Or, As They Call It In Britain, 'Shifting'

We are moving into a new house presently, so whatever idiocies are committed by the denominational powers-that-be AND their adversaries will escape comment here. I am confident the PCUSA will still be standing when I finish moving on the other side of Labor Day. (Okay, I'm hopeful it will still be standing. [Alright, already, maybe it won't be! Sheesh. . . .])

Two Wrongs (Part Two)

Posts like this upset me almost as much as the posts that say harmful behavior is okay and the Constitution needn't really be followed. I suppose I should remain silent, since this minister has done this for far longer than I have and, truth be told, probably far better. But this position of leaving the denomination seems to me to suffer the same problem the pro-homosexual movement suffers: Egocentricism. The homosexual community says that this is the way God made them and their experience validates God's presence in their life and Scripture is to be largely interpreted through that experience. Such a position is egocentric; anthropology dictates theology, instead of the other way around. Or, to put it differently, what the person feels and does is the primary piece of evidence in theologizing. The conservative separatists would seem to evade this charge, since the main reason they are leaving is that the denomination has abandoned God's will as it is made known to us through Scripture. But not so fast. That sounds good, but it takes God out of the picture: The congregation decides what the sufferable level of abandonment is; the congregation decides what that leaving is appropriate; the congregation decides which mandates of Scripture can be violated and which must be observed. Or, again in other words, why was it okay to stay with the denomination when it advocated abortion, but suddenly permitted gay ordination is the last proverbial straw? If conservative congregations are so passionate about obeying God's Word, why didn't they leave over the right to life? I fear that such groups have not sufficiently entertained the idea that God has them in the PCUSA for a reason. (Yes, I know, they will say that they prayed over it and cried over it and this is where the Spirit is leading them and so on and so forth. But that's precisely what churches said in the antebellum South when they supported slavery.)

And, too, the congregation has decided that it need not adhere to part of our Constitution, just as those who wish to ordain gays and lesbians have decided that they need not adhere to part of the Constitution. The more this drama goes on, the more the two sides seem cut from the same proverbial cloth.

In the end, God places us in marriages; he places us in congregations; he places us in denominations; he places us in specific workplaces. Perhaps we should leave the places God has put us only when our faithfulness means that we are booted out, and even then, only with fear and trembling.

It's Better To Give Than To Receive

The property issues in our denomination show the lesser side of both positions. While the rhetoric of "jackboots" and "fascist" in reference to the PCUSA higher-ups is overblown, it does make the home office and some of the Presbytery offices look heavy-handed when they seek to pre-emptively put congregations in their place as regards property. On the other side, congregations that want to separate and take their property with them look quite similar to a spouse who wants to divorce and take the house (there's a reason for this similarity, by the way). Overall, I wonder if both sides aren't forgetting something crucial: The denomination says the property is the PCUSA's and the congregation merely holds it in trust. The congregation says the property belongs to the congregation because that is who paid for it and built it.

Both are wrong. God owns the property. Whether it is the denomination holding it in trust or the congregation, the property belongs to God. I am surprised that a denomination which has always held stewardship dear has forgotten this basic truth. Perhaps if we were reminded that we are simply managing what is rightfully God's, our attitudes and actions concerning property would be changed. Perhaps we (Presbytery, congregation, both) would be more willing to turn the other cheek, to give our shirt to one who has taken our cloak. In other words, perhaps we would spend less time searching through the law codes and more time living out the Scriptures.

A Postmodern Moment

The denial of the Stated Clerk and the Moderator of the New Wineskins Initiative's request for a moratorium on action against congregations that wish to sever with their properties is proof that the Authoritative Interpretation of the 217th General Assembly concerning Recommendation 5 of the PUP Report is bad policy, bad theology, bad everything. The Stated Clerk has written previously in an Advisory Opinion that governing bodies have leniency in the application of the Fidelity/Chastity Clause. Here, however, he writes (along with the Moderator): "The 212^th General Assembly (2000) made it explicitly clear that even the General Assembly lacks authority to declare a moratorium on upholding the provisions of the Constitution." Yet, that's exactly what the 217th General Assembly did. When it voted the Authoritative Interpretation concerning Recommendation 5, it declared a de facto moratorium on upholding the fidelity/chastity clause of the Constitution. By giving governing bodies the leniency to 'scruple', the General Assembly exercised authority to declare a moratorium, the very thing the Stated Clerk (via the 212th GA) states it cannot do.

We are presently in a potential Constitutional crisis. My prayer is that we maintain dialogue and fellowship until the 218th General Assembly rights this wrong. That's the only way the potential crisis will be prevented from becoming kinetic.

Misplaced Ambitions

If Kirk of the Hills is Fort Sumter, then the evangelicals are in just as bad shape as the liberals. The Civil War was about rights--states' rights. One of the comments at the end of Mr Brown's blog entry proposes this being more like the Boston Tea Party, which was about representation (or lack thereof). In other words, both these conflicts were about power and who has it and who doesn't. The evangelicals are upset because they don't have it; that is the bottom line. Much can be pontificated about holiness and Biblicism and whatnot, but as long as the votes were going their way, the conservatives hung around. One vote (out of how many?) doesn't go their way, and all of a sudden, schism is in the air.

There is another dynamic afoot: Pride. Some of the comments (such as the one about mass insurrection and the Boston Tea Party in the linked post above) sound almost gleeful at the prospect of secession. For some, there is a spirit of 'taking it to the enemy' and making them pay for what they have done. In others, there is a sense of arrogance, as though we are the next Luthers and Calvins, standing up for righteousness and taking our place in history. There was an incident a few years ago where some PCUSA ministers tacked some 'theses' onto the door of the headquarters in Louisville. How obnoxious. As though they stood with those great men who risked their lives for reform.

Ah, yes. There's that word again: Reform. Luther and Calvin had to be thrown out. They pushed, not for secession, but for reform. They were called to reform the Roman church and the Roman church threw them out. Would we be Luthers and Calvins? Then we will press for the reform of the PCUSA until the PCUSA throws us out. Anything less is a schism, if not from the PCUSA, then from our Reformed heritage and from the testimony of Scripture.

What Happened to "Love Thy Enemy"?

I admit frustration and confusing at posts and comments like these: Even though we probably agree theologically on the big issues, I often wonder if we're reading the same Bible. To say that we have a life-giving message, but we are no longer going to share it with those on the "sinking ship" is scandalous. I wonder what Christ thinks of those on the "sinking ship". I guess that is my difficulty with limited atonement: On the surface it reinforces God's sovereignty, but it ends up just being used in arguments like this one to justify disconnection. "We are not required to work and worship with them any longer", one might easily say, "since they are not of the elect." Certainly that attitude prevails, and it is grievous. Where would we be if our Lord adopted that stance?

Give It Up

The recent spate of articles and opinions on Presbyterian property are pretty much depressing. I can't imagine how bad it looks to the world for Christians to wrangle in such fashion. (Although it does add gravity to our confession of being sinners. At least we have that part right.) Perhaps the root of this conflict is in our lack of humility. I have yet to read anything that Mark Tammen or Parker Williamson has written since the 217th General Assembly that approximates humility. Humility and sacrifice are closely woven. Paul indicates that we should have the same attitude as Christ himself, who, even though he was God, didn't grasp the power of being God, but humbled himself to the point of dying on a cross. Humility, then, is bound up in giving something up for the good of someone else. What if, instead of trying to outdo one another in being right, we tried to outdo one another in humility and sacrifice? What if a congregation tried to leave the PCUSA, and the Presbytery blessed the congregation and sent them on their way with their property and Session intact, just to have the congregation try to leave the (entrusted) property to the Presbytery? What if they tried to "out-generosity" each other? Surely, two things would happen: First, the world would certainly see Christians differently than the world and differently than we now look. But second, it would change the tone (and probably the substance, too) of our discussions. Perhaps we should give it a try. Who knows what Christ might do with it.

Knowing Is Half the Battle

Ned Lamont's philosophy of governance has much to recommend it on the surface: First, the idea of an entreprenurial lawmaker is an attractive one; in fact, the notion of an MBA President is one of the dynamics that elected Mr Bush. I suspect most folks want the government to be accountable and responsible (although not enough to actually hold politicians accountable and make them responsible). Second, the conviction that something new can be done in Iraq is a welcome one. A recent poll cited that a majority of persons polled wanted the Iraq War to be handled differently--which is different than saying they want a pull-out. So Mr Lamont's assurance that taking a new tack is neither "extreme" nor "weak" is helpful.

But Mr Lamont doesn't answer two questions that are begged by his piece: First, how does a resurgence of the Democrats' desire to raise the minimum wage reconcile with his vision of an entreprenurial leadership? Raising the minimum wage either increases prices or reduces productivity (with the latter being the more likely). With increased prices or diminished output, there is a suppression on the economy which affects the Treasury's revenue streams. It is difficult to think of an entreprenurial Senator making a solid case for policy which is bad for business and bad for the public. Second, what does he propose to do in Iraq? Even if we support his plea for a change in course, that is only half the argument. The other half is what we change course toward. Does Mr Lamont want a full withdrawal? Partial withdrawal? Timetable? More troops in exchange for an earlier pullout guarantee? A switch to mobile Special Forces instead of entrenched infantry? It little helps the crew to steer from Scylla into Charybdis. In order to bring his vision to fruition, Mr Lamont will need to tell us a little more than what he wants to do. He'll have to tell us how he plans to do it.

Two Wrongs

The Layman's reporting of Prospect Hill Presbytery's actions against Riverside Church is singularly unhelpful to any type of discussion or reconciliation, as are some of the statements and attitudes reported. Mr Adams asserts in his article that the Moderator issued "threats" against the church, but he does not state what those threats were and neither does he source the threats. We have only his word to go on here, and, given my Calvinist conviction of man's depravity, that's not enough, I'm afraid. There are statements made in a reply, which is included in full at the end of the article. Are those the threats? I certainly hope not, since the statements made are simply decent and in good order polity process. If Mr Adams doesn't like the process, that's fine, too; but if these are the "threats" alluded to, then that's a cat of a different color. Another significant disappointment is the minister's conviction: ". . .we are going to thrive, while they die. . . ." I am hard put to see the Christian character therein. Our side (whatever side that may be) thriving while the other side dies is hardly the way of the cross. Paul seems to think that we should have the same attitude as Christ Jesus who, even though he is equal to God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but instead humbled himself, and died for us--even a death on a cross! "We thrive, they die" is far removed from that humility, I fear. The minister's conviction that "no further fellowship with [PCUSA] can be had in Christian conviction" is also lacking in Biblical understanding and behavior. What sin didn't exist in the Corinthian church? Paul didn't wash his hands of that fellowship. What sin doesn't exist in each and every one of us? Christ doesn't wash his hands of our fellowship. Indeed, Christ's grace is perfected in our weakness. Would that Riverside's grace were perfected in Prospect Hill's weakness, but we see that is not the case. Would that the Layman's grace were perfected in the PCUSA's weakness, but we see that is not the case. When our brokenness is at its worst, God gets more involved, not less. May we each and all do likewise.

Lieberman Ole!

There are many analyses of the Lieberman loss that are thorough and provocative; however, I do think that there is a good dynamic and a bad that haven't been mentioned. The good dynamic is the dynamic of more choice: The Connecticut voters now have three options instead of two. I am all for breaking the stranglehold on power that our two-party system now has. Even if it is only one race in one state, I am glad for the opportunity. The bad dynamic is that hatred and vitriol win the day in this race. This is becoming more and more prevalent with the left wing these days. A casual stroll through MyDD or Daily Kos will unearth some hideous and malevolent convictions. Too bad those convictions won last night. Among the many prognostications as to what this means for the 2006 and 2008 elections, some people will garner from it a sad lesson: Hate wins.

Lay Your Burden Down

I think these thoughts on the Mel Gibson fiasco are about right. I also find it ironic that so much sturm und drang surrounds Gibson's anti-Semitism, while many of the same critics want Israel to step back and allow Hizbollah to take soldiers without retribution. There is also something else afoot here that bears mentioning, and that is Mr Gibson's confession. Of course, much commentary revolves recently--not around poverty or housing issues--but whether Mr Gibson's apology is sincere or whether he is simply playing the PR game. For my money, it doesn't really matter. Yes, it matters to Mr Gibson personally, since the cancer of hatred will still eat away at his spirit. And, yes, it may matter on some level to members of the Jewish community who have been taken advantage of before and who prefer not to fall again for a polished ruse. But the bigger picture is that there is a confession and it, at least, sounds authentic. There is an admission, a plea for help, and a request for relationship with the injured party. I don't think publicists know how to write something that sounds like the 51st Psalm, but even if it is contrived, it gives the public an example of good confession, and the public sorely needs it. Think of other opportunities that have gone wasted: Bill Clinton torturing the meaning of the word 'is'; George Bush talking around bad intelligence; Cynthia McKinney blaming her violence on the Capitol Police. Confession is not popular these days in America; it is seen as weakness. But which is more courageous--to avoid the truth or to take it head on? There is a part of Mr Gibson that is horrid--but I am glad it was brought to light--both for his good and for the confessional example it gives us.

Definitions

There is so much energy surround the General Assembly's vote on Recommendation Five, replete with over-the-top rhetoric on the left and schism-in-the-making on the right. One thing I have missed is the definition of terms in the gay ordination debate. The biggest one may be "inclusion". The fulcrum of the dialogue--if one can attach such a gracious label--is over inclusion of gays and lesbians. But the question I haven't heard asked (and perhaps I just missed it) is: Does inclusion necessitate leadership? In other words, can a person be included in an organization without having access to its leadership structure? My gut reaction is to say, "Yes". Are our children not included because they aren't allowed positions of spiritual leadership? What about those who are simply too stressed out, for whatever reasons, to take on the mantle of leadership? Are they wholly excluded? I think that the fault of the conservatives is that they do not take seriously how unwelcome members of the homosexual community have been made. I think that the fault of the liberals is to assume that the situation is demarcated in stark either-or terms: Either we get leadership posts, or the church is bigoted and exclusive. Neither position is helpful or correct, and both positions would have benefited from a rigorous conversation on the terms.