So NPR ran a story, rather an interview, with Eric Weiner just as his new book, “Man Seeks God: My Flirtation With the Divine”, hit bookstore shelves. In it, he tells the story of his own trip around the world in an effort to understand the devout faithful. He counts himself among an offshoot of atheist – the Questor. Among other things, he defines Questor as one who values the question more than the answer. It is no longer sufficient to be a skeptic, however. The Questor seeks the value in “the religious experience”. From Weiner’s perspective, “belief” is not what makes religion worthy of his consideration. What counts are the actions of people who take steps to participate in a religious community, and the religious or ritualistic experiences that touch the senses and stir the spirit. He also expresses surprise to discover many devout people who still have doubts, and are comfortable with that doubt, content with the mysteries and, in some cases, inconsistencies of their faith.

Eric Weiner’s descriptions remind me of TV’s Fox Mulder of the 80s show “The X Files”.

Fox Mulder in "The X Files"

In the end, Eric Weiner expressed a small amount of envy with the fact that so many have “found their home” so to speak. Throughout the book, he seemed to want to settle on a particular faith, on one God, as though a sudden realization of belonging was just as simple as finding just the right hat for one’s head. I found myself wondering if he truly understood what may have been at work in each person’s life to bring them to faith. I respected him for undertaking the journey and for attempting to comprehend the complexities of each. The compassionate parts of me wanted to reach out to him, encouraging him to continue.

To use another Hollywood analogy, Mr. Weiner was in a kind of Ollivander’s Shop (aka Harry Potter) trying out different wands as a non-magic-user. He went through the motions of using the wands, but nothing happened. In the films young Harry Potter, new to the magical world, was full of wonder and, at the same time, trepidation. Though just a young man, he entered Ollivander’s shop with the sense that something Very Important was about to happen.

Ollivander's Wand Shop

Belief goes way beyond mere intellectual thought. One can read a statement that is presented as fact and make a judgment of “true” or “false” regarding the statement. But mere acceptance of a truth does not constitute belief. I think it boils down to asking oneself, and then answering a simple question: “Do I have a soul?” Even though questions can be, in and of themselves, a sort of end unto themselves, in order to “be religious” one must start with a few core beliefs. The first is an acknowledgment of the existence of a soul. The second is an acknowledgment of a connection between the intellect, the heart, the body and the soul. Here, in a nutshell, is at the core of all religious experience and faith.

So faith is a combination of the following:
The mind contains the awareness of and conceptualization of faith. One receives the concept of God (or gods) as a gift from the very deity we seek to understand. It is a personal connection that is made on the level of core understanding and conscious thought. We cannot create the connection between our body and soul and that cosmic, spiritual being (or beings) on our own. As Ollivander said, “the wand chooses the wizard”. As a person seeks God, God seeks the person. The trick is to recognize when we have found “the One” and when the “One” finds us.

At the same time our mind begins to form a concept and basic definitions of faith, our soul awakens to a presence that transcends time and space. The soul is the part of us that we least understand, but in faith, we allow it to grow – yes grow – and this is the conduit through which God dwells. Again, this is true across all faiths and religious communities. Each religious tradition has its own sense of “how” this growth is accomplished. But one thing is clear. It is personal, powerful, and brings a person to a whole new level of existence. But one must be open to it. Deny the soul and one will never “find” God.

Allowing God to reach us takes courage and openness to new possibilities, no doubt. It also may lead to our denial of “self” – this notion that we are somehow muddling through life alone and beholden to no one, and no thing. Until one realizes the benefits of a God-indwelled soul, one finds it difficult to accept that religious belief may somehow cause our path to shift to places we’d really rather not go. But isn’t all growth uncomfortable? We don’t want to be “forced” somewhere we do not want to go – and are afraid to be compelled to do something we’d rather not do. Fear is the ultimate obstacle to fully realizing the joys of our faith.

Finally, the heart is the motivation behind every action, and the body is the vessel that acts. If the mind and soul are united, then we must consciously decide to act on that understanding of belief. The heart of a person is also part emotion. We allow ourselves to be stirred to action by things like compassion, love, and desire to please. All people of faith find action to be most effective when thoughtful purpose, unity with soul, and heartfelt emotions form the basis of our actions. Sure there can be some fear – and doubt. We are only human, after all. But when we choose to step out in faith, with the courage of conviction in our soul, this is when we do great things as people.

New faith requires a person to possess a childlike wonder in accepting new possibilities and impossibilities, an open mind, an awakening soul, and a heartfelt desire to not merely seek but to find. Perhaps most importantly, faith comes when a person admits a certain vulnerability. One chooses to risk bending one’s will, even denying ego altogether. Complete acceptance and serenity await for those who find that balance. I wish the Eric Weiners of the world all the best in finding what they seek.

In a free society, madmen will always have the upper hand. It is nearly impossible to stop someone who is willing to strap a bomb to a baby, then proceed to blow up themselves (and the baby) for a cause. No matter how insane or misguided the cause may be. For people who are atheists, skeptics, these questions of ‘why’ are not complicated. There is no higher power who could have intervened, so acts of terror simply happen because society failed to recognize a dangerous person. Potential terrorists live and walk among us in relative anonymity. Then something snaps, the pieces fall into place that give these individuals impetus to go from the shadows into action. They succeed because they have nothing to lose. And nothing to gain.

So I write for those of us who do believe in God. In a physical, spiritual, active and personal God. How could God let this happen? How could God allow Adolf Hitler to come to power, and then embark on a reign of terror that would go on for some 20 years? How could God allow an earthquake and subsequent tsunami wipe out whole sections of Japan? There was a time when the world was perfect. Creation was perfect. But then sin entered the world. People of many faiths acknowledge this fact. Mankind has free will spiritually as well as socially. God does not stop the evil that is in the world because it is all part of the greater plan. Pain isn’t the end. Death isn’t the end.

From God’s point of view, He does not understand why we are so preoccupied with the present. Of course we are mortal beings and can only live in the moment. So when disaster strikes, we are stuck in the moment of terror. It stays with us like a bad dream that won’t go away. But in reality our souls will live forever. So momentary pain, sadness, disappointment, death, are all transitory. We are not. Once this life ends, we will go on. Eternally to exist in peace, tranquility, and perfect joy. This is incomprehensible for us now, but when we look at “the moment” through the lens of eternity, our failures seem… well, insignificant.

So instead of asking ‘why’, perhaps we could ask, ‘How can I make a difference’? The second question is much more productive in the long run. At the end of my life, I will not be looking back and asking ‘why’? or ‘why not’? I will only ask, ‘what difference did I make in people’s lives’? We will be much better for it.

So the fact is that God’s will may be for all to be prosperous, BUT that this only gets implemented through the actions of His people. It is incorrect, therefore to suggest that poverty/sickness exists outside the will of God.

So now consider the opposite attitude. It is something that is prevalent among the people of Appalachia, and other Scotch-Irish immigrants. There has to be a worldview that was present in this community even before coming to America because it is so entrenched throughout this segment of the population. One hears it expressed in different ways: “My mother taught us to make do” is just one of them. As I grew up, I was exposed to this kind of thinking. It is rooted in a system that goes back to the days of nobility and serfdom. One had to accept one’s lot in life because that is what one was born into.

Poverty is not something we as Christians, particularly those of us who accept God’s calling of ministry in some capacity, should just quietly accept. Free will may have been (still is) missing in many countries of the world, but not in America. Paul, in his ministry to the areas of the Mediterranean, understood when to be content and when to take matters into his own hands. He was a “tentmaker” and worked to earn a living in addition to the calling of Christ.

I reject the notion that those who answer the call to be full-time ministers of the Gospel also ought to live in abject simplicity. Moderate housing, a comfortable car, and a few luxuries (such as theatre tickets, dining out, a family vacation to Florida) do not make one a “lover of money”. Christian workers (such as missionaries), and Christian school teachers are too often required to go far beyond the 40-hour work week, and be underpaid in the process. We ought not be ashamed of “shopping around” for a church/school/organization that will meet our needs and be a positive working environment.

My challenge is to administrators and boards to not withhold financial compensation to those who are doing the work of ministry. It is sin not to pay workers the contracted amount. At the same time there is no shame among Christian workers to seek a fair contract that clearly defines expectations, stays within those confines, and honors that contract.

Psalm 35:27 ²⁷ May those who delight in my vindication
shout for joy and gladness;
may they always say, “The LORD be exalted,
who delights in the well-being of his servant.”

This is the NIV translation. In other translations, “well-being” is replaced with “prosperity”. So God delights in our well-being. Of course, only the enemies of God’s people would be glad at their downfall. When South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford was unfaithful to his wife, only his enemies would rejoice. Scripture is full of instances when the Lord shows feeling in response to His people’s sufferings as well as triumphs. But He does allow both.

The next Scripture cited is Philippians 4:18. Let’s look at it in context:

Philippians 4:10-19

¹⁰ I rejoiced greatly in the Lord that at last you renewed your concern for me. Indeed, you were concerned, but you had no opportunity to show it. ¹¹ I am not saying this because I am in need, for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. ¹² I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. ¹³ I can do all this through him who gives me strength.

¹⁴ Yet it was good of you to share in my troubles. ¹⁵ Moreover, as you Philippians know, in the early days of your acquaintance with the gospel, when I set out from Macedonia, not one church shared with me in the matter of giving and receiving, except you only; ¹⁶ for even when I was in Thessalonica, you sent me aid more than once when I was in need. ¹⁷ Not that I desire your gifts; what I desire is that more be credited to your account. ¹⁸ I have received full payment and have more than enough. I am amply supplied, now that I have received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent. They are a fragrant offering, an acceptable sacrifice, pleasing to God. ¹⁹ And my God will meet all your needs according to the riches of his glory in Christ Jesus

This passage reflects Paul’s thankfulness for the generosity of believers, and appreciation for being both needy and well-supplied. Indeed verse 12 is self-explanatory. Paul understands that servanthood to God means being content regardless of circumstances. He has known want, and plenty – both. In verse 18, he speaks of the gifts as a “fragrant offering” and “pleasing to God”. It is not the abundance that is pleasing to God but the act of giving on the part of the church at Philippi. We see this again in the next passage:

2 Corinthians 9:6-11

⁶ Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously. ⁷ Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. ⁸ And God is able to bless you abundantly, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work. ⁹ As it is written:

“They have freely scattered their gifts to the poor;
their righteousness endures forever.”^[a]

¹⁰ Now he who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will also supply and increase your store of seed and will enlarge the harvest of your righteousness. ¹¹ You will be enriched in every way so that you can be generous on every occasion, and through us your generosity will result in thanksgiving to God.

Here we see the reason explained for prosperity. When we are blessed financially, with material abundance, we are not to hoard it for ourselves. Rather we are to be generous for those less fortunate than ourselves. I fail to see the connection from “God loves a cheerful giver” to “God is robbed of pleasure when people are poor.” If we just apply logic, how can those who have give to those who have not… unless there are those who have not?

In order to further explain this, look at this passage from Deuteronomy:

Deuteronomy 15:4-11

⁴ However, there need be no poor people among you, for in the land the LORD your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you, ⁵ if only you fully obey the LORD your God and are careful to follow all these commands I am giving you today. ⁶ For the LORD your God will bless you as he has promised, and you will lend to many nations but will borrow from none. You will rule over many nations but none will rule over you.

⁷ If anyone is poor among your fellow Israelites in any of the towns of the land the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward them. ⁸ Rather, be openhanded and freely lend them whatever they need. ⁹ Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: “The seventh year, the year for canceling debts, is near,” so that you do not show ill will toward the needy among your fellow Israelites and give them nothing. They may then appeal to the LORD against you, and you will be found guilty of sin. ¹⁰ Give generously to them and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to. ¹¹ There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your fellow Israelites who are poor and needy in your land.

So on the surface, verse 4 seems to be in utter contradiction with verse 11. On the one hand “there is no need to be poor people among you” but on the other, “there will always be poor people in the land”. The solution is in the words between those verses. This passage is about the Hebrew tradition of a Jubilee year. Debts are forgiven after 7 years. In addition, the people are commanded to give to the poor. This isn’t about God wanting everyone to be prosperous and full. This is about God providing for the needs of all through a few. There is no reason for anyone to be poor because there is plenty. Those who have abundance give to those who need. God’s people are given the formula here. So the fact that we have poor among us is our fault, not theirs. It is our privilege, and pleasure, to give out of our blessing to those who are suffering.

In Part 2, we will explore the opposite of “Prosperity Doctrine”. There are those who believe wealth and health are keys to God’s will for us. This is destructive since it takes us away from our primary interests in this life. Equally destructive is the opposite sentiment and those who believe that the denial of physical blessings will somehow make one more “spiritual”.

In a counseling session once, the therapist told me that each of us makes vows to ourselves. We usually do not speak them out loud, although sometimes they end up written in a personal journal. Usually the vow is a concentrated thought, a reaction to something unpleasant. We experience something, and then find ourselves saying something like, “If I have children of my own, I will never do to them what my father just did to me.” Or sometimes these vows are in the form of a realization we don’t want to forget. What makes these vows interesting is that they are shaped by our sense of the world and how it works. The ancient Chinese spoke their worldview in the form of proverbs. Sacred texts can offer insight into our own sense of reality and how we interact with it.

Consider little sayings like, “There are no free rides”, “No good deed ever goes unpunished”, “A penny saved is a penny earned”. At one time or another, we have all heard things like this. We hear them and then decide if they fit with other accepted expressions of thought. I hesitate to use the word truism because something that is true to me may not be true to you. But even the most wavering, vacillating core set of beliefs contains a few concepts that do not change.

It should come as no surprise that we are full of contradiction in our sense of reality. We may fully accept as fact that “there are no free rides” but accept that “salvation of our soul is a free gift from God”. These two notions are completely and utterly incongruous and yet they remain a part of our psyche.

Often, changes in our worldview come when we cannot explain an event in our lives with any of the previously understood truths. The loss of a child, a calamity or victimization all can shake the foundations of our belief system. We suddenly become unsure, and vulnerable to anyone who might offer a solution to our perceived self-weakness. What amazes me is that we become more likely to believe a complete stranger who offers incredible, even outlandish, ideas rather than our own capacity to make slight changes to our own established beliefs and to accept that sometimes things just don’t seem to make sense.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident…” was an expression of such a worldview and belief system. It is such a foundational set of principles that few would argue with them. But do we really believe that all men are equal? Do our actions reflect our beliefs? Many times they don’t which is why beliefs can sometimes come into doubt. Reality doesn’t always fall in line with belief. But belief has no alternative but to shape reality when people of conscience act accordingly.

One truth that has shaped my own belief system is this: “The character of a person demonstrates itself most profoundly in how he/she treats the lowest of the lowly individual, when no one is looking.” In fact this belief is rooted in the words of Jesus Christ when he said, “Whatever you have done to the least of these, you have done to me.” Much of our belief system is shaped by our theology, our understanding of whether God exists, who is God, and what is God’s function and purpose (if any)? The Christian, therefore, has only to look to Scriptures for guidance when he or she is shaken by fear, or doubt. Even still, there can be ideas that make their way into our belief system in subtle ways. Changes to our understanding of reality happen slowly, over time, and we don’t even notice (until much later) how far we have strayed from truth, and from God.

With that introduction, one of the more destructive notions that often makes its way into Christian thought starts out as something that sounds attractive, even positive.

At the core of this very destructive and harmful belief is this: “God wants all of His own (the righteous) to be prosperous/healthy.” It sounds good, doesn’t it. But it is far from good. In fact it is downright false. But there is just enough twisted truth and misuse of Scripture to cause doubt, especially to those who are vulnerable. When one convinces oneself that it is God’s will for all to prosper, then the following must also be true: 1) If one is not prospering, one is not in God’s will and 2) If God wants us to prosper, then success or failure is completely our own doing. The foundational principle doesn’t sound so bad alone, but when seen with the necessary conclusions that follow, we see the danger in such ideas. Since this is one of those more subtle beliefs that can work its way into a Christian’s psyche, the wise thing to do is to expose it. Over several blog posts, I am going to respond to each and every argument given here by an unnamed individual claiming to be part of an organization known as “Believers Church” as so-called “Bible Evidence For Prosperity”. My hope is that as we seek wisdom and understanding, we will grow in faith in God… the God of the Bible who is with us no matter what our circumstances, allows us to suffer for His sake, loves us unconditionally (as we are). The God of the Bible is the one who inspired the words “We hold these truths…” No matter how clever we are, or careful with money, or physically fit, He loves us wholly and fully. In fact it would seem (if anyone reads Matthew 5:1-11; 6:9-21) that all throughout Scripture there is an emphasis on giving to those less fortunate, praying for the lost, gratefulness for God’s blessings (spiritual and otherwise), and living with the purpose of bearing fruit for God’s kingdom (spiritual legacy).

To be honest I have not felt part of a Christian fellowship since we lived in Bethlehem, PA and we were part of Ebenezer Bible Fellowship Church. When we moved to Seattle, the closest we came was Mars Hill Church. But for all of us, this was merely a waypoint in a journey. Everything has a purpose. I am not a believer in coincidence, and our present circumstances are no exception.

It is easy to forget what being part of the body of Christ is like. But no more. Regretably, there are no Bible Fellowship churches in New England. There also are no Mars Hill churches. We will not find the style of worship we experienced there. It is time to close those chapters and open a new page.

We are now a part of this tiny community here in the 3 Berwicks. Though Christian churches differ in style, in doctrine, we share a faith in Jesus Christ who is a living Savior and Lord of our lives. We worship one God and seek to honor and serve Him in loving obedience to His will. I have forgotten that simple obedience begins the process, and then the heart follows with healing and with the friendship of other believers.

In South Berwick, we have First Parish Federated Church and First Baptist Church. Both seem like good candidates if websites are reliable information. As long as the church is faithful to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, I would just like to find a place to “fit in”.

Logo Orthodox Presbyterian Church

Today this denomination is known as the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, or OPC.

Happy 75th Anniversary!

http://www.opc.org/

Reported in “Christianity Today” web edition on May 12, 2011 the Presbyterian Church (USA) denomination, in its General Assembly, finally had the necessary votes among the Presbyteries (assemblies of local pastors) to amend their constitution. This move “will officially take effect in July and is widely interpreted to allow for gay ordination. The amendment will remove constitutional language that had required clergy to live in “fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness.” ” CT article

This has been a long time coming. It is only the latest in a series of motions and amendments that were designed to satisfy a growing movement among the church leadership toward provisions that would allow a broader interpretation of God’s Will beyond just a so-called rigid interpretation via Scriptures alone.

Christians across denominational lines have grappled with certain understandings of how God reveals Himself to His people. This is important because all Christians seek to honor God in their daily lives as well as their worship and church lives. The Bible, or Holy Scriptures, contain the writings of God’s people and it is THE source of all belief. Christians believe that God Himself speaks to us through these human writings as divinely inspired. But much of what is contained in the text of the Bible is difficult to understand. Parts of it are historical accounts of actual events. Others are simply stories or parables meant to teach a truth. But how to tell the difference and to what degree the words are to be taken literally or symbolically? These questions are at the heart of divisions within various Christian denominations. Also at the heart of these divisions is that Christians have not always agreed on the role of other means by which a person can receive understanding of God’s will and purpose.

In the United States, the most distinguished seminary for the training of new pastors and clergy within the largest of the Presbyterian denominations is Princeton Theological Seminary. As early as the 1920s there was a slow, deliberate change in the scholarship with regard to the authority and inerrancy of Scripture. This change affected the role Scripture would take as it governs the Christian life. J. Gresham Machen was a distinguished professor of New Testament literature and exegesis at Princeton when he published a book entitled “Christianity and Liberalism”. It was his belief that the church was abandoning too many traditions of faith in a trend toward a more modernist perspective. His book is now part of the public domain and can be accessed here.

One example is the infallibility of Scripture to represent God’s authoritative will. This was at the heart of the reformation and the formation of reformed church doctrine, of which the Presbyterian Church is an example. The modernist view was described by Machen as follows:

Very different is the view of modern liberalism. The modern liberal rejects not only the doctrine of plenary inspiration, but even such respect for the Bible as would be proper over against any ordinarily trustworthy book. But what is substituted for the Christian view of the Bible ? What is the liberal view as to the seat of authority in religion ?

The impression is sometimes produced that the modern liberal substitutes for the authority of the Bible the authority of Christ. He cannot accept, he says, what he regards as the perverse moral teaching of the Old Testament or the sophistical arguments of Paul. But he regards himself as being the true Christian because, rejecting the rest of the Bible, he depends upon Jesus alone.

With subtleties like this, it is no wonder how theologians manage to justify any twist of logic. The person and life of Christ is treated as equally authoritative though indeed very little is known beyond what the Bible has to say. This opens the door to spiritual understanding that can neither be proven to be real nor authenticated. It gets better than this. Another foundational principle of Christianity is the dual nature of Christ – His personhood or humanity as well as His godhood or deity. Therefore Christ Himself is the object of faith. Not merely faith in God but in Jesus Christ. Machen describes the dissenting viewpoint as follows:

But by modern liberalism He is regarded in a totally different way. Christians stand in a religious relation to Jesus; liberals do not stand in a religious relation to Jesus– what difference could be more profound than that? The modern liberal preacher reverences Jesus; he has the name of Jesus forever on his lips; he speaks of Jesus as the supreme revelation of God; he enters, or tries to enter, into the religious life of Jesus. But he does not stand in a religious relation to Jesus. Jesus for him is an example for faith, not the object of faith. The modern liberal tries to have faith in God like the faith which he supposes Jesus had in God; but he does not have faith in Jesus.

According to modern liberalism, in other words, Jesus was the Founder of Christianity because He was the first Christian, and Christianity consists in maintenance of the religious life which Jesus instituted.

But was Jesus really a Christian? Or, to put the same question in another way, are we able or ought we as Christians to enter in every respect into the experience of Jesus and make Him in every respect our example? Certain difficulties arise with regard to this question

The first difficulty appears in the Messianic consciousness of Jesus. The Person whom we are asked to take as our example thought that He was the heavenly Son of Man who was to be the final Judge of all the earth. Can we imitate Him there? The trouble is not merely that Jesus undertook a special mission which can never be ours. That difficulty might conceivably be overcome; we might still take Jesus as our example by adapting to our station in life the kind of character which He displayed in His. But another difficulty is more serious. The real trouble is that the lofty claim of Jesus, if, as modern liberalism is constrained to believe, the claim was unjustified, places a moral stain upon Jesus’ character. What shall be thought of a human being who lapsed so far from the path of humility and sanity as to believe that the eternal destinies of the world were committed into His hands? The truth is that if Jesus be merely an example, He is not a worthy example; for He claimed to be far more.

Against this objection modern liberalism has usually adopted a policy of palliation. The Messianic consciousness, it is said, arose late in the experience of Jesus, and was not really fundamental. What was really fundamental, the liberal historians continue, was the consciousness of sonship toward God–a consciousness which may be shared by every humble disciple. The Messianic consciousness, on this view, arose only as an afterthought. Jesus was conscious, it is said, of standing toward God in a relation of untroubled sonship. But He discovered that this relation was not shared by others. He became aware, therefore, of a mission to bring others into the place of privilege which He Himself already occupied. That mission made Him unique, and to give expression to His uniqueness He adopted, late in His life and almost against His will, the faulty category of Messiahship.

What can be said is that modern intellectualism ruins faith. Reading this book, one comes to realize that it is possible to overanalyze our understanding of what is and what isn’t. In the first half of the 20^th century the church grappled with feminism and the ordination of women. Then, in 1978 it debated the issue of the ordination of homosexuals. The Presbyterian Church (USA) published a document outlining its position on “Presbyterian Understanding and Use of Holy Scripture” and “Biblical Authority and Interpretation” which can be read in its entirety.

The Presbyterian Church (USA) remains reformed in tradition. But each church can be very different in practice. The General Assembly has provided wide latitude with the manner in which each congregation conducts worship. By choosing to recognize differences in culture and style, adherence to a Common worship experience is not required.

Over the years there have been organized separations from the United Presbyterian Church (now known as Presbyterian Church (USA)). These divisions occur over points of theology or practice (such as the ordination of women). This latest development will undoubtedly be the catalyst needed for more churches to leave the denomination and make the move to one of the more conservative alternatives.