Language Matters Part 4: Overstating the Case

This afternoon, in an ongoing effort to loosen writer's block on my dissertation, I spent some time wandering the world of Presbyterian blogs.  One was a very nice assessment of presbytery meetings from the perspective of a time-poor Thirtysomething elder.  (Keep the reports to a minimum.)  One was a reflection on mission in a small church.  (It is possible and fun.)  Most, however, were diatribes on the state of the church.  (It is evidently not good.) 

One complaint blog stood out.  It was a lengthy post (4400+ words) about the goings on surrounding the dismissal of Montreat Presbyterian Church in Western North Carolina presbytery.  It was not the events shared that caught my eye, but the language the writer used. 

Let me say here that I have no particular opinion about the issue of Montreat Presbyterian Church.  I am not a member of the presbytery and I do not know the facts of the case.  And, in the end, beyond hoping that there will be peace in the valley in the PC(USA), I don't have a dog in that hunt.

I do take issue with the blog nonetheless.  In the first 14 paragraphs, the writer used the word "persecute" or the word "persecution" to describe what was happening to the church at the hands of the presbytery.  "Persecution of the Church of Jesus Christ," to be precise.  That is evidently what is happening in the verdant hills of western North Carolina these days. 

Persecution?  Really?

As someone who spends a great deal of my time writing, I understand the temptation to use a hyperbolic turn of phrase to express in writing the passion you feel about a particular topic.  All of us have, at one time or another, used language that is too harsh, too abrupt, too insensitive or just plain ugly.  It is just part of being human and having passion about the world.  But as a writer, you have an obligation to consider the language you use and what it means to use a particular word. 

Saying that the Presbyterians at Montreat Presbyterian Church are being "persecuted" does more than overstate the case.  It understates what is happening to Christians around the world who are truly being persecuted.  Fighting with your presbytery over a building in a high-rent enclave like Montreat is hardly the same as persecution at the hands of a repressive government or at the hands of a violent political or religious climate. 

According to Websters', "persecute" means "to harass or punish in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; specifically: to cause to suffer because of belief."  I am not sure "we don't get to keep our church building" rises to the level of this definition. 

Absent other evidence, I assume that the members of Montreat Presbyterian Church are sincere in their beliefs and that they do indeed care for their worship home.  I also assume that the presbytery is seeking to act in compassion and love rather than to "injure, grieve or afflict." 

Persecution is what the government of China does when religious communities become too prolific or politically powerful. 

Persecution is what the dictatorship in North Korea does when its citizens step an inch out of line.

Persecution is what happens when faithful men and women risk life and limb to live lives of faith in Jesus Christ. 

The intra-denominational fights in the PC(USA) over buildings and doctrines are not persecution.  To say that they are dishonors the true sacrifice so many faithful men, women and even children make around the world.

The words we use matter.  I understand the feeling of spiritual isolation my conservative brothers and sisters must be feeling in parts of the church today.  I have felt it most of my life and ministry.  But when it comes down to it, they are not being persecuted today anymore than I was in the past.  We are privileged to live our faith so freely so let's drop the hyperbole and invective and fill this free space with the promise of the Gospel.

Fit to Serve: Standards for Ordination in the PC(USA) after 10-A (Part 4)

In the last part of this series, I addressed the complaints from some quarters that there is no list of "essential tenets" of the Reformed faith in the PC(USA).  At the end of the post I conclude that it is not so much the list that matters but a culture of mistrust for those who understand or believe differently.  What are the implications for our ordination debates of this culture of mistrust?

Ordination vows are, at their most basic level, an oath.  The moment that vows are taken are a turning point when an individual, the community and the church affirm the call of God in the life of one of God's children.  And in that moment, that individual makes his or her oath.  It is an oath made before the church and before God and is, therefore, not to be taken lightly.  Because the church is not a coercive body, it is the oath or the vows that hold us accountable to one another.  To paraphrase Lycurgus of Athens, it is the oath that holds together our fellowship.

I recall the day I took my ordination vows.  I remember the suit I was wearing, the red paraments on the table and pulpit, the smell of the candles, that my grandmother's was the first hand to be laid on me and that my friend David preached the last sermon before his untimely death two weeks later.  And I remember taking my ordination vows; my oath before God and the church.

In the moment ordination vows are taken, nothing new is created.  An oath does not bring anything into being.  Instead it binds and conserves what is already there.  In our vows, we who have entered the ordered ministries of the church, affirm God's call to serve God's people. 

So vows and oaths are important things.  They affirm the good work of God and the faithful existence of the church.  Doubting the sincerity of someone taking a vow, especially an ordination vow, has great impact on the life of the church.

The implication that those of us who may understand what it means to be a disciple of Christ differently are somehow unfaithful or lacking in theological purity is the same as implying that we were somehow insincere when we took the same ordination vows that reflect such a solidly Reformed theology and ecclesiology. 

The culture of mistrust in the church is not limited solely to mistrust of conservatives for liberals or progressives (or even occasionally moderates).  The current of mistrust runs in ever direction between every group and faction in the church.  It has come to define much of our shared life together.  In a post on the FOP/ECO website, Jim Singleton makes an important and, I believe, correct observation about the conservative movement in the church.  He writes, "We have spent years being united by what we were against. Now we need to learn how to join together to affirm what we believe."  The same can be said for groups on the more progressive side of the church.  We all need to shift our focus from what we are against to what we believe.  Or put another way, we need to stop focusing on what divides us and focus on what unites us. 

One thing that unites those of us who have been called to lead the church is the common vow that we take.  Perhaps a place to start is by taking a long hard look at those vows and what it means to have taken them before the church and before God. 

What would happen if conservatives quit implying that liberals did not really mean their vows concerning the bible or the triune nature of God? 

What would happen if liberals quit implying that conservatives did not really mean their vows concerning maintaining the peace and unity of the church or being a friend to their colleagues?

What would happen if we all began to take seriously God's wisdom in calling those whom God will call and trust the sincerity of those who answer that call?

In the end, none of us is truly fit to serve.  We are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God.  The only standard for ordination that really matters in the end is our willingness to serve honestly and open our hearts and lives to receive the mercy and grace of God.

Fit to Serve: Standards for Ordination in the PC(USA) after 10-A (Part 3)

This is the third (not including the short interlude after part 1) installment in a series considering standards for ordination in the PC(USA) after the adoption of 10-A and the now not so new Form of Government.  Accusations from some corners of the church have been hurled claiming that the net result of the adoption of these new standards is that there are no longer standards for ordained service in the church.  In the first two posts of this series, I tried to show that this assumption is both factually in accurate and a misunderstanding of our polity.

In this third installment, I consider the question of what constitutes the Reformed faith.  A complaint made by some in the church (including the leaders of the FOP/ECO) is that we speak of essentials but we do not name them.  So what does it mean to say we affirm the "essential tenets of the Reformed faith?"

Because the General Assembly and the GA Permanant Judicial Commission have declined to allow such a list to be produced, we cannot point to a particular piece of paper and say "these are the essentials."  So where do we go?  Perhaps a good starting point would be the very vows that contain that troubling phrase. 

With the exception of the last which are unique to each ordered ministry, the vows taken by Teaching and Ruling Elders and Deacons are identical.  Since these words are the one place where each and every officer is asked to affirm the exact same language, we may find some clues as to what is "essential" here. 

Question one asks if the candidate "trusts in the Lord Jesus Christ your Savior, acknowledge him Lord of all and Head of the Church, and through him believe in one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit?"  In that first question are, perhaps, three things that might be called essential and which are solidly Reformed.  1.  Jesus Christ is Savior.  2. Jesus Christ and no other is Head of the Church.  3.  We affirm the Triune nature of God.

In that one question, three traditional, orthodox and solidly Reformed principles are affirmed. 

The second question concerns scripture and asks if the candidate accepts "the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be, by the Holy Spirit, the unique and authoritative witness to Jesus Christ..."  Yet again, a solidly Reformed understanding of a tenet of the faith.  Scripture is unique and authoritative (notice it is not inerrant) by the Holy Spirit. 

In that second question, a traditional, orthodox and solidly Reformed principle of scripture is affirmed.

I will not go through every question, but the point is clear.  There may be no list titled "These Are the Essential Tenets of the Reformed Faith," but there is ample evidence in the vows taken by every person ordained or installed to office in the church reflect a solidly Reformed understanding of God, scripture and church.  These ideas are essential enough to require them of every person being ordained without exception.

So if the vows we take reflect such solidly Reformed ideas and require affirmation of these essential ideas, what is the real issue? 

Like so many things in the church, the conflict over "essential tenets" is less about making a list and more about a culture of distrust. 

The ordination vows set out a solidly Reformed theology.  If everyone in ordered ministry takes those vows, what is the problem?  Simply this, a group in the church appears to believe that others who have different viewpoints are somehow insincere when they take their vows.  The next installment will explore that mistrust.

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.

Fit to Serve: Standards for Ordination in the PC(USA) after 10-A (Part 2)

*Many thanks to those who sent messages asking if I am alright following this long span between the first and second installments of this exploration of ordination standards.  I have been down with a bout of pneumonia for a few weeks, but I am back on my feet and ready to stir the pot!

The first post of this series set the question before us regarding ordination in the PC(USA).  That question is:

Under the current constitution, does the PC(USA) have any standards of behavior for those seeking or in ordained offices in the church?

The short answer demonstrated in the first post is that, yes there are indeed standards for ordered ministry in the church.  Whether those standards are “standards of behavior” sought by some in the church is a different question.  But the accusation that there are somehow no standards is on its face a falsehood.

In this second installment I turn to the role of scripture and confessions.  All those ordained or installed to office in the PC(USA) affirm that they acknowledge scripture “to be, by the Holy Spirit, the unique and authoritative witness to Jesus Christ in the Church universal and God’s Word to you” and “the essential tenants of the Reformed faith as expressed in the confessions of our church as authentic and reliable expositions of what Scripture leads us to believe and do.”  Affirmative answers to these two questions (the second and third ordination vows) are an absolute requirement for ordination. 

So what does it mean to hold these two vows concerning scripture and confession?

Perhaps a good place to start is to observe what is not said in these two vows.  Scripture is not referred to as infallible, inerrant or without error.  In the Reformed tradition, scripture is not a substitute for history or even an all-inclusive “to-do” manual for virtuous living.  It is instead the “unique and authoritative witness to Jesus Christ” the true Word in whom we find life, grace and the love of God.  This second ordination vow binds the ordained to understand the fullness of scripture as the exposition of God’s work in the world in the person of Jesus Christ. 

The third vow, concerning the confessions, is more difficult to parse.  Although it includes the phrase “essential tenants” of the Reformed faith, the church has consistently held over the last century that no such list may rightly be made.  To take certain ideas as “essential” is to lift those above all others as though the church in any age can know, exhaustively, what belief is essential and what is nonessential.  Keeping with the centuries old Reformed tradition of allowing the Spirit to work as it will in each generation of the church, the church has resisted the temptation to hash out a set list of essentials.  This has been a source of anxiety for some in the church, but it is in keeping with our tradition.  What is clear is that no essential list exists and there is no implication in this vow that the ordained will subscribe to any such list.

That these two vows do not express a rigid framework of belief and practice is at the root of much of our current debate over ordination and the perception of some that there are no standards any longer. 

In addition to resisting the making of such a list of standards on a national level, the church has also indicated that the making a list of essentials by presbyteries or congregations is contrary to the constitution.  Each individual must be judged on a case by case basis.  How, then, might scripture and confession be tools for examining the suitability of an individual for ordination if there is no structured framework clearly delineating what behavior is in and what is outside the bounds?

Because the question of human sexuality is such a loaded topic and one that causes many in the church to shut out any contrary argument, I propose considering this question in light of another, albeit smaller, point of disagreement among many in the church: corporal punishment.  Although not as emotionally charged, it is similar in three important ways.  First, it is a matter on which the church is, as evidenced by GA votes, mostly evenly divided.  Second, it is a matter of conflict in biblical interpretation.  And third, it is a matter on which the church has taken a stand, but has not included as a matter of constitutional mandate.

At GA this summer, commissioners were asked to consider a piece of business concerning a position for the PC(USA) on the issue of corporal punishment of children.  The assembly voted 334-306-9 in favor of the resolution opposing spanking and paddling children.   The vote and the lengthy floor debate showed deeply rooted feelings on both sides of the issue.  Those feelings were rooted in faithful interpretations of scripture.  For some, scripture is clear in its allowance for parent’s to responsibly punish their children including by spanking (Prov. 13:24)  For others, spanking or paddling a child is offensive to scripture based on Jesus’ preferential treatment of children and his charge that we care for them.  How, this reasoning goes, can you simultaneously care for and strike a child?  Both sides of this argument found purchase for their position in scripture and both argued from the perspective of faithfulness and a sense of the witness of scripture.

In the end, the GA voted to issue a statement condemning, on biblical and theological grounds, the practice of corporal punishment.  What then is to be done with a candidate for ministry who will not unequivocally state that s/he will not ever spank their child?  How is that person to be judged? The GA has made a position known, but has not made adherence to a set practice mandatory for ordination or installation.  What is to be done with this candidate in this circumstance?

The answer is found, I believe, in the very nuance that so frequently frustrates many on the issue of human sexuality.  If that candidate says, “if my child misbehaves and I believe it is the right action, yes, I would spank my child,” that person has articulated a position that is counter to a statement of the church.  Is that disqualifying?  Certainly not.  A candidate’s claiming of a position that is counter to an “official” position of the church but not contrary to his or her vows of ordination is not disqualifying.  What if that same person claimed that it is morally acceptable to beat their children to ensure their good behavior?  There is no specific provision of the constitution that prohibits child-beaters from being ordained.  I cannot imagine that there is a presbytery or congregation in the PC(USA) that would even entertain the idea of ordaining that person.

The behavior speaks to its underlying virtue or, in the latter case, lack thereof.  The behavioral standard is not to do or refrain from doing a particular thing, but whether or not that action points toward a life of faithful virtue lived in response to the word of God. 

In the end, the question of what behavior is and is not acceptable is not something that can be easily articulated or codified.  Virtuous living is slippery and resists easy definition.  Still, to paraphrase Justice Potter Stewart, we know it when we see it.[i]  I believe that a parent striking a child is counter to Jesus’ command to care for children.  But that does not mean that I can discount the fullness of the life of a person who disagrees with that position.  My reading of scripture and the confessions leads me to one conclusion while someone else may be led to another one.  That the two can exist together is not a sign of weak biblical interpretation but a sign that none of us can lay claim to the fullness of the witness of scripture or declare once and for all that there is but one interpretation valid for the church.

The vows concerning scripture and confessions lead us to consider how we live in light of expansive witness to Jesus Christ.  The shape and form of what may rightly be called a virtuous life or a life in which behavior is consistent with the witness of scripture and confessions may take many forms.  The challenge for the church is to recognize that there may be more than one way show, in our living, love for and obedience to God. 

---

[i] Stewart famously said of pornography, “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it…”  Jacobellis vs. Ohio 378 U.S. 104 (1964)

Fit to Serve: Standards for Ordination in the PC(USA) after 10-A (Part 1a)

A good question was raised by a reader regarding the definition of "standard" I offered in my first post. 

A standard is indeed a measure of some kind set by an authority (Websters 3rd and 4th definitions of "n. standard").  There is an important distinction between standard as measure of something concrete and measure of human quality, behavior or qualification.  In terms of physical characteristics (weight, distance, etc.) a standard is a numerically quantifiable standard. 

Standards of behavior or expectation are set not by absolute measure but by custom and they are gauged qualitatively rather than quantifyably.  For example, is it possible to measure faith in Jesus Christ in quantifiable terms the way a pound of sugar or a foot of rope can be measured?

Standards, when applied to human behavior or activity or knowledge are necessarily qualitative rather than quantifiable.

Additionally, a Reformed understanding of total human depravity makes any standard necessarily aspirational. To say that standards of ordained office are purely quantifiable matters rather than aspirational models and examples requires a non-Reformed understanding of ordination as setting above or apart from normal human sinfulness and depravity.  Our inability to escape our sinfulness is not abated by ordination.

The understanding of human standards as aspirational is rooted firmly in Augustine's City of God as well as the Confessions and affirmed in Calvin's Institutes.  To what degree that aspirational nature plays out is certainly up for debate as is the degree of variance from the aspirtional norm is to be allowed. 

That standards of human behavior are indeed aspirational in nature is Reformed both theologically and ecclesiologically.

Fit to Serve: Standards for Ordination in the PC(USA) after 10-A (Part 1)

In 2011, the PC(USA) removed language from the Book of Order (part of the constitution) that limited ordained service in the church to those who observed “chastity in singleness or fidelity in the covenant between a man and a woman.”  These words did not have a long history in the church having been added in 1997 they were less than 15 years old when they were struck.  Since their removal a rallying cry for some in the church is that the PC(USA) no longer has any standards for ordained service. 

This is the first of a series of entries designed to answer that charge and to outline what one PC(USA) pastor understands as the standards for ordained service in the church.  I do not pretend to speak for the PC(USA), the synod or presbytery under whose jurisdiction I work or the two wonderful churches I serve.  It is just my perspective and I invite responses in the hope of getting a larger conversation going.  For this first entry, I want to try to set some context for how I understand the discussion. 

Words matter and often we use the same words to mean very different things.  This is a short lexicon sharing how I mean certain words and phrases common in conversation and debate on this issue.  I do not claim to have authority to define them for the church, rather I define them the way I will use them in this context.

Standards: Standards are not rules.  Standards are norms or expectations within the community and placed on those in different roles.  For example, it is a rule (or law) that the President of the United States be a citizen, it is a standard that they exhibit the ability to lead.  It is the responsibility of the discerning (ordaining) body to determine suitability within the standards.

The Authority of Scripture: By this I mean to express a Reformed understanding that scripture is necessary, sufficient and accommodating.  With Calvin, I believe that scripture is necessary as a means to comprehending more fully the love and character of God.  It is sufficient for this task needing neither doctrine nor human authority to shore it up.  And it is accommodating to its time.  Scripture often assumes a particular world view.  With Calvin, I recognize that accepting the authority of scripture does not necessitate accepting its worldview or statements of fact that conflict with emerging human knowledge (the shape of the world, the movement of the stars, the necessity of striking a child, etc.)

Human Sexuality: Human sexuality is about more than sex.  It is a term used to describe the various forms of intimate expression between two people.  Being GLBTQ is about far more than just what happens in the bedroom just as being heterosexual is about more than physical sexual contact.  Human sexuality is, therefore, a part of our created-ness and is subject to both the ordering of God and the stain of sin.

Manner of Life: As this language remains untested in the courts and councils of the church, I do not claim to speak authoritatively for the Book of Order in defining this term.  I take it to mean the fullness of an individual life.  To assess the “manner of life” of an individual is to take into account the fullness of that life- professional, emotional, physical and spiritual- and not just bits and pieces to satisfy the question du jour.  It is also not a term meant to anticipate an ideal “manner of life” as a perfect or sinless life.  “We all sin and fall short of the glory of God.” 

With this lexicon in mind, we come to the question.  In a recent back and forth posting on the Presbyterian Layman website, a pastor from the west coast and I got into a discussion (to be kind) about whether or not the PC(USA) has any sexual standards or standards at all for its ordained offices.  It became clear that in addition to having different perspectives on what is and is not ethical or in bounds, we had a fundamental disagreement on framing the question for the discussion.  I propose framing the question for this series of posts as follows:

Under the current constitution, does the PC(USA) have any standards of behavior for those seeking or in ordained offices in the church?

I have chosen this formulation of the question for two reasons.  First, by referring to the “constitution” rather than the Book of Order alone the role of the Book of Confessions is part of the conversation.  This was a matter of contention at the 220^th General Assembly and within the church.  Second, I consciously chose to refer to “behavior” rather than “sexual behavior” because the current language does not elevate any category of behavior above others for scrutiny.  Sexual behavior will necessarily be a part of that discussion; however the boundaries of a discussion about standards of behavior for ordained persons cannot be limited to sexual behavior.

What are the standards for ordination to the offices of Deacon, Ruling and Teaching Elder?

In its advisory opinion #24, the Office of Constitutional Services in the Office of the General Assembly answered this question and referred to the affirmations made at the time of ordination and installation.  These standards include, but are not limited to:

·         Seeking to follow and be obedient to the Lord Jesus Christ

·         Accepting the Scriptures to be the unique and authoritative witness to Jesus Christ and God’s Word

·         Being guided by the confessions

·         Governed by the polity of the PC(USA)

·         Furthering the peace, unity and purity of the church

·         and Showing the love and justice of Jesus Christ

Specific affirmations according to office include:

·         Teaching Elders- proclaim the Good News in Word and Sacrament; teach the faith and care for the people; be active in government and discipline; serve in councils of the church

·         Ruling Elders- watch over the people, provide for worship, nurture and service; be active in government and discipline; serve in councils of the church

·         Deacons- teach charity; urge concern and direct help of the friendless and those in need. 

The first fundamental question before an ordaining council is whether or not the individual being examined has the capacity to both answer the questions of ordination in the affirmative and live a life that reflects these affirmations.

However, that is not the only question before the ordaining council. And this is where some of those who claim that there are no longer any standards for ordained service misread our polity.  The relevant text in the Book of Order is found in the third sentence of G-2.0104b which reads, “The examination shall include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions for ordination and installation.”  The responsibility to assess the fullness of the candidate’s manner of life is still the responsibility of the ordaining council.  It is not only appropriate to examine the fullness of the candidate's life, it is a requirement (the word shall applies to both the main object "a determination" and the admonition "not be limited to.")  It is mandated that councils examine the ability of the candidate to live into and up to the questions for ordination AND that they not limit the examination to that narrow scope.

Additionally, the source of the standards is named in this paragraph.  The standards of ordained service are first and foremost a reflection of our desire to submit joyfully to Christ.  The application of those standards is guided by the Scriptures and confessions.  Under this model, Scripture and confessions are tools for guidance in the ordaining council’s discernment but it is ultimately joyful submission to Jesus Christ that is determinative. 

To say that there are “no standards” for ordained service is not factually accurate.  There are indeed standards.  On its face, that should answer the question posed above, however the concern of some in the church regarding standards for ordination goes beyond a simple yes or no.  Beneath the surface of that yes/no question is another.  How, then, do we apply them?

In the next installment of this series, I turn to the question of scripture and confessions in the application of ordination standards.  What does it mean to be “guided by Scripture and the confessions?"

A Lack of Trust in the Trust Clause

In the wake of the 220^th GA, much has been reported through the more conservative Presbyterian press and blogosphere about the GA’s action (or inaction) on matters referring to property ownership.  The Book of Order under which all churches are subject in our polity is clear that all property held by congregations is held in trust for the PC(USA) and its ministries in the world.  The exact wording is found in G-4.0203 and 04.

The 220^th GA considered overtures this summer that would have changed that portion of the constitution to provide for relief of conscience for congregations that chose to disaffiliate from the PC(USA) and to allow those churches to depart with their property.  The GA chose to maintain the language as it is currently written.

So what is the big deal here?  There are really two issues at stake.  The first is the theological underpinning of our constitution.  We are a community of connection and covenant and the underlying theology of our property polity reflects that conviction.  The second issue is a practical one.   We are in a time of transition in the church and what was once a very rare issue has become somewhat more common, though not nearly so much as some commentators would have you believe.  The trust clause language has become, in some cases, an issue between councils and congregations wishing to depart for other denominations. 

Addressing the issues backward (the practical and then the theological), the practical issue at hand is an important one.  While it is important that we respect our polity, there is a pastoral consideration to be made here too.  Some congregations have discerned a need to move on to other places and there is no single process in place to allow them to take their property absent the consent of the presbytery.  In some places, the presbytery has worked well with its congregations in other places the process has been more adversarial.  So why not get rid of the trust clause or insert a provision for congregations to exercise their conscience and leave with it? 

Because it keeps us all engaged with one another and prevents spur of the moment division in the church and it protects those who may want to remain.  By restricting the ability of congregations to just up and leave the property clause ensures that some measure of consultation will happen between churches and presbyteries before a congregation makes such a drastic step.  Other provisions of the Book of Order require the presbytery to engage churches in this position and to determine if a) it is in the best interest of the church to make such a move and b) whether or not there is a significant enough minority wishing to remain in the PC(USA) to constitute a continuation of the church.  Together these provisions ensure that departure is not based on rashness or mere majority rules but by a process of engagement between congregation and presbytery.  Whether or not that is a healthy or helpful process is up to the parties, but that it happens is written into our polity for a reason.

Beyond the practical, though, there is the theological reason for the property clause in our constitution.   We are a connectional church and the many parts are not discrete from one another.  The ministry of the congregation is a part of the ministry of the presbytery.  The trust clause in our constitution embodies this principle.  That with which we are entrusted is not our own, rather it belongs to Christ’s church.  To eliminate the trust language may satisfy a few angry voices, but it would undermine the visible witness of the church as greater than merely the sum of its parts.  Each congregation is a part of a greater whole.  The same principle underlies our polity for church councils.  Each council is the visible representation of the unity of its member councils or churches. 

That property is at the heart of so much of our denominational debate today should give us pause.  At time it feels as though we are fighting about property to avoid the real questions before us about how we might learn to live together united in Christ.  Still, the property issue persists. 

Are those who want to keep their property fighting the good fight for principle or just trying to keep a valuable asset?  Is the denomination insisting on the trust clause because it is one visible representation of our connectionalism or is it merely trying to stave off departures?  I do not pretend to know the answers to those questions.  But until we an answer those with some measure of clarity and theological certainty, the 220^th GA was correct to leave the status quo alone. 

Why I Still Believe In Sin

I had a shocking conversation today with a person I truly respect.  This is a person whose deep faith and thoughtful understanding of theology have been a source of help to me on more than one occasion in my ministry.  Although I have this person's permission to use their name, I will leave that to his/her discretion.

We were speaking on the phone about some recent articles about church and public perceptions of religion.  As so often happens, the conversation turned to the question of sin and its place in our theology, our world and the ministry of the church.  We had not been talking long when my friend said, "I'm not sure I really believe in sin anymore."  Now this is a person who, following an earlier crisis in faith, left the daily life of ministry to pursue other work in service to the church. S/he did not feel that it was possible to continue in parish ministry while walking that particular difficult spiritual path.  This new revelation, though, came as a shock.  "I'm not sure I really believe in sin anymore."

Uncharacteristically, I was at a loss of words.  Luckily the silence was filled by some explanation of that revelation.  My friend has been struggling in recent years with the divisions in the church over the ways sin has been understood in recent controversies in the church. "Sin," my friend said, "is just a weapon to beat up on some people."  In other words, our language of sin has, my friend thinks, become so wrapped up in declaring misdeeds by others as sinful that we have lost any understanding of sin as part of the universal human condition. 

There is certainly some truth to that idea.  We do use the language of sin more to accuse others than to describe us all.  I cannot deny that sin has morphed from a description of the human condition to a new weapon in the arsenal of intramural ecclesiastical debates.  That is certainly true.

But I cannot get there with my friend and say I no longer believe in sin.  In fact, I think I believe in sin more now as a 42yo than I did when I was knee deep in systematic theology as a 28yo seminarian.  I believe in sin so much more now because I see it, feel it and, if I am honest, live it every day.  Whether it is failing to be a good neighbor, putting the god of job security before the God of bold proclamation or just being unreasonably judgmental of the driving abilities of the person waiting on the light to turn a particular shade of green before going, I am a sinner and I fall short of the glory of God.

It is important that we who are part of the church get comfortable speaking about sin and our own sin in particular.  Other than the love of God for the world that overcomes sin, there is no other unifying human experience like our sin itself. 

When we speak of sin in terms of their sin or that person's sin, we turn that universal human condition into an us vs. them equation when in fact it is us vs. sin.  Sin is not a label made to be slapped on the unpopular or the unliked.  It is not a weapon to beat and belittle those with whom we may disagree.  Scripture is clear, we ALL sin and fall short of the glory of God.  And, for we Presbyterians, the Reformed tradition is clear that there is not a hierarchy of sins that sets some people above or below others.  We are all sinful and we are all in need of God's grace.  End of story.

Perhaps part of the reason people are losing faith in organized religion (liberal, progressive, conservative and all) is that we do an increasingly poor job of speaking our own language.  When sin is misrepresented in conservative circles as something that "they" have and "we" are forgiven for, the church becomes a stereotypical closed society when its real purpose is to be the welcoming community of the saving Christ.  When, in more liberal circles, sin becomes little but an antiquated idea, quaint but hardly relevant, we lose one of the central parts of our own nature revealed in history and an understanding of the root cause of much human suffering.

I am a sinner and so are you and we live in a sinful world.  Let's stop playing the "your sin is worse than my sin game" and get on with the work of addressing the impact our sin has on our world. 

Language Matters Part 3: I Do Not Think That Word Means What You Think It Means

I am no film critic, but in my humble opinion “The Princess Bride” is one of the greatest movies ever made.  It is funny, sad, heroic, tragic, suspenseful and romantic all at the same time.  And it has some of the most memorable characters in film.  Vizzinni (Wallace Shawn) is the leader of the criminal trio hired by the Prince to capture and get rid of Princess Buttercup.  Whenever Vizzinni’s brilliance is challenged or he faces defeat, he cries out “inconceivable!”    After a few of these outbursts, one of his criminal companions, Inigo Montoya (Mandy Patinkin) says, “I do not think that word means what you think it means.

In recent weeks both while watching the 220^th GA and reading accounts of it, I find myself having some Inigo Montoya moments.  I do not think the words some people are using mean what they think they mean.  So here is a short lexicon of misused theological words regarding the 220^th GA.

Grace: Many speakers at GA urged the commissioners to show “grace” toward those who wanted to act out of conscience by opting out of the Board of Pensions or form non-geographic presbyteries with like-minded churches or take some other action that may run contrary to denominational policy or polity.  Grace, it was implied, is about letting people do things the way they want to do them without consequences.  

I do not think that word means what they think it means.

Grace does not mean giving you your way no matter what.  Grace is also not one sided.  Many of those who are calling on the denomination to act with grace toward congregations that wish to leave with property or pastors who refuse to abide by denominational requirements that they not categorically exclude anyone from consideration from office are the same people who have been baying for blood from those who felt their conscience violated by our old language of exclusion for ordination and our current language regarding marriage.  If grace is allowing people to do as they please, where was the grace for Scott Anderson or Lisa Larges?

Grace is not a get out of consequences free card you can demand because you do not like being a minority voice.  I wonder where these voices demanding “grace” were when the reputation and integrity of the vice-moderator elect were being attacked because she acted in conscience in a way disapproved of by some?

Apostate: More than one commentator inside and outside the PC(USA) has referred to this GA and to the denomination as a whole as “apostate.”  The reasoning behind most of these accusations is that the PC(USA) has departed from one very specific stance on scripture in terms of human sexuality. 

Again, I do not think that word means what they think it means.

To be apostate, in a theological sense, means to stand apart from God.  To call the PC(USA) apostate is to say that the church has wholly stood apart from God and declared itself no longer defined by its calling by God in the world.  To call this accusation hyperbole does not even scratch the surface.  Just because YOU do not agree with a stance the church takes does not mean that you somehow become the mouthpiece of God.  Say that you disagree.  Say that the church has become apostate to YOUR particular worldview.  But save the righteous indignation and the sweeping pronouncements as though any of us can fully know the mind and will of God. 

The men and women who gave their time and prayerful discernment to the 220th GA are not apostates they are discipiles and deserving of our thanks.

Integrity: Many PC(USA) leaders and others (myself include) have had their integrity questioned recently because of stances taken on divisive issues.   These questions of integrity occasionally have to do with a particular action, but most of them seem to stem from purely ad hominem attacks. 

Yet again, I do not think…well, you know.

An individual’s integrity is not based on whether or not someone else agrees with them.  The people who have attacked my integrity have never met me and know nothing about my ministry or character.  What they know is what they have read on my blog or in letters to the editor and from that they have determined that I lack integrity.  No, what I lack is an opinion they like.  Big difference. 

What is happening in the PC(USA) is, for lack of a more elegant term, the FOX-ification of the church.   Just because you disagree with something does not mean that you get to make up your own facts (like FOX and others tend to do).  Case in point, a headline on the Presbyterian Layman today read, “Turns Out 70% of GA Commissioners Aren’t Really Presbyterian.”  Really?  70% aren’t Presbyterian?  In truth, the headline linked to a blog that claimed that the 70% who voted for a particular ruling from the moderator with which the blog writer disagreed were not Presbyterian.  Being Presbyterian depends on having an opinion this guy likes?

We are dealing with big issues and serious matters of the faith and we need vigorous debate and discussion in the church to find our way forward.   The words we use in that debate matter and the church deserves better than this sort of nonsense.

Language Matters Part 2: The Sex Talk Edition

There are some things in life that are inevitable.  The day you wash your car, the drought ends.  The session agenda that looks mercifully short always hides controversy that runs long.  The IRS will always say I did my math wrong.  And every time the issue of human sexuality comes up at GA, someone will play the bestiality card. 

One of the favored phrases of those who oppose full inclusion of GLBTQ Presbyterians in the ordered ministries of the church is “sexual brokenness.”  Used to refer to individual lives and the contemporary world, the term “sexual brokenness” is an important one to our conversation.  Unfortunately it has been hijacked by the hyperbole of shock theology. 

It is beyond the pale to refer to faithful GLBTQ Presbyterians as the moral equivalent of sexual predators, pedophiles, etc.  Yet that is where the debate too often ends.  Fear that anything other than heterosexual relationships will cause the fabric of the universe to come unraveled.  These unhinged claims that acceptance of GLBTQ relationships will cast the church down a slippery slope toward horrors that would make the writers of Leviticus blush drown out any other arguments.

There is indeed sexual brokenness in our world, but what is broken is not loving same-gender relationships.  It is not the commitment to monogamy by two people who intend to spend their lives together.  In truth, that is evidence of sexual wholeness.   

What is broken in our world is the alarmingly high rates of frequent sexual activity and sexually transmitted disease among early and even pre-teens.  It is the devastating reality of human trafficking for the sex trade.  It is the reduction of human sexuality to a recreational diversion and the demeaning of God’s good creation.  That is sexual brokenness and that is where the church’s voice needs to be. 

We need to use our language with care and with prophetic vision to expose the real places of abuse, neglect, manipulation and exploitation in the world.  We need to use our language to speak for those who have no voice and yearn for justice.

Before we can do that, our language of human sexuality needs to move beyond the “you are a hater” or “you don’t love the bible” rhetoric.  Those who want to have a serious conversation about sexual brokenness need to move beyond the “ick factor” in response to GLBTQ relationships and begin to engage real brokenness. 

We need to recognize that our endless debates on one narrow question are distracting us from the world’s real needs.  If we learned anything at this GA, it is that the overwhelming perspective of the next generation (articulated so well by the YAADs) on matters of justice and faith goes far beyond our generations old debates on human sexuality.  They have shared their prophetic voice with us and we do well do heed it. 

Yes there is brokenness in our world, but it is not the fault of faithful GLBTQ people.  But as long as “sexual brokenness” means simply “you’re gay,” we will not be able to move on to issues of sexual exploitation and manipulation that are true signs of brokenness in this world.

For Divestment, Existence Is Not the Issue

I taught a class a few years ago on "Faith and Theology in the Wake of Holocaust."  The class asked no new questions for the most part.  Most of what we considered had been covered in the years and decades following the revelation of Nazi atrocities and the questions, both theological and ethical, raised by the Holocaust.  After a few weeks of conversation, the discussion took an interesting turn when a question was posed.

"Can you hold to the lessons of the Holocaust, stand in solidarity with Israel's right to exist and still be opposed to Israeli policy toward the Palestinians?"

Any attempt to give a simple answer to that question belies its very complexity.  This is not a simple answer and its complexity was exhibited in the nearly 50/50 vote of the GA on the question of divestment.

Much of the publicity surrounding the GA this year has focused on the question of divestment.  Unfortunately much of the narrative surrounding the issue is less nuanced than the question itself.  The question of divestment is simplistically posed as a question of support or opposition to Israel or the Palestinians.  Under the simplistic formula, support for the one equals opposition to the other. If you vote to divest, you hate Israel.  If you vote to not divest, you do not stand with the Palestinians.  This is yet another place where both our parliamentary reductionism and our political divisions drive what should be a far more nuanced discussion.

I claim no expertise beyond having taken the time to read and pray about these issues to the extent a non-specialist can do.  For my part, I answer the question above by saying:

• We must hold the lessons of the Holocaust and keep them at the front of our minds in all things geo-political.  The ability of human communities to act on evil and sinful impulses on the scale provided by a technological age is staggering.  We must remember the lessons of the past.
• We must, as people of peace but also as children of Abraham, keep faith with the right of Israel to exist as a land of return.  As a community, Jews have suffered under the heel of history for centuries and the lesson of history is that the only way to ensure the security of the people of Israel is to ensure that the state of Israel is secure.  For my part, I stand firm in my belief that Israel as a state should and must continue.

So given those two positions, how can one stand opposed to Israeli policy toward the Palestinians and the occupied territories?  The answer, I believe, resides in those same positions.  We have learned from the past that any system of government that is predicated on the superiority in fact or in law of one group over another poses dangerous and dire consequences for the world. 

It would be an hyperbole to say that we are on the brink of an Israeli led Holocaust against Palestinians.  Such accusations are neither accurate nor helpful.  It would not, however, be such to say that Israeli policy is bordering on a brand of apartheid that is offensive to an understanding of history.

I stand with Israel and its right to exist.  I also stand with the Palestinians and their right to live outside a system of apartheid-style political oppression.  I stand with both and because I do, I believe that divestment is the right option for the church.  It says clearly that the church will not participate in these particular actions of your national policy, while rejecting extreme calls to repudiate or shun the Israeli government wholesale or to enact policies openly hostile to Israel and its right to exist in general.  Divestment simply says that we choose not to profit from certain actions.

With the limited money I have to save, I do not invest in tobacco or firearms companies.  My personal choice reflects my own view that these companies act irresponsibly in some ways (advertising, abuse of their products, etc.).  It does not negate their right to exist nor does it declare my hostility toward those who use their products.  It simply states that I refuse to profit off of what they do. 

For divestment to work, it will have to exist within a larger framework of engagement.  It is not and should not be a choice between Israel and Palestine.  That is the false choice devised by politicians.  As the church we have the benefit of serving not a political agenda but the agenda of the Prince of Peace.  That frees us to work with anyone in this conflict-Christian, Jew and Muslim, Israeli, Palestinian or other- who is also working for peace.  Peace is our common cause and it can and must know no political lines or nation-state boundaries.

I fear that the divestment question has fallen victim to our yes/no paradigm.  My hope is that the nearly 50/50 split in the GA reflects a growing and willing middle from which new ideas for engagement and honest critique might come.

Once Defining, Now Defined

The history of the Presbyterian Church and the American political landscape are inescapably intertwined.  For a church our size, the PC(USA) and its predecessor denominations have had an incredible influence on the political and social life of the United States.  At times that influence has been wielded with wisdom and at times it has not, but there can be no argument that Presbyterians have always had a seat at the political table.

For generations the relationship of the Presbyterians to the national political scene was one of leadership.  From John Witherspoon’s advocacy for the Virginia Declaration in the summer of 1776 to Lyman Beecher trying to navigate the various schools of abolitionists; from William Jennings Bryan and populist morality to Woodrow Wilson and the grand vision of a world community in opposition to war, for better or worse Presbyterians helped define the political conversations of their times. 

As I have watched the 220^th General Assembly unfold and listening to the debates and language used in the debates, it strikes me that we are in a new day for Presbyterians.  Gone are the days when Presbyterians helped define the great debates of the nation and in their place we have become a church divided along similar ideological lines as the nation at large.  In other words, where we once defined politics we are now defined by them.

Issues such as GLBTQ rights, freedom to marry, reproductive choice, globalization and global capitalism and foreign policy, especially Israel/Palestine, have become litmus test issues for politicians and the populous alike.  It is rare to find a politician who is pro-GLBTQ rights, anti-choice and pro-Palestinian.  Or for that matter an anti-marriage freedom, pro-choice, globalization fan.  These issues have become knit together to form firm ground on either side of a rarely bridged political divide and deviation from the script is not allowed for either side.

We live with the same divide in the church.  As I reflect on the debates at GA, I find myself defined by these very divisions.  I read the Layman [the dominant conservative voice in the PC(USA)] and find its advocacy defined alike (although with different positions on most issues).  And far too often deviation from the script is not allowed in the church. We are defined by the politics of our times.

I don’t have a particular solution to offer, but as they say the first step is admitting the problem.  And this is a problem for us. 

Presbyterianism is rooted in, as Calvin said, “a firm and certain knowledge of God’s benevolence toward us.”  It is that hope that gives us the courage and strength to face the unknown future with confidence and hope.  We have to recapture that sense of the faith; the faith that drives us toward a better tomorrow.  That is the natural posture for Presbyterians and we need to recapture that part of our heritage and legacy.  As Niebuhr said, “Nothing worth doing is completed in our lifetime; therefore we are saved by hope.”

To be sure, culture has changed monumentally and it is no longer a given that the voice of the church will be heard.  That does not mean that we need to sit down and be silent.  We need to step up and make ourselves heard.  In the end we may end up right where we are along the same ideological divide.  If we do, so be it.  But let it be the result of a denomination out in front on the issues of our day and not a matter of regression to the political mean.

Language Matters

I find it interesting how easily some people throw around words like "apostate," "unfaithful," "heresy," etc.  During the speak out session at the opening of the afternoon session at GA a few speakers admonished the church with selected scripture.  The admonishment was intended, evidently, to scold commissioners and the church for it's failure to follow scripture.  One speaker referred to the "apostasy" heard at presbytery meetings.

Now I am no stranger to hyperbole.  Get me started on a topic I feel passionately about and I am likely to dig into my thesaurus and make some bad decisions.  We all, from time to time, forget that words matter.  The things we say matter.  And just because something sounds one way in your head does not mean that it will when it gets out in the world.

To call a member of the church apostate is about as harsh as you can get.  Webster's defines an apostate as one whose beliefs have led them to no longer be a part of a religious or political group.  To call someone apostate is to say that they are no longer part of the church.  Saying that to anyone is uncalled for but saying it to people who have given of their time, energy and wisdom to spend a week doing the work of the church is offensive. 

And often those charges of apostasy come with scriptural allusions that are cherry picked for their use in condemning.  There is no need to rehash the dangers of proof-texting and using scripture to prove your point rather than to illumine God's. 

Healthy disagreement is a good thing for the church.  Name calling and theological bomb throwing are not healthy debate.  If you disagree with an action of the church, articulate what you believe IS faithful.  To resort to ad hominem attacks against those with whom you disagree makes it very easy to dismiss you and your point of view. 

There are many actions we take as a denomination that would, I believe, benefit from some measure of disagreement and debate.  Unfortunately, the vocabulary for disagreement has become the vocabulary of scorched earth and what could be valuable voices in the conversation are lost to their own hyperbole.

If there is a common theme running through this GA, it is jointly the possibilities that come when we take a breath and speak in faithfulness both when we agree and disagree and the danger of shouting so loud in anger that your voice is ignored or reduced to background clutter. The words we use and the ways we use them matter.