The Mad Parson

As a matter of fact, yes, I do think irreverence is a spiritual gift.

Friday, September 22, 2006

Hmmm. Maybe when you stop butchering artists for supporting women's rights? Or perhaps when you stop killing people over doodling? Could it be when you no longer support eradicating another race? Or when you quit blowing up children, perhaps?

This seems to me to one of the more productive ways of handling the confusion. The Orthodox Church's position on ecumenism is that they know where grace is; they don't know where grace isn't. It seems to me helpful to focus on where grace is. That is not to say that we don't look for ways to share and spread that grace--not at all. In fact, one of the difficulties of our denomination presently is that we have lost the missionary zeal we once had. This strategy simply shores up where we know grace is and it advertises that grace is HERE! Pontificating, on the other hand, about where grace isn't, and then divorcing ourselves from party's that we esteem to be arid of grace, strikes me as neither productive nor faithful.

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

In one of his addresses, President Kennedy said that the Chinese word for 'crisis' involves two characters; the first character means 'danger' and the second means 'opportunity'. Certainly that is where the PCUSA finds itself. There are two reasons (among others) that I think the PUP report and its ensuing and accepted recommendations may be an opportunity for the denomination. One is theological: What we often see as death, God intends for life (see: Cross of Jesus Christ). The second is more specific: We need a thorough going reformation of our ordination process. That reformation has already begun with occurrences such as this one. This is only the start, but it's a good start. In my Presbytery (Peaks, in southwestern Virginia), CPM and COM will be looking over a motion by a Session to have these same types of discussions. Whether one supports or opposes gay ordination, the process has certainly become something of a joke. (Hey, after all, I got in!) Difficult conversations about theology and process concerning ordination is much overdue; perhaps this is just the kickstart we need.

On another, and briefer, note: If you want to leave so bad, what's keeping you?

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Articles like this one miss the point. Perhaps the former "Pope's Rottweiler" was speaking more as professor when he should have been speaking more as Holy See. But that's not the fundamental issue here. The fact of the matter is that Benedict is right. Al-Qaeda, Hizbollah, Hamas, and the myriad loose-knit groups that mimic them are proving that Benedict--and Paleologus from whom the comment originally comes--are spot on: At least a significant faction of the Muslim faith is seeking to propagate itself through the sword. The proof is the devastating intolerance shown even when violence isn't originally the issue. The Muslim response to Danish cartoons, for example, or the murder of Theo Van Gogh show a movement that refuses liberal ideas or religious freedoms. One can argue, as Dionne apparently does, that the Pope made a misstep and put his foot in his mouth. But to do so is to put a Band-Aid on a scratch and simultaneously avoid treating a gaping gash. Clumsy or not, the Pope is correct in his use of the reference. And that's a reality Dionne and everyone else is going to have to grapple with sooner or later.

UPDATE: Do the Muslim extremists understand that they are helping rehabilitate the Pope's image?

ANOTHER UPDATE: I should have gone here first!

This piece is pretty interesting, although I think Mr Miller takes a more generous view of separatism than I do. I have often thought of the marriage analogy in reflecting on the current state of our denomination, and I am a bit befuddled by the whole 'gracious separation' language. Many of us of counseled couples who are kicking around the 'd' word; many of us have also, in one capacity or another suffered a divorce in our family. How many couples who separate ever get back together? How many couples start talking about divorce without actually doing it? Not many. Once a spouse begins valuing divorce as an option, it is well-nigh a done deal. There is great scene in movie "The River Wild" where Meryl Streep's character is having marital woes. Her father is blind and a difficult man, and Streep asks her mother how she has made the marriage work all this time. Her mother's answer was simple: Divorce was never an option. The question is not whether we can make the PCUSA work or not--that, I think, is largely left to God. The question for us is faithfulness. Will we consider divorce an option? Will we fight over the house and checking accounts in a bitter dispute? Because divorce is always the death of something: The death of a covenant, the death of a network of relationships, the death of a hope and a promise, the death of a child's confidence in family and self (and God!). Is that what we want? What is so bad that going through a divorce is a better option? Instead of engaging in the self-fulfilling prophecy of divorce/secession/separatism/schism/whatever you want to call it, maybe we should spent more energy on bleeding for those that Jesus bleeds for.

Gunners and Devils

This was a fantastic weekend in Premiership football. I had the opportunity--with my new television and cable service--to watch a number of matches on the Fox Soccer Channel. Far and away, the best match was the one everyone thought would be the highlight: Arsenal at Manchester United. The Red Devils were at home and with a perfect record, thus far. The Gunners were on the road and struggling, even to the point of losing to sides such as Manchester City. To add insult to injury, two starters were injured for Arsene Wenger's club, including Thierry Henry.

The match started out at a furious pace. Watching Cristiano Ronaldo's footwork was a joy. Wayne Rooney wasn't much of a factor, especially as his corner kicks didn't seem to find their target, but Man U was quick and crisp, nonetheless, with speedy dribbling and precise passing. Early on, Gilberto took a penalty kick for the Gunners, but slipped at the strike and put the ball right at the keeper. Keeping may be the story of this match as Tomasz Kuszczak and Jens Lehmann both had amazing saves, one of which was the German blocking a point blank Cristiano Ronaldo strike with his face. Although the Gunners matched the Devils' pace and precision passing, they could never manage to do anything with it in the penalty box. They almost seemed more focused on getting the ball into the box instead of into the net.

But with five minutes left in the match, Emmanuel Adebayor, who had a substitute standing at the line ready to come in for him, punched the ball off the outside of his right foot past Kuszczak and into the net. Three minutes of overage time was not enough for Manchester United to secure the equalizer, and they left a Premiership match for the first time this season without three points and indeed, without any points. This is the kind of match that could turn it around for the Gunners. I have the match recorded and, just like a favorite movie, I plan to watch it again and again and again and again. . . .

Thursday, September 14, 2006

The comments attached to this post hint at something that needs to be stated outright: We need (and the PUP report really didn't supply us with one) a well-articulated theology of ordination that enables us to faithfully reform our present process. The key examination now is not for ordination; it is for candidacy. Once a candidate, the rest of the process is more or less a rubber stamping procedure for the individual in question. Yet, the floor examination of an inquirer for candidacy is surficial at best, precisely because the individual is, as yet, only an inquirer. When I was certified ready to receive a call, I was told by the Exams committee of the Presbytery into which I was going that the examination of the floor of the Presbytery is simply for us to keep alive a venue for common theological discussion! Not to see if the candidate is fit for ordination. Not to see if the match between minister and congregation is a good one. Not to see if the candidate holds to Reformed theology and polity. Common theological discussion. I fear my anecdotal experience is the rule, not the exception. Ordination for Elders is a corollary problem. Many churches ordain as Elders those who will show up to the stated meetings and chair a committee, as opposed to those who are spiritually fit for office. It is no wonder, then, that ordained office is perceived as something to which anyone can aspire.

Part of the gay ordination debate results from confusion over being and behavior; some the debate, however, is the result of an ordination process that is so watered down, that one caucus can hardly be faulted for asking, "Why not us, too?" The Epistle lesson for this Sunday from the Lectionary is from James (3:1): "Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers [and sisters], for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness." When ordination is seen as a responsibility to be taken seriously instead of a right to be administered commonly, we will see our parishes flourish, and we will see the end of many of our most vitriolic debates. When Christ was crucified, the disciples were downcast and thought the crucifixion to be the end; what appeared to the human eye to be defeat, however, was in truth our Father's plan to garner victory over sin and death. The General Assembly AI--and all of this subsequent confusion and wrangling--appears to be a defeat. I am confident, however, that our Father means it for a victory we cannot as yet see. A thorough theologizing and reformation of our ordination process may be just that type of victory.

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

This MLP post is disingenuous at best, and I hardly see how the group thinks it will advance their cause. First, it is a bit duplicitous to argue that a conservative Session has elevated the "fidelity/chastity clause" to become, in my words, a super-essential. That clause only exists in response to pushes for gay ordination. And it is that clause in particular that has been targeted myriad times by the gay ordination caucus for removal from the Constitution. The idea that we can gauge our character by that on which we concentrate is indubitably correct in the abstract; however, when one group asserts its cause on another and then indicts that group for being 'narrow' or 'anti'-whatever based upon an elevated response, then the argument falls apart. I can't put broccoli on the dinner table every night and then accuse my daughters of being anti-vegetable when they finally revolt.

But second, and more importantly, is the issue of saying that the "fidelity/chastity clause" is "anti-gay". Such a statement is deceitful at the worst and only confused at the best. A significant problem in the sexuality debate--whether in culture or church or families or wherever--is the metonymizing of one aspect of a person's behavior for the entire personhood of that individual. No one in informal environs introduces me as a heterosexual, a poet, a beertaster, or a gardener. I am perhaps introduced as a friend or a relative, but those are not ascriptions of behavior; those are ascriptions of relationship. In the sexuality debates, however, one behavior is blown up into the entirety of an individual's personhood. One is not a member of the homosexual community--they are gay or they are lesbian. Such confusion makes it possible for the gay advocacy community to liken itself to the women's suffrage and Civil Rights movements. If one behavior is metonymized into personhood, then it makes sense to proclaim solidarity with those who fought for equality in gender and race. Such confusion also makes it possible to silence critics. If being gay is an ontological statement, then opponents of gay advocacy cannot criticize the behavior without attacking the person. But being gay is not an ontological statement; it is a behavior. This is not even an evaluation of whether it is a helpful or harmful behavior; for whatever reason, the behavior exists, but it is just that--a behavior. The sexuality conversations will move forward much more productively when behavior is no longer confused with being, and when articles such as this one discontinue their demonization of opponents based upon such confusion.

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Fifty Minutes With the Stated Clerk

Shrink: "So, you're feeling alright, then?"

Stated Clerk: "Sure. I feel great."

Shrink: "The denominational confusion and dissonance isn't taking a toll?"

Stated Clerk: "What confusion?"

Shrink: "All the confusion over ordination standards."

Stated Clerk: "I don't see confusion on that issue."

Shrink: "Well, come on. I mean, one of your Presbyteries just ordained a dog."

Stated Clerk: "We're an inclusive church."

Shrink: "All the dog did during its examination on the Presbytery floor was bark!"

Stated Clerk: "To expect a certain answer from the ordinand would be subscriptionism."

Shrink: "How is the mutt going to carry out his parish duties?"

Stated Clerk: "Please don't use gender exclusive language. It's oppressive."

Shrink: (Sigh) "How will the canine carry out the canine's parish duties?"

Stated Clerk: "A ministry of presence. How else?"

Shrink: "So none of this troubles you?"

Stated Clerk: "What troubles me is having ordaining bodies that narrowly interpret the Constitution to mean what the language says it means and then to attempt to heavy-handedly apply that meaning to process. I fear we have many amongst us who think that the Constitution guides our process, instead of the other way around."

Shrink: "We're getting off the subject here--but how can you have any guidance or common mission if the process is paramount?"

Stated Clerk: "Ask the dog."

Shrink: "!"

Friday, September 08, 2006

Part of my sermon study each week is to read over what various Church Fathers wrote on a given text. The Gospel Lesson this week is Mark 7: 24-37 and I was fascinated to find the following thoughts from Augustine on Christ's response to the Syrophoenician woman:

Some people, intent on severe disciplinary precepts, admonish us to rebuke the restless and not to give what is holy to dogs, to consider a despiser of the church as a heathen, to cut off from the unified structure of the body the member who causes scandal. These may so disturb the peace of the church that they try prematurely to separate out the wheat from the chaff before the proper time, and blinded by this pretext they themselves then become separated from the unity of Christ.
"[T]hey try prematurely to separate out the wheat from the chaff before the proper time"! Certainly, the separatists in our midst stand under this indictment. Having decided that the General Assembly's actions concerning Recommendation Five of the PUP Report is a departure from Scripture--which it certainly may be, by the way--the schismatics declare that the holy things of God shall not be given to the dogs, but to the children. If Augustine is correct, their separation, regardless of the purity of their faith or motive, may very well have an unintended consequence--separating themselves from the unity of Christ.

Thursday, September 07, 2006

Some of the conservative PCUSA congregations are mulling or enacting separation from the denomination due to what is perceived as a drift from Biblical standards and truth. In a nutshell, such schism is neither mandated nor allowed by Scripture, so such congregations seek to respond to a wrong with yet another wrong. Unhelpful, to say the least.

Unfortunately, the more liberal factions in our denomination stand no better. Articles like this one only add fuel to the proverbial fire. First, the language in the intro would have us to believe that the pro-gay ordination folks are simply interested in "equality", while their opponents are heavy-handed and legalistic. When any group asserts that it's side is wholly with merit while the other side is malevolent, something is amiss. Second, the Presbyterian Coalition is described as being "anti-LGBT", which is unfair and incorrect. Indeed, one finds the language of grace extended to the other side of the debate much more often among Coalition and Presbyterians for Renewal writers than More Light, Covenant Network, or, to be fair, Presbyterian Layman writers. I am reminded of the Rev'd Will D. Campbell who was simultaneously chaplain of the Klan and supportive of the Civil Rights movement. He once remarked that while he was not pro-Klan, he was pro-Klansman. The same can be said here: It is possible to be pro-gay, while not being pro-gay ordination. Such a distinction would be helpful to both sides, to be sure.

But the third problem with this article, and with many others like it, is that it assumes that inclusion mandates ordination. In other words, a person who cannot be ordained is inherently not welcome. This conviction is, to borrow the pun from the article, "un-tenet-able", and this above and beyond the gay ordination argument. We don't ordinarily ordain young children, yet they are welcome. We don't ordinarily ordain alcoholics or adulterers, yet they are welcome. We shouldn't ordain the self-righteous and proudly indignant (although we often do), yet they are still welcome. In fact, there are plenty of people who are fine, devout, hard working, and faithful; yet, for whatever reason, they are not chosen for leadership. A person can be lay and still be whole in her or his personhood. Perhaps this is a conviction we have lost in the past decades as anyone who will volunteer for the job is made an Elder. But ordination is not a flippant thing, and it is not available to everyone. As a corollary, those who are not ordained should not receive their lack of ordination as a commentary on their faith or personhood, for it isn't.

As long as articles like this one--on both sides of the argument--paint with too broad a brush and impugn those who don't agree, we will tend for schism, with trouble ahead for all.

Site Meter