Most people who know me are more than a little surprised that I read the Presbyterian Layman online almost every day. I dwell in a significantly different place on the theological spectrum from the average Layman reader and my theological perspective is somewhat different from their editorial position. So why do I read it?
One answer I suppose is that when you are in the midst of controversy or conflict, it is good to know what the other guy is thinking. The Layman's perspective on issues facing the church from Israel/Palestine to healthcare reform to whether we shall devise a list of the "essentials of the Reformed faith" are distinctly different than my own. Reading the Layman gives me insight on what "the other side" is thinking. That is certainly a pragmatic reason and it is, on some level I suppose, correct.
Mostly I read the Layman because I am trying not to be a hypocrite. Like every pastor, I have a handful of favorite themes and texts for preaching and I often find myself reverting to those places. One of my favorite themes is the hope we find in the breadth of God's love and grace. I find hope in the diversity of our world and especially in the church. So I read the Layman because I preach that there is a place at the table for them. I can hardly say on Sunday morning that we need to more fully understand those with whom we disagree and share fellowship and then ignore the opinions of that portion of the church the rest of the week.
On a related note, I believe that by reading and engaging the Layman I can bear witness to a theological principle that I believe is essential for the church today. We must begin to teach our culture a vocabulary of dialogue and respect. The political forum is so divided that the parties and their leaders are no longer even in sight of one another. The church is called to bear a witness counter to the world. I read the Layman so that I do not lose track of my own theological conviction. By engaging with writing and opinion that I rarely agree with and occasionally find personally offensive, I have the opportunity to live out the theological witness I seek to proclaim in my congregaions.
I have no idea whether or not any Layman readers read my blog or any of the other outlets for viewpoints out of line with the Layman's editorial stance. I hope they do. The more we know about one another the harder it is to be dismissive of one another. As for me, I will continue to read the Layman regularly and agree with it rarely.
Friday, June 22, 2012
Membership and Mars Exploration
Remember a few years ago when NASA made the front page of the papers because it's Mars Climate Orbiter crashed into the planet's surface at unsurvivable speeds? The mishap was caused because one group of NASA scientists were working the math in feet and the others were working the math in meters. Kaboom.
The same thing is happening in the PCUSA. As a denomination, we measure the size and scope of the church by counting members and baptisms and certificates of transfer, but in reality our congregations are no longer so static. We also do not count in our annual membership numbers those who are part of a community that identifies with the PC(USA) but is not a chartered church.
We are still measuring in feet and inches while the world has moved on to meters and millimeters.
In the grand scheme of things, I really don't care. This year the PC(USA) dipped below 2 million members for the first time in generations. So what? In the end, what does it matter what our official membership is? Jesus never said, "go, therefore, and make active members recorded in your church record of them." What does it honestly matter if we have 2 million or 10 million members? Still, the chattering class have already begun to lay blame for this state of affairs at the feet of, well, whomever they can find. These statistics have been used to proclaim the pending demise of the PC(USA). With Bishop Ussher like precision, some use the data from the annual statistical report to declare the date that the PC(USA) will be no more.
Is that really what we need to spend time worrying about? Is it really just a question of numbers?
No, it is not. The question is, what are we doing with the lives before us right now? How are we seeking to live out Jesus' commands of love, care, nurture, freedom and hope? When asked by the PNS about these statistics, Stated Clerk Grayde Parsons gave a wonderful answer and said, "[t]he first and primary need is to continue to increase our efforts to live out the Great Commission and share the good news of Jesus Christ." He is spot on with that answer! We need to be focused on doing the work of Christ in the world and stop measuring ourselves by the world's measuring stick of success. The statistics are an important snapshot, but they do not tell the full story and do not show the full picture.
What about the life of the person who comes a time or two and then retreats into his or her own life to live with the questions of faith that so many of us have? Or the youth who is active in the Sunday night youth program, but attends another church with mom and dad on Sunday morning? Or the immigrant who, fearing possible consequences, is not a joiner but is yet faithful in attendance and participation in the church? Are these souls somehow less a part of the PC(USA)? The scope of our communities is not limited to the names on the rolls but to the extent of our welcome.
In addition to the membership statistics, our way of counting the number of churches in the PC(USA) needs to change. Under our current system any body that is not chartered as a congregation under the Book of Order is not counted among our worshiping communities.
I spend almost every Tuesday during the school year in chapel at the PC(USA) related college in our town. The chaplain there does a wonderful job of both making students feel welcome and in making that campus a worshiping community. No, they do not have a charter as a congregation. However, I can tell you from experience that this is a Presbyterian worshiping community in leadership, liturgy, theological conviction and worldview. Yet, this vibrant community does not get reflected in any of our published statistical data.
It is important that we keep an eye on how we, as a traditional denomination, are tracking statistically. That is a useful tool of evaluation. However, when we allow those numbers to be the full story, we lose something. Taking a single picture of the church in its many forms is about as easy as standing on the ledge and taking a picture of the whole of the Grand Canyon. We need to start taking multiple snapshots of the church and, piecing them together, see what larger picture emerges.
There is a new metric for evaluation in this new world of the church. We as a church need to begin speaking that language if we are to honestly assess the state of the PC(USA).
The same thing is happening in the PCUSA. As a denomination, we measure the size and scope of the church by counting members and baptisms and certificates of transfer, but in reality our congregations are no longer so static. We also do not count in our annual membership numbers those who are part of a community that identifies with the PC(USA) but is not a chartered church.
We are still measuring in feet and inches while the world has moved on to meters and millimeters.
In the grand scheme of things, I really don't care. This year the PC(USA) dipped below 2 million members for the first time in generations. So what? In the end, what does it matter what our official membership is? Jesus never said, "go, therefore, and make active members recorded in your church record of them." What does it honestly matter if we have 2 million or 10 million members? Still, the chattering class have already begun to lay blame for this state of affairs at the feet of, well, whomever they can find. These statistics have been used to proclaim the pending demise of the PC(USA). With Bishop Ussher like precision, some use the data from the annual statistical report to declare the date that the PC(USA) will be no more.
Is that really what we need to spend time worrying about? Is it really just a question of numbers?
No, it is not. The question is, what are we doing with the lives before us right now? How are we seeking to live out Jesus' commands of love, care, nurture, freedom and hope? When asked by the PNS about these statistics, Stated Clerk Grayde Parsons gave a wonderful answer and said, "[t]he first and primary need is to continue to increase our efforts to live out the Great Commission and share the good news of Jesus Christ." He is spot on with that answer! We need to be focused on doing the work of Christ in the world and stop measuring ourselves by the world's measuring stick of success. The statistics are an important snapshot, but they do not tell the full story and do not show the full picture.
What about the life of the person who comes a time or two and then retreats into his or her own life to live with the questions of faith that so many of us have? Or the youth who is active in the Sunday night youth program, but attends another church with mom and dad on Sunday morning? Or the immigrant who, fearing possible consequences, is not a joiner but is yet faithful in attendance and participation in the church? Are these souls somehow less a part of the PC(USA)? The scope of our communities is not limited to the names on the rolls but to the extent of our welcome.
In addition to the membership statistics, our way of counting the number of churches in the PC(USA) needs to change. Under our current system any body that is not chartered as a congregation under the Book of Order is not counted among our worshiping communities.
I spend almost every Tuesday during the school year in chapel at the PC(USA) related college in our town. The chaplain there does a wonderful job of both making students feel welcome and in making that campus a worshiping community. No, they do not have a charter as a congregation. However, I can tell you from experience that this is a Presbyterian worshiping community in leadership, liturgy, theological conviction and worldview. Yet, this vibrant community does not get reflected in any of our published statistical data.
It is important that we keep an eye on how we, as a traditional denomination, are tracking statistically. That is a useful tool of evaluation. However, when we allow those numbers to be the full story, we lose something. Taking a single picture of the church in its many forms is about as easy as standing on the ledge and taking a picture of the whole of the Grand Canyon. We need to start taking multiple snapshots of the church and, piecing them together, see what larger picture emerges.
There is a new metric for evaluation in this new world of the church. We as a church need to begin speaking that language if we are to honestly assess the state of the PC(USA).
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Should They Stay or Should They Go?
For many in the PC(USA), the conclusion that synods would be "going away" after this GA was a foregone conclusion. I was one of those many. As a synod commissioner, I have been steeped in this conversation for the last two years and thought that we would go into Pittsburgh with this change all but a done deal. I am not so sure now.
Reading the recommendations from the Mid-Councils Commission (I dealt with their recommendations on presbyteries in a previous post) and the advice and comment from standing committees and the Advisory Committee on the Constitution, I am persuaded that we need to sleep on it. That is not to say that we need to scrap the idea. We just need to let it stew a bit longer.
In their comment, the ACC points out that to affect the changes recommended will take more than a few edits to the Book of Order. There are a number of things that will have to happen and structural changes that will have to be made first to ensure that pulling out synods does not make our ecclesiastical house collapse. Making those changes thoughtfully will likely take more than a week in Pittsburgh.
Our synod has been operating under the assumption that something is going to happen. Our transitional executive has been leading us through a thorough process of discernment about who we are and what we do and what we are called to do in the future. Whether or not that new vision is played out as a governing council of the PC(USA) or as an extra-ecclesiastical union of presbyteries and agencies is yet to be seen. What is clear is that although synods as they now exist are a relatively new thing in the church, they have deep roots and reach much further than many of us realized.
It is my hope that the Mid-Councils Review Committee will recieve the report of the MCC with thanks and ask them to return to their conversations to discuss these structural and technical issues in greater detail.
Reading the recommendations from the Mid-Councils Commission (I dealt with their recommendations on presbyteries in a previous post) and the advice and comment from standing committees and the Advisory Committee on the Constitution, I am persuaded that we need to sleep on it. That is not to say that we need to scrap the idea. We just need to let it stew a bit longer.
In their comment, the ACC points out that to affect the changes recommended will take more than a few edits to the Book of Order. There are a number of things that will have to happen and structural changes that will have to be made first to ensure that pulling out synods does not make our ecclesiastical house collapse. Making those changes thoughtfully will likely take more than a week in Pittsburgh.
Our synod has been operating under the assumption that something is going to happen. Our transitional executive has been leading us through a thorough process of discernment about who we are and what we do and what we are called to do in the future. Whether or not that new vision is played out as a governing council of the PC(USA) or as an extra-ecclesiastical union of presbyteries and agencies is yet to be seen. What is clear is that although synods as they now exist are a relatively new thing in the church, they have deep roots and reach much further than many of us realized.
It is my hope that the Mid-Councils Review Committee will recieve the report of the MCC with thanks and ask them to return to their conversations to discuss these structural and technical issues in greater detail.
Give Belhar a Chance
Committee 18 will be one of the more exciting places to be this year for GA. Committee 18 is the Committee on Confessions of the Church. They are tasked with receiving the report of the Heidelberg Catechism re-translation. This group has worked very hard over their term to bring a faithful translation of this often overlooked part of our Book of Confessions. Their work reflects current scholarship and linguistic nuance and they are to be commended for their work. And, if the way be clear, the church will have a new and more accurate translation of this historic document for our day.
Another piece of business before this committee is an overture from Twin Cities Presbytery and concurred with by New York City Presbytery. This item, 18-1, asks the GA to form a special committee to educate the denomination on the Confession of Belhar prior to it's (hopefully) being proposed to the presbyteries for an up or down vote following the 221st GA in Detroit in 2014.
Belhar was approved by the 219th GA in Minneapolis in 2010. Because the Book of Confessions bears such great historical and theological weight, amending it requires concurrence of a GA, 2/3 of the presbyteries and the following GA. Belhar was approved by a good margin at the GA but fell 8 short of the required 116 affirmative presbytery votes.
The reintroduction of Belhar makes good sense for a few reasons.
First, the central controversy that led to its defeat in some presbyteries has been removed. It was thought that Belhar's language would provide an "end around" on the former language on ordination and the requirement that ordinands and candidates for ordination live in "fidelity in the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness." That language has now been removed and that particular fear is now mostly moot. Belhar might now have a fair chance to be judged on its merits rather than a perceived possible misuse.
Second, Belhar has been adopted by the Reformed Church in America in 2010 and will hopefully (likely?) be adopted by the Christian Reformed Church this year. At a time in our denominational history when we find ourselves at odds with some of our Reformed brothers and sisters on matters of human sexuality, the Belhar Confession is an opportunity to declare not what divides but what unites us; faith in Jesus Christ. (See the previous post on the Lund Principle for more on this ideal of holding on to what unites rather than divides.)
Third, this confession addresses a central concern facing the church today. Often we think of racism in the static terms of Jim Crow and 20th century American Civil Rights struggles. In truth, the sin of racism runs much wider and deeper. Belhar was written in the South African church in the wake of a generation of titanic change in race relations. It was written to express both the church's failures in race relations and its hope in Jesus Christ as we struggle to mend broken relationships and bridge divides between peoples.
Finally, the act of adoption itself will be a healthy thing for the church. Since the inclusion of the Brief Statement of Faith at the time of reunion, the world and church have changed dramatically. By adding this new elegant statement to our historic documents, the church witnesses to its own theology that we are indeed ecclesia reformta semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei.
With the many controversies and struggles facing the church, we find in Belhar a place that we can rally as a community and recapture some articulation of the faith that unites us.
Another piece of business before this committee is an overture from Twin Cities Presbytery and concurred with by New York City Presbytery. This item, 18-1, asks the GA to form a special committee to educate the denomination on the Confession of Belhar prior to it's (hopefully) being proposed to the presbyteries for an up or down vote following the 221st GA in Detroit in 2014.
Belhar was approved by the 219th GA in Minneapolis in 2010. Because the Book of Confessions bears such great historical and theological weight, amending it requires concurrence of a GA, 2/3 of the presbyteries and the following GA. Belhar was approved by a good margin at the GA but fell 8 short of the required 116 affirmative presbytery votes.
The reintroduction of Belhar makes good sense for a few reasons.
First, the central controversy that led to its defeat in some presbyteries has been removed. It was thought that Belhar's language would provide an "end around" on the former language on ordination and the requirement that ordinands and candidates for ordination live in "fidelity in the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness." That language has now been removed and that particular fear is now mostly moot. Belhar might now have a fair chance to be judged on its merits rather than a perceived possible misuse.
Second, Belhar has been adopted by the Reformed Church in America in 2010 and will hopefully (likely?) be adopted by the Christian Reformed Church this year. At a time in our denominational history when we find ourselves at odds with some of our Reformed brothers and sisters on matters of human sexuality, the Belhar Confession is an opportunity to declare not what divides but what unites us; faith in Jesus Christ. (See the previous post on the Lund Principle for more on this ideal of holding on to what unites rather than divides.)
Third, this confession addresses a central concern facing the church today. Often we think of racism in the static terms of Jim Crow and 20th century American Civil Rights struggles. In truth, the sin of racism runs much wider and deeper. Belhar was written in the South African church in the wake of a generation of titanic change in race relations. It was written to express both the church's failures in race relations and its hope in Jesus Christ as we struggle to mend broken relationships and bridge divides between peoples.
Finally, the act of adoption itself will be a healthy thing for the church. Since the inclusion of the Brief Statement of Faith at the time of reunion, the world and church have changed dramatically. By adding this new elegant statement to our historic documents, the church witnesses to its own theology that we are indeed ecclesia reformta semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei.
With the many controversies and struggles facing the church, we find in Belhar a place that we can rally as a community and recapture some articulation of the faith that unites us.
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
The Lund Principle and Opportunity Costs
In the midst of a year dominated by rehashed debates over human sexuality, inclusion of GLBTQ men and women in leadership, the proper definition of marriage and investment protocols vis the Middle East, it is no wonder that less controversial and less exciting pieces of business can get lost in the mix.
One such item this year in Pittsburgh is item 9-7 on covenanting to adopt the Lund Principle. The General Assembly Committee on Ecumenical and Interfaith Relations (GACEIR) has responded to a referral from the last GA with a recommendation that the GA adopt the Lund Principle and encourage congregations and mid-councils to do the same.
Articulated at the World Council of Churches Faith and Order meeting in Lund, Sweden in 1952, the Lund Principle simply states that faith communities should cooperate fully with one another in all matters save those of grave difference in theological principle. In other words, we need to get over the petty stuff and get to the work of caring for God's world and God's people.
While we are all distracted by debates over and related to sex and sexuality, it will be easy to let this recommendation fall through the cracks. That would be a tragedy. Given the state of the mainline church today and the changing realities of the religious landscape, something as empowering as the Lund Principle is just what the doctor ordered for the church.
For generations we have maintained firm boundaries around denominations and bodies in the church and some of those are important. As a Presbyterian, I am pretty firm in my Reformed faith. When I attended a Methodist seminary, there were days when it seemed as though we were speaking a different theological language. And for most of my ministry the differences between our traditions has been what defines us. When money, members and influence in society is in full supply, that is a pretty easy way to live.
Wow, has our reality changed! We no longer live in a world of such abundance and the realities of many of our congregations is changing. More and more we find that shrinking congregations cannot survive financially so what are we to do? Shall we just keep closing churches and streamlining our organizational structure?
Perhaps we need look no further than committee #9 at this year's GA for a theologically sound and pragmatically appealing way forward. The idea of applying the Lund Principle locally as well as globally is not a new thing. Still, it is not often that you find congregations of different denominations (let alone different faiths) sharing a building or ministries or facilities.
The recommendation from GACEIR is a welcome call to the denomination as a whole and to each congregation and mid-council to remember that there is far more that unites us in Christ than there is that divides us in theology. And even when we find ourselves divided by deep theological divisions, we can still bridge the chasm in service to God's people and God's world.
Come what may at this year's GA, I hope that we are wise enough to heed this important call to faithful cooperation and this call to live and learn side by side united in Christ's service. If we do not, we miss a wonderful opportunity.
One such item this year in Pittsburgh is item 9-7 on covenanting to adopt the Lund Principle. The General Assembly Committee on Ecumenical and Interfaith Relations (GACEIR) has responded to a referral from the last GA with a recommendation that the GA adopt the Lund Principle and encourage congregations and mid-councils to do the same.
Articulated at the World Council of Churches Faith and Order meeting in Lund, Sweden in 1952, the Lund Principle simply states that faith communities should cooperate fully with one another in all matters save those of grave difference in theological principle. In other words, we need to get over the petty stuff and get to the work of caring for God's world and God's people.
While we are all distracted by debates over and related to sex and sexuality, it will be easy to let this recommendation fall through the cracks. That would be a tragedy. Given the state of the mainline church today and the changing realities of the religious landscape, something as empowering as the Lund Principle is just what the doctor ordered for the church.
For generations we have maintained firm boundaries around denominations and bodies in the church and some of those are important. As a Presbyterian, I am pretty firm in my Reformed faith. When I attended a Methodist seminary, there were days when it seemed as though we were speaking a different theological language. And for most of my ministry the differences between our traditions has been what defines us. When money, members and influence in society is in full supply, that is a pretty easy way to live.
Wow, has our reality changed! We no longer live in a world of such abundance and the realities of many of our congregations is changing. More and more we find that shrinking congregations cannot survive financially so what are we to do? Shall we just keep closing churches and streamlining our organizational structure?
Perhaps we need look no further than committee #9 at this year's GA for a theologically sound and pragmatically appealing way forward. The idea of applying the Lund Principle locally as well as globally is not a new thing. Still, it is not often that you find congregations of different denominations (let alone different faiths) sharing a building or ministries or facilities.
The recommendation from GACEIR is a welcome call to the denomination as a whole and to each congregation and mid-council to remember that there is far more that unites us in Christ than there is that divides us in theology. And even when we find ourselves divided by deep theological divisions, we can still bridge the chasm in service to God's people and God's world.
Come what may at this year's GA, I hope that we are wise enough to heed this important call to faithful cooperation and this call to live and learn side by side united in Christ's service. If we do not, we miss a wonderful opportunity.
Creeping Subscriptionism
The debates over human sexuality which have so preoccupied the church for the last generation or so give proof to the saying a colleague of mine is fond of offering. When a particularly divisive issue seems to be getting far more emotion and concern than might be expected, she says, "just remember that the issue is rarely the issue." In other words, what we are fighting about is not necessarily the thing we actually care about.
This is true of the debate on human sexuality in the PC(USA).
I do not mean to say that those who have fought with courage and conviction on both sides of this issue are somehow not actually committed to their theology or their words. I am certain that they (we) are. Instead, what I want to suggest is that beneath the surface of the sexuality debate is another theological concern that is only now beginning to come to the surface. That issue is theological subscriptionism. Put another way, now that the question of whether or not GLBTQ men and women of faith may answer their call to vocation through the church has been answered in the affirmative, we have another question left unanswered.
Shall the PC(USA) require adherence in belief (subscription) to any particular set of theological beliefs other than “trust in God’s grace in Jesus Christ and desire to become part of the fellowship and ministry of his Church” (Book of Order, G-1.0302)?
This question has been present throughout our recent debates on human sexuality and this year the General Assembly is faced with a number of overtures which imply or state outright a desire for subscription as a condition of membership and/or leadership in the PC(USA).
Perhaps the most innocuous appearing of these business items is overture 6-17. This overture from Grace Presbytery is similar to item 6-13 from Western New York presbytery which attempts to clarify the language on participation in the full membership of the church by eliminating 1) the list of categories of people who shall not be discriminated against and 2) replacing the language of mandate ("guarantee") with that of aspiration ("strive to"). Both of these revisions raise questions about the church's witness to the importance of full inclusion and its recognition that discrimination on many bases is still a reality both inside the church and outside. These are concerns, but hardly fatal flaws.
The fatal flaw is the addition to this proposed change that Grace offers in item 6-17. Grace proposes to state specifically that the church shall not discriminate in the fullness of participation and membership in the church on many bases including "theological stance within the historic Christian tradition as expressed in the Book of Confessions."
Whether intentional or unintentional, the Grace overture makes mandatory that anyone seeking membership or being considered for leadership in the PC(USA) subscribe to the Book of Confessions in some manner. The overture's proposed language will radically narrow the boundaries of conscience which now encompass the fullness of traditional trinitarian Christian theology to the confines of the PC(USA) Book of Confessions. The boundaries are not even as wide as the fullness of the Reformed tradition, but only this one church within that tradition.
This represents a titanic shift in our understanding of what it means to be a member of the church and what it means to be called into the fellowship of the PC(USA).
In recent years, both the General Assembly and the GAPJC (the highest church court) have rejected the idea of subscription. Recalling the wisdom of the Swearingen Commission, the church has repeatedly held fast to the historic principles of freedom of conscience and rejection of rigid formulae of belief. To embrace subscriptionism would bind the church to the will of an ever shifting majority rule. From GA to GA, the definition of what shall and what shall not be orthodox may change wildly based on who is in charge or who has a powerful enough voting block.
Were I a commissioner to this GA, I would give careful consideration to the alterations that Western New York has proposed. However, the proposal from Grace should be rejected for its perhaps unintended result of promoting subscriptionism in the PC(USA).
This is true of the debate on human sexuality in the PC(USA).
I do not mean to say that those who have fought with courage and conviction on both sides of this issue are somehow not actually committed to their theology or their words. I am certain that they (we) are. Instead, what I want to suggest is that beneath the surface of the sexuality debate is another theological concern that is only now beginning to come to the surface. That issue is theological subscriptionism. Put another way, now that the question of whether or not GLBTQ men and women of faith may answer their call to vocation through the church has been answered in the affirmative, we have another question left unanswered.
Shall the PC(USA) require adherence in belief (subscription) to any particular set of theological beliefs other than “trust in God’s grace in Jesus Christ and desire to become part of the fellowship and ministry of his Church” (Book of Order, G-1.0302)?
This question has been present throughout our recent debates on human sexuality and this year the General Assembly is faced with a number of overtures which imply or state outright a desire for subscription as a condition of membership and/or leadership in the PC(USA).
Perhaps the most innocuous appearing of these business items is overture 6-17. This overture from Grace Presbytery is similar to item 6-13 from Western New York presbytery which attempts to clarify the language on participation in the full membership of the church by eliminating 1) the list of categories of people who shall not be discriminated against and 2) replacing the language of mandate ("guarantee") with that of aspiration ("strive to"). Both of these revisions raise questions about the church's witness to the importance of full inclusion and its recognition that discrimination on many bases is still a reality both inside the church and outside. These are concerns, but hardly fatal flaws.
The fatal flaw is the addition to this proposed change that Grace offers in item 6-17. Grace proposes to state specifically that the church shall not discriminate in the fullness of participation and membership in the church on many bases including "theological stance within the historic Christian tradition as expressed in the Book of Confessions."
Whether intentional or unintentional, the Grace overture makes mandatory that anyone seeking membership or being considered for leadership in the PC(USA) subscribe to the Book of Confessions in some manner. The overture's proposed language will radically narrow the boundaries of conscience which now encompass the fullness of traditional trinitarian Christian theology to the confines of the PC(USA) Book of Confessions. The boundaries are not even as wide as the fullness of the Reformed tradition, but only this one church within that tradition.
This represents a titanic shift in our understanding of what it means to be a member of the church and what it means to be called into the fellowship of the PC(USA).
In recent years, both the General Assembly and the GAPJC (the highest church court) have rejected the idea of subscription. Recalling the wisdom of the Swearingen Commission, the church has repeatedly held fast to the historic principles of freedom of conscience and rejection of rigid formulae of belief. To embrace subscriptionism would bind the church to the will of an ever shifting majority rule. From GA to GA, the definition of what shall and what shall not be orthodox may change wildly based on who is in charge or who has a powerful enough voting block.
Were I a commissioner to this GA, I would give careful consideration to the alterations that Western New York has proposed. However, the proposal from Grace should be rejected for its perhaps unintended result of promoting subscriptionism in the PC(USA).
Monday, June 18, 2012
Dangerous Precedent: GA, Same-Gender Marriage and Authoritative Interpretations
The 220th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) meets in Pittsburgh in just over a week. The list of business to be considered is long and there are a number of issues that invite comment, however one stands out; requests from a handful of presbyteries that the GA issue an Authoritative Interpretation of the Book of Order on the question of same-gender marriage in states where it is legal.
Authoritative Interpretations (AIs) have roughly the weight of a Supreme Court decision in the secular world. AIs are statements by a particular GA in which that GA 1) interprets the language of the constitution on matters of controversy and 2) establishes that interpretation as binding on the whole church. An AI cannot alter the language of the constitution, however like the Supreme Court, the GA is the final word on such matters so their AI of a particular question cannot be appealed except to the next GA. So an AI is nothing to take lightly.
The authors of the overtures for an AI on same-gender marriage are asking the GA to state authoritatively that same-gender marriage and opposite-gender marriage are theologically equivalent at least in places where they are legally equivalent. Supporters argue that this is a workable compromise while the church determines where it will go on the question of same-gender marriage across the board. The ability of pastors and congregations to exercise their conscience and responsibility for pastoral care is being hampered and this AI will free churches in jurisdictions where this question has been settled to follow their conscience on whether or not to allow same-gender marriages in a particular church.
On its face the overtures are straight-forward and matter of fact and do, I believe, represent a workable compromise on a deeply divisive and emotional issue.
However...
Were I a commissioner to GA this summer, I would vote NO on these proposed AIs. It is not because I oppose same-gender marriage. I not only support it, I believe that the church remains in a posture of sin so long as we fail to recognize fully the dignity of God's work in the lives of two people who discern that theirs are lives meant to be spent in covenant relationship. Same or opposite gender matters not in the face of God's good work through relationships of honest, mutuality and covenant.
Despite my firmly held theological beliefs, I would still vote NO on these AIs. I would vote NO because I believe that adoption of this language sets a dangerous precedent for the church in it's witness to the world.
Under these AIs, pastors and congregations would be free to exercise their conscience on the question of same-gender marriage in states where such marriage is legal. This is a fatal and dangerous flaw in the proposals. To even imply that the state has a hand in determining the boundaries of theological and prayerful conscience in the church is as shocking as it is offensive. Under the logic of these AIs, my conscience as a pastor is bound by the voters in my state who have enshrined a homophobic anti-marriage clause in our state constitution.
Really?
Are we really prepared to tell Presbyterians in Washington state, where same-gender is legal as the result of legislative action, that they may exercise their conscience on this matter only to withdraw that freedom if the voters approve an anti-marriage initiative in November?
To set a precedent that popular will at the polling place is the arbiter of the boundaries of theological conscience in the PC(USA) surrenders the church's calling to be a prophetic voice in the world. It is difficult to speak truth to power if you have to wait for the power's permission to speak.
I believe that the PC(USA) must expand our understanding of marriage and our perspective on the love and work of God in the lives of all people. We cannot do that if we insist on waiting for the world to give us permission. If the GA is to speak with authority on the question of marriage, let them say that the PC(USA) stands firmly with the children of God and that we will not let any force in the world- the courts, the legislature or even the voters- limit the horizon of God's good works of love in covenant relationships.
Authoritative Interpretations (AIs) have roughly the weight of a Supreme Court decision in the secular world. AIs are statements by a particular GA in which that GA 1) interprets the language of the constitution on matters of controversy and 2) establishes that interpretation as binding on the whole church. An AI cannot alter the language of the constitution, however like the Supreme Court, the GA is the final word on such matters so their AI of a particular question cannot be appealed except to the next GA. So an AI is nothing to take lightly.
The authors of the overtures for an AI on same-gender marriage are asking the GA to state authoritatively that same-gender marriage and opposite-gender marriage are theologically equivalent at least in places where they are legally equivalent. Supporters argue that this is a workable compromise while the church determines where it will go on the question of same-gender marriage across the board. The ability of pastors and congregations to exercise their conscience and responsibility for pastoral care is being hampered and this AI will free churches in jurisdictions where this question has been settled to follow their conscience on whether or not to allow same-gender marriages in a particular church.
On its face the overtures are straight-forward and matter of fact and do, I believe, represent a workable compromise on a deeply divisive and emotional issue.
However...
Were I a commissioner to GA this summer, I would vote NO on these proposed AIs. It is not because I oppose same-gender marriage. I not only support it, I believe that the church remains in a posture of sin so long as we fail to recognize fully the dignity of God's work in the lives of two people who discern that theirs are lives meant to be spent in covenant relationship. Same or opposite gender matters not in the face of God's good work through relationships of honest, mutuality and covenant.
Despite my firmly held theological beliefs, I would still vote NO on these AIs. I would vote NO because I believe that adoption of this language sets a dangerous precedent for the church in it's witness to the world.
Under these AIs, pastors and congregations would be free to exercise their conscience on the question of same-gender marriage in states where such marriage is legal. This is a fatal and dangerous flaw in the proposals. To even imply that the state has a hand in determining the boundaries of theological and prayerful conscience in the church is as shocking as it is offensive. Under the logic of these AIs, my conscience as a pastor is bound by the voters in my state who have enshrined a homophobic anti-marriage clause in our state constitution.
Really?
Are we really prepared to tell Presbyterians in Washington state, where same-gender is legal as the result of legislative action, that they may exercise their conscience on this matter only to withdraw that freedom if the voters approve an anti-marriage initiative in November?
To set a precedent that popular will at the polling place is the arbiter of the boundaries of theological conscience in the PC(USA) surrenders the church's calling to be a prophetic voice in the world. It is difficult to speak truth to power if you have to wait for the power's permission to speak.
I believe that the PC(USA) must expand our understanding of marriage and our perspective on the love and work of God in the lives of all people. We cannot do that if we insist on waiting for the world to give us permission. If the GA is to speak with authority on the question of marriage, let them say that the PC(USA) stands firmly with the children of God and that we will not let any force in the world- the courts, the legislature or even the voters- limit the horizon of God's good works of love in covenant relationships.
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
A Letter to Steve Hayner
This letter was posted on my other blog. It is my response to a decision at Columbia Seminary to restrict student housing by excluding same-gender couples from campus housing. Since this letter was sent some progress has been made on discussions at campus.
23 April, 2012
Dr. Steve Hayner, President
Columbia Theological Seminary
701 S. Columbia Drive
Decatur, GA
30031
Dear Dr. Hayner:
It was with great distress that I learned
today of the seminary’s decision concerning the continued policy of excluding
same-gender couples from campus housing.
Let me say from the outset that I
hold CTS in great affection and I am writing in that posture. It is my sincere hope that, in the spirit of
Christian fellowship, as an alumnus I may voice a firmly held disagreement with
the seminary’s action without jettisoning a relationship that has meant a great
deal to my life and ministry.
As you note in your memo to the campus these
are difficult issues in our denomination and the nature and role of same-gender
relationships is and will continue to be a matter of deep theological
discussion. As a matter of polity,
however, the church has spoken and determined that a universal policy
concerning same-gender relationships in relation to those preparing for or
entering into ministry is inappropriate.
The church has rejected any position that categorically discriminates
against GLBTQ individuals or sets one group of God’s children apart for lesser
treatment. Although there is not
universal agreement, the church has firmly staked its position on the principle
that all of God’s children are to be treated with respect and dignity and that
none should be set apart outside the community.
That the seminary has chosen to make an absolute policy against this
principle on the basis of continued disagreement within the church is
disappointing. If disagreement on a
question of human morality was determinative in seminary housing policy, our
campuses would be rife with empty apartments.
Consider a hypothetical. Abortion is an issue on which the PC(USA) has
taken an ambiguous position and on which many within the church disagree. As with the question of same-gender
relationships, we are not of one mind as a church on the question of
abortion. If, after prayerful
consideration, a student chose to abort a pregnancy, would that student be
denied housing because there is not consensus in the church on the morality of
that choice? Shall a thrice divorced and
remarried student be denied housing because a segment of the church may
question that moral choice? If that
student’s life choice does not offend a divided church, how can the seminary
legitimately say that two Christians in a loving and committed relationship do
so offend merely because they share gender?
By allowing disagreement in the church on this single issue to dictate
seminary policy, the institution implies that this particular issue and no
other is dispositive.
A neutral housing policy that treats no group
different than another would reflect an ethic that CTS is a campus on which
these disagreements may be openly discussed and debated by the whole church. By adopting a housing policy that takes a stand
on one issue and not others that divide the church, CTS cannot claim to be such
a place of open and broad dialogue. How
can the whole of the church live in open and honest engagement when a portion
of the church is categorically excluded?
It is my sincere hope that CTS will follow
the example of Austin Seminary and create room within the educational community
for all who would honestly come with open minds and willing intellect to grow
and learn together. That is the place of
the seminaries and we are blessed as a church to have such excellent
institutions of theological education in our tradition. There is no other place in the church where
the ethic of academic inquiry and the faithful theological life of the church
so fully come into contact.
I value deeply my time spent at
Columbia. My affection for the seminary
continues unabated and I hope that in time my confidence may be restored. I am,
Yours in Christ,
The Rev. Dr. Robert Wm Lowry
D.Min ‘10
Mapping a Non-Geographic Future
Mapping a Non-Geographic
Future:
Consequences (Intended and
Unintended) of the PC(USA) Mid Council Commission Recommendations
Overview
Church governance and the nuances of
polity are low on the list of topics of interest to most of us. The
portion of officer training that involves the Book of Order and our system of
governance is often met with rolled eyes and expressions of sheer dread.
It is no wonder then that my informal survey of a group of PCUSA elders (both
ruling and teaching) revealed that not many even knew that there was a
Mid-Council Commission much less what it is doing.
As a self-described polity nerd I have followed their work with interest.
The task before them was monumental and they have handled the vast majority of
their work with both grace and courage. Some of the ideas put forth
represent a thoughtful new direction for the church and will address pressing
issues of adaptation of denominational structures to rapidly changing cultures
both within and without the Church. Hopefully they will help us remain
decent and in order while doing a little more Spirit-led reforming at the same
time.
If the presbyteries are charged with
casting an up or down vote on the MCC Report as it now stands, I would be
forced to vote “no” despite its many good proposals. My support for most of the report’s ideas and
proposals cannot overcome the overwhelming danger of its central proposal for Non-Geographic
Presbyteries based on criteria other than racial/ethnic concerns. This fatal flaw dooms the rest of the report
and portends great difficulties for the PC(USA) both in our practical governance
and in our theological witness in the world.
The
Non-Geographic Option
At its spring meeting in Dallas, the
Mid-Council Commission put the final touches on their report to the General
Assembly this summer. By a vote of 15-5, the commission voted to approve
“provisional Non-Geographic Presbyteries” during a season of discernment to
last through 2021. This provision is a Pandora’s Box that cannot be
closed once it is open and it will have a chilling effect on the church.
The idea of Non-Geographic Presbyteries is not new. Provisions for Non-Geographic
Presbyteries have been made to aid in the transition of some racial-ethnic
congregations into the predominantly anglo PC(USA). This model allowed
for a time of cultural learning as the larger church grew to not only include
but incorporate the wisdom of a particular community Sometimes this has worked.
Others it has not. The proposal from the Mid-Council Commission is
entirely different from the previous non-geographic presbytery model.
The presbyteries envisioned by the commission would be self-selected bodies
made up of congregations that are of like mind on particular issues. The
MCC proposes amending the Book of Order to allow,
“Approving
the formation of provisional non‐geographic presbyteries for particular
missional purposes, upon petition of ten or more congregations and ten or more
teaching elders within its bounds, with the concurrence of existing
presbyteries.” MCC Recommendation #6
The language of the proposal is
sufficiently vague that these presbyteries can be formed for just about any
reason that can be articulated. The
rationale for this, according to proponents, is to hit the “reset” button and
allow the church to move forward. These new bodies would jettison
arbitrary geographical boundaries in favor of ideological and theological
boundaries.
Proponents argue that these bodies will allow the church to move past its
current crisis and put focus on shared mission. The provision of a sunset
clause would require that these new presbyteries will have to show how this
model is better or the system will revert. In the meantime, 10 churches
and 10 teaching elders are all it takes to propose a new presbytery.
Dangers for
the Peace, Unity and Purity of the Church
The provision of these Non-Geographic
Presbyteries is not limited to mission. They
are not bodies bound by the provisions of their “particular missional purposes.” These are presbyteries; councils of the
church with all the rights and privileges of a presbytery save the authority
over property.[1] This means that these Non-Geographic
Presbyteries, which are not limited in number or scope, will have the authority
to:
·
Oversee the calling, dismissing and discipline
of Teaching Elders
·
Interpret (insofar as their power allows) the
requirements of ministry to be imposed on candidates
·
Determine the suitability of candidates for
ordination as Teaching Elders
·
Oversee judicial process among their constituent
churches
·
Even if they are composed of the minimum 10
Teaching Elders and 10 Ruling Elders they will have the right to send two
commissioners to meetings of the General Assembly; to propose overtures to the
General Assembly; to vote on business forwarded by the General Assembly for the
concurrence of the presbyteries
The
model proposed by the MCC is rooted in their conviction that the church must
move into an era of trust if we are to emerge from the last decades of both
theological and ecclesiastical difficulty.
The MCC is to be applauded for their vision of returning to an era of
trust in the church.
That we have not yet reached that new
era of trust is evident from the business before the General Assembly. Not yet a year since the changes to the Book
of Order took effect, no less than a dozen overtures seek to undo what the
presbyteries did over the last two years.
Though there is increasing rhetoric in the church for moving on and
moving forward, the prevailing culture is still one of seeking legislative
majorities in order to impose particular theological and ethical visions on the
whole church. The proposal for Non-Geographic
Presbyteries begs abuse in a church culture that is unpracticed in both
legislative and rhetorical restraint.
If we are honest with ourselves, can
we really say that there will be only 173 presbyteries for the 221st
or 222nd General Assemblies?
What will become of the Peace, Unity and Purity of the church if we find
ourselves mired in an arms race of presbytery creation in order to ensure
favorable outcomes on legislative issues?
Or to “stack the deck” with theologically sympathetic votes on the new
regional judicial commissions?
It is essential that we move into
the era of trust and reconciliation anticipated by the MCC report. This measure, though perhaps well
intentioned, will do great violence to any hope for that future and will make
the present state of the church more perilous than it already is.
Dangers for
the Theological Witness of the Church
What will this church look like to
an outsider looking in? What public face
will our ecclesiological witness take under this proposal? The only metaphor for this sort of church I
can imagine is a middle school lunch room where the cool kids sit together and
intentionally exclude those they deem do not measure up.
Our current system of presbytery boundaries is generally theologically
neutral. The Arkansas/Missouri state line (which forms the northern
boundary of my presbytery) is uninterested in how a church on either side of
the line thinks about a certain issue. It provides a functional
administrative boundary without drawing lines of value between
congregations. The proposal from the Mid-Council Commission will draw
such lines. Where once, congregations that may not agree on every issue
were called to community and to the effort to find shared mission that would
transcend their differences, our presbyteries would now declare those differences
absolute and insurmountable requiring the administrative separation of once
partner churches.
Adoption of this part of the Mid-Council Commission’s recommendations will
declare to the world that the way to bridge differences, even deeply held
theological differences, is to walk away and stop engaging.
Adoption of this plan will declare to the world that the body of Christ is so
fragile as to be unable to withstand a season of disagreement.
Adoption of this plan will declare to the world that although we preach
reconciliation we choose to practice division.
Unlike other institutions, the church
does not have the luxury of defining its own mission or institutional
calling. Christ calls us to mission and
that mission defines our institutional calling. Although our present institutional
circumstances may make dwelling together in unity difficult or even, at times,
distasteful, we are no less obligated to remain steadfast in our unity in
Christ.
Conclusion
We who are entrusted with the leadership of the church today have an obligation
to look beyond quick fixes to our contemporary problems and consider how our
actions may impact the church in the years to come. The MCC makes good
and helpful suggestions for the future of the church, however their report is
fatally flawed if it includes the provision for Non-Geographic Presbyteries. The particular bell, if struck, can never be
un-rung.
Polity may be boring, but it is a
visible expression of our theological vision of the church. And make no mistake about it; this proposal
is bad polity and we neglect it at our peril.
[1]
“Such
presbyteries shall have all the rights and powers of presbyteries, except that
they shall not have the authority to dissolve, dismiss, or divide congregations
or to approve the sale, mortgage, lease, or transfer of the real property of
its constituent congregations without the consent of the congregation’s presbytery
of origin.” MCC Recommendation #6
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)