Family Reunions

GK Chesterton compared birth to climbing down a random chimney and trying to get along with the people you found living in that house.

Coming to General Assembly is like climbing down a random chimney and find out you have landed at home.

From year to year, the players change, the business evolves, the disputes cycle through the life of the church, and the city is a different one every time.  However one thing, one important thing, always stays the same.  GA is a moment in time when hundreds and, in some years, thousands of people come together for one reason; love for that part of the body of Christ that is the Presbyterian Church (USA). 

We are a family.  An occasionally fussy, often divided, and frequently exhausted family, but a family nonetheless.  And this morning, that is what we celebrated together as we started the week with worship in the Oregon Convention Center. 

For all the “signs” so often and easily bandied around about the demise of the mainline church and the PC(USA) in particular, this morning we all encountered a countersign- a counter-witness- to the despair of  so many.  We saw men and women, young and old, hipsters and boring middle-aged men with thinning hair (we are people too!) singing, praying, reaffirming our baptism, and sharing the bread of heaven and the cup of salvation.  We saw that there is yet life in that valley of bones and the truth of resurrection alive in the church. 

This is a family with generations yet to come.

I, for one, look forward to what the Spirit has in store for our family this week in Portland. 

#ga222

This is a test.  This is only a test.

Actually, it is a quick "I love GA but I hate plane travel" mini-rant to make sure the old dusty blog still works.

Looking forward to seeing friends old and new in Portland and spending a week celebrating the work of the Holy Spirit in the PC(USA).

If there is a particular GA issue or topic you think I should seek out, let me know here or on Facebook, or Twitter @presrevrob

Let the polity nerdfest begin!

On Marriage: A "No" Vote with a Very Heavy Heart

Since the General Assembly was gaveled to a close this summer, I have struggled with how I would cast my vote when it comes time for the Presbytery of Arkansas to vote on proposed amendment 14-F, the "Marriage Amendment" to the PC(USA) Book of Order.

Although I have not always been sympathetic with the tactics or the underlying theology of many "liberal" PC(USA) groups who have worked tirelessly for greater inclusion of LGBT Presbyterians in the life of the church, I am with them in the desire to see our church become a more faithful reflection of the radical inclusive love and grace of God in Christ.  We do that best by being a place where all of God's children are welcomed into the ministries and mission of the church.  Part of that welcome is into the covenant of marriage.

It is my fervent prayer that one day soon the denomination I love deeply which has nurtured, educated, and occasionally troubled me over the years will be a denomination that bears witness to the wideness of God's mercy and the boundlessness of God's love.

That is why it breaks my heart that when the time comes to vote on 14-F, I feel compelled to vote "no."

My objection to 14-F is not to its intent.  The intent is pure.  It is good.  And it is faithful.  I agree to the depths of my spirit with the intent of this proposed change to our constitution and I believe that what it hopes to accomplish is a faithful step for the church.  Unfortunately, the GA chose to take that step on a dangerous and slippery slope.

As it is presented to the presbyteries, 14-F represents an abrogation of the church's calling to bear witness to the Kingdom of God in the world.  That witness depends on one thing- the gospel of Jesus Christ.  It is the charge of the church to proclaim the gospel in all places and in all times, not merely in those where the world is ready to hear it.

14-F proposes to amend the liturgical practice of the church by allowing same-sex marriage to be celebrated without penalty or prejudice but only in those places where a civil authority has given its imprimatur.  In those places where the state is silent or has denied its consent, the church is constitutionally commanded to remain silent.

The fundamental question facing the church in 14-F is not, "Shall we allow same-sex marriages to be celebrated in the PC(USA)?"  The question is, "Shall we allow Caesar to define the boundaries of our proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ?"  Shall my pastoral discretion and the freedom of our Presbyterian church session be bound by the decisions of our state legislature with 2 of 135 members who are Presbyterians?  Or a Supreme Court with none?

Is the legislature competent to make that theological decision?

Is a court?

Defenders of 14-F argue that it was the best way to get a change made now.  On that point, they are likely correct.  A wholesale change would have been difficult to get passed at GA and likely impossible with the presbyteries.  Half-a-loaf, as the saying goes, is better than none at all.

However, this half-a-loaf is stale.

What other decisions shall we surrender to the state?  Shall Congress decide whether or not the church may speak against war?  Or corporate corruption?  Shall we put the preferential option for the poor up for majority vote?

The church must live in civil society and must, from time to time, be bound by its laws.  However, when those laws have the effect of defining the permissible boundaries within which the gospel may be proclaimed, the church has failed in its calling.  When the church conspires through constitutional provision to attempt to silence the witness of a whole portion of the church, the church has become little more than a fourth branch of the civil government.

If it is to live into its calling as the church of Jesus Christ, I firmly believe that the PC(USA) must change its stance on marriage to include same as well as opposite-gender couples.  To do that at the expense of the church's charge to proclaim the gospel fully despite the whimsy and caprice of the state leads away rather than toward that calling.

With a heavy heart, I will vote "no" on 14-F and pray that this is not the last word.

The Outrage Wing of the PC(USA): Time to Look in the Mirror

There has been yet another trial in yet another presbytery on the same old questions of human sexuality.  A pastor was tried in Southern New England presbytery for allegedly violating his ordination vows and the constitution of the church by marrying his partner.  He was found not guilty on all charges by the presbytery PJC.

The decision was, by what information is available, made based on binding GAPJC and GA authoritative interpretations and on the present constitution of the church.  Still, that has not stopped the outrage wing of the PC(USA) from crying foul and declaring the presbytery PJC members everything from heretics to Baal worshipers.  (Props for that last name-caller not just going with the usual pagan worshiper label.)

I refer to these particular critics of the decision as the outrage wing of the church rather than the conservative wing because as tempting as it is for some people to lump them together, they are not the same thing.

Despite recent changes to the constitution of the church and the growing consensus that human sexuality is not the single defining issue of all things faith-related, there are many members of the PC(USA) (clergy and laity alike) who remain unconvinced that the church is headed in the right direction.  They hold deep convictions that the church should return to the former position that homosexuality is contrary to scripture and the life of faith.

Part of what I love about being a Presbyterian is that there is room in the church for people who hold that more traditionalist view and room for those of us who are convinced of the faithfulness of the church's current direction.  I love being a part of a church that can embrace the truth that we all see through the glass dimly and none of us has a full comprehension of the mind and perspective of God.  Many of my more conservative friends in the church share that feeling about our church.

Unfortunately, there are still those in the PC(USA) for whom the present direction of the church is anathema to faithfulness and who are determined 24/7 to root out those who disagree with them and rid the church of any opinion that does not fit their own perspective.  This outrage wing of the church is constantly going on about how the church has abandoned scripture, the confessions and the Book of Order.  We have, in their opinion, become "post-constitutional" and "post-confessional."  One comment on a letter posted on the Presbyterian Layman website went on and on about how we have abandoned the constitution and are no longer bound by the words of those books.  Another writer declared that Jesus (who had NOTHING to say about same-gender relationships) would be appalled by our abandoning of the constitution.

What, I have begun to wonder, matters more to these members of the outrage wing of the Presbyterian Church (USA)...that we worship Christ or that we kneel before books?  It seems from their level of vitriol and outrage against those with whom they disagree that what is most important is that we root our faith in the bible, confessions and Book of Order as books rather than in the Christ they seek to proclaim.

When the single most important thing in your lived life of faith is rooting out those who do not share your own personal devotion to words on a page, it might be time to look in the mirror and do some self-evaluation before throwing those stones.

For my part, I will continue to worship and proclaim the Christ who time and time again demonstrates that he will not and cannot be contained by the words or pages of any book.

ECG Dispatch 4: The Need for New Words?

The afternoon session I attended yesterday was great.  It was titled Disciple-Making in a Fresh Context and I think I took more notes than I did in all of the second semester of Systematic Theology in seminary!  In a nutshell, the speaker urged us to get out of the mindset that "disciples" are somehow super-Christians and to stop using the idea so sparingly to describe the "saints" of the church and begin to use it for what it really is; a descriptor of all who honestly and earnestly (and imperfectly) follow Jesus.

I was with him the whole time.  Theologically and pastorally I  was amen-ing right along with the rest of the group.  Except for one thing. I wonder if we need a new word?

I have no particular objection to the word itself. "Disciple" is not somehow a bad word in my context and it is not objectionable on its face.  But it is one of those words that carries vernacular baggage that can get heavy and even burdensome.  It got me wondering if we stick to the vocabulary sometimes at the expense of the thing itself.  I wonder if we sometimes lose something by sticking with the words when they have been hijacked by the culture for meanings that might not be quite so helpful.

Just think of how we hear that word "disciple" used in the world today.  A few random news items:

"Larry Summers, disciple of the Phillips-curve...

"Paul is often criticized for his disciple-like adherence to the writings of Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand" 

"A disciple of market economics..."

"Jonah Hill plays Peter Brand, a computer whiz and disciple of Bill James..."

To be a "disciple" in our modern vernacular means simply to adhere to or subscribe to a philosophy.  It is so rooted in a modernist-individualist understanding of voluntarily opting to follow one leader or idea over another that discipleship has come to mean little more than joining the parade of a person or idea.  But that sort of discipleship is easily set aside.  Alan Greenspan used to sit at the feet of Ayn Rand and now he has walked away.

In our modern sense, disciples come and go pretty easily.  It is easy to be called a disciple of  "A" one day and "B" the next.

That is not what the presentation was about yesterday.  At all.  We were talking (and the church needs to be talking) about discipleship in a truly biblical way; a way of living that cannot easily be set aside; that defines the very core of who we are.

If being a disciple of Jesus means something radically different than what being a disciple in the eyes of the world means, is rehab-ing the old worth it?  The same could be asked about much of our vocabulary in the church.  How much do we cling to the words of the faith a the expense of the faith?

We are not about to throw out the Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms, but maybe we need to think about whether or not the words are standing in the way of the message.

Personally I don't care if you call me a disciple, a danish or a Dallas Cowboy fan as long as it means "defined by following Christ."

ECG Dispatch 3: Knowing Jesus a Little too Well

Yesterday afternoon's break-out session focused on helping your ministry write and articulate a vision. It was a good workshop with a great leader, Erica Liu from Pres House at UW-Madison. They are very lucky to have her!

As part of the workshop, she led us through a mini-visioning process to introduce some of the steps. One person at the table described their context and a ministry priority and that was the focus for the group. The observation was made that it is hard to vision when you only know a very little about the context and community and their priorities. Erica pointed out that although they is certainly true, it can be good to have new ears in the conversation because we know so much about our own contexts we often make lots of assumptions on what everybody knows.

I wonder, how much of our "church growth and evangelism" challenge is actually a challenge of our own creation? A challenge built not out of resistance to the gospel from outside the church but assumptions about the gospel from inside?

Consider young adults. Survey after survey shows that the current young adult generation are both deeply committed to community and open to spirituality. If ever there was a ripe harvest for the church since the implosion of Christendom in the 1950's, this should be it. So why do we have such a hard time with the YA generation?

More and more, I think the problem is less about YA (or anyone's for that matter) resistance to "tradition" than about our assumptions about the vision of the gospel. We assume that the point of the gospel is providing a foundation for the church. That's pretty orthodox modern view Augustine/Calvin stuff. Most YA I know see the church as providing a foundation for teaching and living the gospel rather than the gospel providing an excuse to have a church. More and more we see that for YA it is the gospel that is the point.

Why then do we think that "if we don't get more young people the congregation will die" is not a persuasive vision for the future? Isn't the whole point of the work of the gospel (reaching out to the world) ensuring that the church will survive for another generation? In too many churches that assumption is the uncritical basis for a vision for the future.

Assuming that the gospel is propelling us into the world to love and serve the people of God so we might realize the vision of not seeing the thing we love die is an assumption we cannot afford to keep making. Not just with young adults but the whole of our communities.

So, what to do. If I had that answer I would charge to read this blog. One thing I am going to try is to make sure that when my congregations start to vision for the future, there will be someone in the room who doesn't know Jesus in exactly the same way we do and might just press back on some of the assumptions bred by outer familiarity.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Location:PC(USA) ECG Conference

ECG Dispatch 2: On the Other Hand, Please Do Stand so Close to Me

This morning's plenary focused on living out (rather than merely describing) the life of Christ in the world through the church.  The thesis was pretty straight forward and did not break a lot of new ground for most listeners, but some things need to be repeated until we finally get it!  The idea of living into living a Christlike life was summed up in six words:

• Presence: We need to physically move to the places we hope to evangelize. 
• Proximity: We need to reach out and touch and share with people who are not always just like us.
• Prevenient: We need to remember that God's grace has been at work in the life of another long before we get there.
• Powerlessness: We need to remember that God id not coerce the world into loving God but took on the mantle of powerlessness.
• Passion: We need to remember that Jesus suffered for his message.
• Proclamation: We need to let our lives as well as our words proclaim the glory and grace of God. 

On the whole, I was with her.  I do get a little concerned when we get to far afield in the "Passion"bit and too closely relate our suffering to Christ's suffering.  What I heard this morning though was a little closer to Moltmann's idea of the Crucified God which is a beautiful theological model.  (Well worth the read.)

What struck me in particular today was something that may not have been an intended theme and may even be counter to what the speaker was trying to communicate.  So if this is wierdly off the wall, it is not her fault!

In describing what it means to take on the powerlessness of Christ, she spoke of Philippians 2 and the idea of kenosis or emptying oneself.  That was the basis of the fourth "P"in the list above.  Just as Christ emptied himself and took on powerlessness so must we.  I agree.  I also think that there is something to be said for the kenotic nature of the second "P" however.  

To really draw near to another person- to diminish the distance between us physically- requires a sort of interpersonal and spiritual kenosis; a giving up of personal space and personal security.  We tend to think of being Christlike in almost exclusively spiritual terms, however there is something Christlike about holding a hand or standing shoulder to shoulder or walking toward rather than away from another person.  

Perhaps the most important question for us to ask when thinking about reaching out beyond the walls of the church is not "who"are we trying to reach but "where"they are.  If we are going to live the witness of Jesus Christ, we need to be ready to unload the baggage that keeps us physically as well as spiritually at arms length from others.  We need to close the gap between the body of Christ in the world and the world we seek to serve the way God, in Christ, closed the gap between heaven and earth.