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.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Monday, September 10, 2012
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, September 9, 2012
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)