the decisions of lower bodies are central characteristics of the relationship between the various councils of the church.  In the FOP/ECO, a church must agree to adhere to a list of standards or essentials of the Reformed faith in order to gain admittance to this new body.  There are no provisions for relief of conscience, no avenue for reasoned debate, no deference to one another.  There is an absolute list and to be a part of their fellowship you must agree to abide by them all. What is that if not denominational denomination of churches and individuals?

In the end the FOP/ECO ecclesiology is the theological equivalent of contemporary States Rights politics.  States (congregations) want the right to govern themselves unmolested and without responsibility to the federal government (denominational structures) while still demanding the convenience of financial support (Board of Pensions), educational support (theological education) and other parts of the life of the church that no single congregation, no matter how large, can manage alone. 

What do you know?!  Richard Mouw is correct.  The FOP/ECO ecclesiology is not Congregationalist.  

It is not Baptist either.

But it is certainly not Presbyterian.