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.

Sad but Hardly Surprised

After taking a break from following GA online to do some work in the yard, I came into the house to find a text message from a friend. 

Him: "Did you hear the news about the vice-mod?"
Me: "no"
Him: "She resigned...instead of becoming a distraction."

I wish I could say I was shocked by the news.  I am not.  I feared when she was elected that pressure would be brought to bear from those who oppose her actions to have her removed or disrupt the Assembly.  It seems that has come to pass.  What a sad turn of events.

I can understand that some may have been troubled or even offended by the election of the Vice-Moderator in light of her officiating a legal same-gender wedding earlier in the year.  For some people this is an act that makes her unsuitable for office. Our polity certainly allows for that opinion and for that opinion to be heard.  The time for voicing that concern is in the balloting.  Each commissioner is given an equal chance to voice his or her opinion on the suitability of the candidate with his or her vote.

That a minority of the church would, through background chatter and thinly veiled threats of disruption of the assembly, seek to overturn the legitimate election of a Vice-Moderator is sad and reflects an unhealthy understanding of what the church is.

Consider the same circumstance in a local context.  If, after a pastor is properly called and installed, a minority of a congregation began plotting to disrupt the life of the church and undermine the pastor, would the COM not step in?  Would any of us consider that congregation to be anything but in crisis?  Is there any circumstance when that minority might be seen as anything but disruptive and divisive?

There are deep divisions in our church and we need to take that seriously.  Playing petty political games behind the scenes is unacceptable.  Those who have forced this issue have diminished themselves and the church.  These anonymous voices would do well to take a page from the woman they tried to run down.  She resigned with grace and dignity that showed a love for the church.  If nothing else, perhaps her witness will be a lesson to those whose vision is so narrow and myopic that they cannot see beyond their own limited horizons.

I am sad about this result, but given the tenor of so much the last few years I am hardly surprised.

July 4 Reflections on the 220th GA

Joe Small, until recently employed by the PC(USA) in the Office of Theology and Worship, wrote an op-ed for the Catholic lay journal First Things last winter.  In it he lamented how dependent on democratic majority rules governing the PC(USA) has become in recent years.  Some of what he said was spot on, some was a bit far-fetched.  All of it gives us reason to take a step back and, on the day we celebrate the political freedom of a liberal democratic society, assess how we go about doing our business together as a church.

That PC(USA) polity is rooted in principles of liberal democracy is widely understood.  Principles such as freedom of individual conscience, divesting power from individuals and investing it into the body as a whole and our multi-tiered governing structure are all features common (though not universal) in liberal democratic societies.  So as far as the structure of our polity, there is a kernel of truth to the claim that Presbyterians and democratic theory owe one another a mutual debt. 

This is, I believe, one of the great blessings of being a Presbyterian.  Growing in faith and worshiping God in the context of a denomination that embraces both the wideness of God's mercy and the breadth of possibilities when we draw our minds, hearts and spirits together in discernment is a true gift.

One of the issues that Small raised in his article is that although this context for church governance can be a gift, we can also find ourselves mired in a way of doing church business that reduces every prayerful decision to a yes or a no. 

One of the most persuasive arguments in favor of the New Form of Government was its return to a polity of description  rather than prescription.  In other words, our polity once again defines the boundaries within which we are called to live and work together.  It is no longer designed as a document to legislate away controversy or particular outcomes.  The spirit of the New Form of Government is one of trust and, yes, at times tension.  It resists the tendency in democratic debate to reduce every issue to a simple yes or no.

We, as a nation, are mired in this sort of reductionism.  We define ourselves and one another by which of two candidates we support or with which of two parties we identify.  We have reduced democratic debate to false dualisms and we are reaping the harvest of that misguided way of living together.  Not since the Civil War has this nation been so deeply and evenly divided along ideological lines. 

As a church, we have the opportunity to witness to a new way of living together.  And to bear that witness, we do not have to abandon our liberal democratic structures or vest power in a few individuals.  We need only live fully into the opportunity our polity allows for discernment, conversation, prayer and community.  Not every issue is a simple up or down vote.  Those are necessary to make final decisions when we are not unanimous in our thinking and there is something to be said for allowing the Holy Spirit to work through the voice of the larger church. 

However, the doing of business is not merely about making final decisions and taking final votes.  Part of being a governing body is being a deliberative body willing to seek solutions beyond yes/no. 

The work of some committees at GA has reflected that spirit.  I pray that the whole assembly will take the time and energy to look beyond dual horizons of yes and no.

Dead Armadillos and Presbyterians

If any phrase sums up the 220th GA so far (at least in matters concerning human sexuality and associated debates) it is "middle of the road."  The Commissioners on committees 6 and 7 have been thoughtful and considered in their work and have managed to steer through a minefield of overtures relatively unscathed.  I do not envy them their work, but I admire them for it.

It is important for the church to be prophetic.  And now that we are meeting only one week every two years, it is even more important that we remember the Great Ends of the Church to "promote social righteousness" and "proclaim the gospel for the salvation of human kind."  The witness of the PC(USA) in recent years is part of a great cloud of witnesses against the sins of exclusion, homophobia and bigotry.  That prophetic voice is vital and it is our holy and great calling as the body of Christ.

However, (I always have an however)...

In the midst of our prophetic proclamation to the world, we must not forget that other Great End, "the shelter, nurture and spiritual fellowship of the children of God."  If one Great End needs to rise to the top of the list at this point in our denominational history, I vote for this one.  We are a church that has made great strides forward in both faithfulness and witness in recent years.  And there is absolutely much more to be done.  However, we are also a church in which many of our brothers and sisters are hurting now as a result of these changes. 

In addition to our prophetic calling in the world, we have a pastoral calling in our denominational family and we need some family time.  We need a season of healing and renewal as we seek to come back together as the body of Christ in the PC(USA). 

The work of the Church Orders and Polity committees at GA is a step in that direction.  Both committees resisted the pressure to move the church backward and the pressure to legislate away potential future disagreements.   In short, they have endorsed a season of trust that the Holy Spirit will hold and keep us in the midst of our tension. 

There are times when the middle of the road is a dangerous place to be.  (Just ask an armadillo.)  However, when it comes to the shelter, nurture and spiritual fellowship of such a diverse body of the children of God it is just about the perfect place to be.

So thanks to these committees for their hard work but mostly for their willingness to seek a middle way.  Hopefully the full Assembly will follow their wise counsel.

Bye-bye Bivocational Ministry?

The Special Committee on the Nature of the Church in the 21st Century produced an interesting if somewhat vague report advocating a vision for the church today and into the future.  Most of its recommendations were suitably broad to garner widespread support from many in the church.  This was evidenced by how easily some parts were approved by the PILP and Church Growth Committee (#16) at GA. 

One surprise change did occur and it is to what I believe is the most important part of the document.  The 21st Church committee proposed a special task force to study the feasibility of bivocational ministry.  21st Church referred to this as a "viable form of ministry for the 21st century church."  For reasons not yet clear, committee 16 amended the recommendation to put that work on the staff of the GAMC. 

That the GA staff is already overworked is evident.  Through years of budget cuts and consolidation of duties, what once was manageable work is not overwhelming.  The staff at GA do an admirable job doing the work assigned, however there are reasonable limits to what they can do with the available hours in the day.  Passing on to them what may be one of the most important changes in the vocational landscape for the next century is neither fair to the already overworked staff nor in the best interest of the denomination.

There is no doubt that the GAMC staff will do a good job exploring the questions and challenges of bivocational ministry.  I question, however, whether or not they can adequately represent the breadth of wisdom and experience in the church?  Can they be expected to know the challenges facing inner-city congregations as well as rural farming community churches?  What about suburban churches saddled with debt with members who are un or underemployed and under water on their homes?  What about immigrant fellowships or non-traditional communities of faith?

By putting this work in the hands of the GAMC staff, committee 16 has necessarily limited the perspective of those who will be advising the whole church. 

As more and more churches (my own included) face economic realities that make full-time seminary trained pastoral leadership more difficult, the potential for bivocational ministry holds great possibilities.  The experience with these challenges of the 21st Century church is here in the congregations and presbyteries of the church.  And that is where the discernment process should begin.  We lose a great opportunity to tap into the wisdom of the church by not involving the whole church in the conversation.

I fear that a good idea may get lost in the ever growing "to-do" list of our denominational staff.  I hope I am wrong, but I fear that I am not.  Hopefully the Assembly will reconsider the recommendation from committee 16 and involve the breadth of the church in this vital conversation.

When Not Taking a Stand is Taking the Right Stand

Reports from the 220^th General Assembly in Pittsburgh note that the Church Orders and Ministry Committee has approved with amendment, an overture from Sacramento Presbytery.  The overture asks the GA to make a statement (this is a sense of the body statement rather than a binding theological document) on the nature of our disagreement about human sexuality and calling the church into a season of prayer, discernment and healing.

It is far too early in the week to know what the GA will do with the ordination issues before it.  It does seem that the committee has indicated its own hesitancy to take a firm stand on one “side” or the other preferring to allow time for the church to reach consensus. 

The committee’s action, if indeed they do follow a neutral path, is a welcome witness to a possible third way in the church.  By steering a middle course between the reductionist duality of yes or no, they show the church a way to live together in the midst of disagreement.

The decision of the committee was by no means unanimous.  According to published reports 37 commissioners voted to affirm the Sacramento statement while 16 pressed to return the church to the “fidelity and chastity” language removed last year by a 97-75 vote of the presbyteries.  This language would effectively ban the ordination and installation of GLBTQ candidates.  No commissioners voted to press the denomination toward a position requiring ordination of GLBTQ candidates preferring a season of prayer and discernment over yet another season of discord. 

Hopefully the GA as a whole will follow the committee’s advice and keep the denomination away from either extreme- banning ordination of GLBTQ candidates or mandating it.  By choosing to steer the middle course, the Church Orders and Ministry Committee has taken a firm stand with the whole church rather than taking sides.  There is no perfect solution to the business before them, but they have gotten closer to finding a happy medium than many groups in recent years.