The 1983 reunion between the UPCUSA and the PCUS was, among many other things, a train-wreck collision of two different organizational philosophies: One was the UPCUSA--the Northern Presbyterian church--which had a "top down" philosophy. In this philosophy, the congregations existed to facilitate the ministry and work of the presbytery. The presbytery set the goals and tenor of the church's work, and the congregations were expected to support it. The Southern Presbyterian church had a "bottom up" philosophy: The presbytery existed to support and facilitate the work of the congregations. The congregations--in a connectional and communal nature--set the missional vision of the presbytery and the presbytery structure was expected to support and facilitate that vision.

What is occurring with the fidelity/chastity clause and the A.I. is a classic elaboration of how these models conflict on a national level. The PCUS philosophy has held sway thus far: The presbyteries have voted on the issue multiple times, and in doing so, have set the vision for the General Assembly and have expected the General Assembly to support and facilitate that vision. The A.I., on the other hand, is emblematic of the UPCUSA model, as the General Assembly has made a decision that the presbyteries may or may not agree with, and the General Assembly is expecting presbyteries to move forward in support of that vision. One of the questions standing before us now (and has perhaps been unanswered twenty-plus years into the reunion) is: Which model holds sway with us? Does the denominational structure support the lower governing bodies? Or do the lower governing bodies support the denominational structure? How we answer that question may take us a long way in figuring out how this thing will end. . . .