No, the sky isn’t falling—yet

I had a wonderful day today. We drove up to Lake Michigan to see one of our best friends from college (she was in our wedding party) and her family at their vacation cottage on the beach; she and her husband were there, and their three kids (generally the same ages as ours), and her dad, whom I also enjoy a great deal. I haven’t seen her since her oldest was a newborn, and I haven’t seen her husband (or her father, for that matter) since their wedding, so it was definitely too long. We had a great time talking church and family and work and other things, while the kids enjoyed themselves immensely playing together (mostly, though not only, down on the beach). I managed to burn myself in a few places due to misapplication of sunscreen—next time, I’ll go back to using the lotion instead of the spray—but no big deal.And then I got home to read the news from the PC(USA)’s General Assembly (GA): they voted to approve overtures to remove the 1978 Authoritative Interpretation, remove the chastity and fidelity clause from the Book of Order, and approve a new Authoritative Interpretation (AI) to allow officers to declare scruples with respect to ordination standards (which is to say, to declare that they’re going to ignore them). And then I spent some time reading the reactions from a number of my fellow conservatives in the church: Presbyterians for Renewal essentially conceding defeat, the Rev. Jim Berkley calling it “a sad, sorry episode,” the Rev. Dr. Alan Trafford declaring that “a line has been crossed” and that his congregation will no longer use the denominational seal, and perhaps most painfully, the Rev. Toby Brown shuttering his blog in grief. Clearly, there’s the feeling on the part of many that the disaster has come; the sky has fallen in.At the risk of making it sound like I think these folks are Chicken Littles—I don’t, especially as I think Jim’s exactly right that these actions “will precipitate much rancor and division within churches and presbyteries”—I don’t think the sky is in fact falling. Not yet, at least. Yes, this was a liberal GA, as most GAs are, and yes, it did what liberal GAs do, as do most GAs; but the actual effect of their decisions should be slight. Though these three decisions felt like “three hammer blows to the head,” I don’t believe they’ll turn out that way. To take them in order:Voting to remove the 1978 Authoritative Interpretation that declared homosexual acts incompatible with the will of God was a real and significant blow. However, it was one that was inevitably going to happen, whenever the liberal wing of the denomination decided they actually wanted to do it; and as long as G-6.0106b, which mandates “fidelity in marriage or chastity in singleness” for all officers of the church, is still in force, then this is still the meaning of our denominational constitution, whether there’s an AI to say so or not. Which leads to Voting to remove the “chastity and fidelity clause,” which would be a major change, if that clause were actually removed—but it won’t be. That’s an amendment to the Book of Order, which requires the support of over half the presbyteries, which isn’t going to happen. This one, for all the noise it’s stirring up, is merely sound and fury signifying nothing.Voting to declare that the constitution permits officers to ignore behavioral standards is potentially the significant change, since this doesn’t have to be approved by the presbyteries. However, I don’t believe this one will stand either, though it will take longer to see for sure. The roots of this one go back a ways. The last GA, in 2006, voted to approve an AI that said this; when candidates for ordination actually stood up and announced their intention to ignore behavioral standards, however, and governing bodies decided to ordain them anyway, that action was challenged in the denominational courts (Permanent Judicial Commissions, or PJCs), and the denomination’s highest court, the GA PJC, said, “You can’t do that.” On my read, their conclusion is that “‘shall’ actually means ‘shall,’ that if the church’s constitution says you can’t do something, then you actually aren’t allowed to do it,” and that “stealth amendments” that attempt to rewrite the constitution without needing the approval of the presbyteries (by simply declaring that the constitution doesn’t mean what it plainly says) are not allowed. As I wrote in a letter I sent to Presbyweb a few months ago, “GAPJC has laid down the law that the only way to amend the Constitution is by actually amending it, and that it is not possible to interpret it to say what it does not in fact mean. Stealth amendments such as this ‘Authoritative Interpretation, are in and of themselves unconstitutional.”I wrote on that occasion, and I still believe now, that we can and should expect GAPJC to say so, clearly, when they are given the opportunity to do so. If that happens, then the end result of these high-profile, high-angst votes will have been nothing of practical consequence. Should I prove wrong, then the disaster will indeed have come upon us, and it will be time for those of us who accept the authority of Scripture to pack our bags for final departure. I don’t expect that to happen, but one never can tell for certain with committees.At this point, however, I’m more concerned about the GA’s decision to rubber-stamp the Stated Clerk Nominating Committee and elect Dmitri Medvedev—excuse me, the Rev. Gradye Parsons—the new GA Stated Clerk. Apparently, they decided that the Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick’s terms in office were so good that they should continue his administration by proxy. I cannot agree. I’m firmly convinced that one of this denomination’s greatest problems is that the playing field is deliberately tilted, the process skewed in favor of those whose positions are favored by denominational staff, such that violations of constitutional process which produce results the denominational hierarchy likes (such as those which result in practicing homosexuals in ministry positions) are winked at, while those which don’t (such as attempts by churches to leave the denomination with their property) are pursued to the fullest extent of the law. Those who hold liberal positions are given every hearing, while those who oppose those positions are squelched, silenced or overpowered by every means the hierarchy can use to do so. There is no attempt to make the process work equally for everybody, or to allow everyone’s voice to be heard equally. The root of this problem, I’m firmly convinced, has been the practice of favoritism (which is a sin) by our denomination’s highest administrative official, the GA Stated Clerk, the Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick; I was hoping GA would have the integrity to elect someone who would have the integrity to change this. From what I can see, they didn’t. The defections will continue.

God language in a fog

One of the latest flaps sparked by the PC(USA)’s General Assembly this year (and why are there always so many? The one good side to cutting the number of assemblies in half is that it cuts down the number of fights they can start) comes out of the Committee on Interfaith and Ecumenical Relationships. The committee was considering a resolution which included the statement, “Jews, Christians, and Muslims worship a common God, although each understands that God differently”; when that raised objections, they rewrote it this way: “Though we hold differing understandings of how God has been revealed to humankind, the PC(USA) affirms our belief in one God, the God of Abraham, whom Jews and Muslims also worship.” As Viola Larson notes, that rewrite doesn’t actually change anything—it’s just the same thing in different words.Here’s my question. Some say that Jews, Christians, and Muslims “all worship the same God,” while others object, some vehemently—but what does that mean? What actually is the content and significance of that phrase, and what is it intended to communicate? I don’t think we really have a common understanding of it; our attempts to discuss Christianity, Judaism and Islam are muddled and blurred by the imprecision of our language. I suggest a moratorium on this phrase and all equivalents as counterproductive; whatever we want to say about the relative beliefs of these three religions, we should look for better, clearer, more precise ways to say it. We have enough issues with these sorts of conversations as it is—we don’t need a lack of clarity making things worse.

A bruised reed he will not break

and a smoldering wick he will not quench; he will faithfully bring forth justice.So it is said of the Servant of God in Isaiah 42:3; so it will be when he comes again. Right now, though, we live in a very different world. I was reflecting on this this morning, thinking about the state of affairs in Zimbabwe. If you’ve been following the news, you know that it looks like Robert Mugabe’s succeeded in hanging on to power (though he said he’s “open to discussion” with the opposition), since the opposition party pulled out of Friday’s presidential runoff in the face of the Mugabe government’s terror campaign, and opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai sought refuge at the Dutch embassy in Harare. Freedom and justice in Zimbabwe are smoldering wicks, indeed.There is one small, very small, bright spot, though: at this year’s meeting of the PC(USA)’s General Assembly, the Peacemaking and International Issues Committee approved a resolution in support of the church in Zimbabwe, and against the Mugabe government. I hope and firmly expect to see the whole GA approve it; and I further hope that this encourages the Uniting Presbyterian Church of Southern Africa (UPCSA), to which the Presbytery of Zimbabwe belongs, to take a similar stance at their General Assembly in September. I miss being a part of the relationship between Denver and Zimbabwe—it’s perhaps the biggest thing I miss from having left that presbytery—and I wish I could have been there. I’ll have to get on top of the schedule and see if I can at least watch the plenary session when this resolution comes to the floor; I suspect my friends from Zimbabwe won’t speak then (since they’d be on video for the whole world, including Mugabe and his thugs, to see), but I’d at least be able to share the moment with them a little.Please, keep praying for Zimbabwe.

Wronging rights and depressing the oppressed

Last month, the PC(USA)’s Office of Interfaith Relations put out an excellent paper titled “Vigilance Against Anti-Jewish Ideas and Bias”; to the surprise of many, it was (and is) an excellent piece of work, searching and honest in its examination of the ways in which Presbyterians have been guilty of “anti-Semitism and anti-Jewish motifs and stereotypes, particularly as these find expression in speech and writing about Israel, the Palestinian people, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and steps toward peace.” Consequently, it garnered considerable praise from evangelicals in the denomination.Given the way things tend to operate in the PC(USA), the cynic in me is tempted to think that someone saw that praise and decided they must have done something very, very wrong; whatever the reason, the original paper has now been strangled in its bath and replaced by something very different under a revised title: “Vigilance against Anti-Jewish Bias in the Pursuit of Israeli-Palestinian Peace.” The actual concern for vigilance against anti-Jewish bias is, to say the least, much more muted in this new paper; there is, however, a great deal of concern for how awful Israel is. It’s also far more self-congratulatory, to the point of arrogance, as Viola Larson notes; where the first document was an honest confession of denominational sin, the new one is effectively a frontal assault on that confession. That’s a shameful thing for those who are called to follow the Way, the Truth and the Life. I think the Rev. John Wimberley, of Western Presbyterian Church in D. C., said it best in his letter to Presbyweb:

I simply don’t know how we can release a document, receive high praise from the Jewish community, withdraw it and release a new document which profoundly angers the Jewish community and all of us who have spent a lifetime trying to build trust between Presbyterians and the Jewish community. This is beyond bad process. This is bad ministry. Who will trust our words in the future? Why should they?

On being Reformed and missional

At this year’s General Synod (our annual national decision-making assembly) of the Reformed Church in America, the delegates were blessed to hear three addresses from the Rev. Dr. Richard Mouw, currently serving as the president of Fuller Seminary. Those three addresses, with the discussion questions that followed each, have been combined into a single video. Taken as a whole, it’s a long one—almost an hour—and I wish they’d been posted separately, but they weren’t. Don’t let that stop you from watching Dr. Mouw’s messages, because there’s excellent material here. The first address, which focuses on the “Reformed” half of the equation, is about twenty minutes, while the second, which focuses on the “missional” half, runs another thirteen or so; the third, which brings the two together, takes up the rest of the video. They’re excellent, and if you’re interested in these matters, when you have the time to listen to them, I commend them to you.(Technical note: it’s my understanding that some versions of IE have had problems with this video; if you run into difficulties, you might try clicking the “Google Video” button in the lower-right corner, which will take you to the Google Video page for this clip.)

Update: I was pleased to find this post on the same subject on the blog Pursuing Truth (a blog I hadn’t tripped over before this); it’s not an interaction with Dr. Mouw’s addresses, but rather a separate consideration of being Reformed and missional (and an excellent one).

Oh, the irony

In my last post, I responded to my wife’s vision for the church; now, alas, I find myself commenting on a very different vision indeed, a vision in which the local church exists for the support and self-aggrandizement of the denominational hierarchy, as the property of that hierarchy. In that vision, if churches want to leave, the Powers that Be have the right to stop them by force; and if the presbytery refuses to go along with that, the synod can take them over, too. I don’t, in general, agree with those who decide to leave the Presbyterian Church (USA)—I think their actions help to bring about exactly that to which they object—but I believe they have the right to do so; they aren’t denominational property, and neither are their buildings, and for the denomination to put its own material wealth ahead of the spiritual health of its churches, even those which are seeking to leave, is little short of reprehensible. This is the sort of behavior that gives the church a bad name.

It also, incidentally, gives the lie to the argument (made by Greg Coulter of Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery in a letter to Presbyweb) that the Synod of the Sun, in establishing their administrative commission over the Presbytery of South Louisiana, had merely been “invited” into the situation “to partner with them in furthering the peace, unity, and purity of the labors of those serving Christ in South Louisiana.” Clearly, the skeptical among us were right: for the Synod, it’s property über alles—and then they have the gall to call it “one part of the church body helping another part.” For shame.

Pretzelbyterianism

Yesterday, the PC(USA)’s highest court, the Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly (GAPJC), issued the most befuddling court decision I’ve ever heard of (at least since Rose Bird last served on the California State Supreme Court). Faced with a disciplinary case against a Presbyterian pastor, Jane Adams Spahr, who had conducted same-sex marriage ceremonies and made no bones about having done so, and a denominational constitution that forbids doing so, they decided, essentially, this:

  • Presbyterian pastors cannot perform same-sex marriage ceremonies because this is forbidden by the church’s constitution
  • Therefore, what Rev. Spahr performed were not same-sex marriage ceremonies, because this is, by definition, impossible
  • Therefore, she cannot be guilty of the charge, because she was charged with “doing that which by definition cannot be done,” which, by definition, could not have happened
  • Therefore, she cannot be disciplined for doing something she couldn’t possibly have done

Never mind, of course, the fact that she did do it, or at least represent herself as having done it . . . The problem here is that the GAPJC confused a legal prohibition (it is not legally possible for you to do this) with an ontological prohibition (it is not intrinsically possible for you to do this), and thus concluded, essentially, that it’s impossible for human beings to break the law because the mere existence of the law makes breaking it impossible. If this logic applied in our courts, no one would ever be guilty of anything—this logic makes the very concept of guilt impossible by definition.Of course, they don’t really believe that themselves; and so they also made it clear that “a same sex ceremony is not and cannot be a marriage . . . Officers of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) who are authorized to perform marriages shall not state, imply, or represent that a same sex ceremony is a marriage because under W-4.9001 a same sex ceremony is not and cannot be a marriage.” Unfortunately, having said that, they then pretended to believe that the Rev. Spahr hadn’t done precisely what they said she “shall not” do, thus enabling them to avoid the question of whether she shouldn’t have been disciplined for that, at least; this, of course, leaves that question hanging wide open for the next case (and there will most certainly be a next case, if only to test whether GAPJC will have the stomach to discipline people for defying their “shall not”). For now, though, they’ve tied themselves into such knots to avoid having to discipline the Rev. Spahr, they aren’t really Presbyterians anymore—they’re Pretzelbyterians.(Update: with his usual critical acumen, Ed Koster, Stated Clerk of Detroit Presbytery, has identified a few more major kinks in those knots that hadn’t occurred to me.)All this reminds me of a song by the great Steve Scott, whose album I happen to have been listening to this afternoon; this one struck me quite forcefully, given the current situation.

Ship of FoolsSome have called us heroes;
Others say we’ve lost our mind.
Some have called us visionaries;
Others say that we’ve gone blind.
But we’re done with their traditions—
We don’t want to get trapped—
So we’ve thrown away the anchor
And we’ve thrown away the maps.Sail away (sail away) on the ship of fools;
Sail away (sail away) on the ship of fools.
The city quotes the jungle,
And the jungle quotes the heart;
In this wilderness of references,
We’re lost before we start.
There’s an aching contradiction
At the center of the search;
We’re moving ’round in circles,
But getting closer to the edge.ChorusAre we prisoners of confusion,
Or are we masters of our fate?
Are we caught in this illusion?
Is it really all too late?
Shall we try at navigation,
Or are we victims of the tide?
Do we have a destination
Or are we just here for the ride?ChorusWords and music: Steve Scott
© 1990 Northern Sierra Music
From the album
Lost Horizon, by Steve Scott

Shameless plug

I’m finally starting to get to work on my page on my church’s website; I don’t have a whole lot on there yet, but I do have the texts for this sermon series up. (No audio, though—at least, not yet.) Check them out, if you’re interested; while you’re there, feel free to explore the site a bit. It’s an interesting congregation.

The best and worst of the Presbyterian Church (USA)

In a couple days’ time, the denominational press managed to show me both the best and the worst of the PC(USA). On the one hand, there was a deeply inspiring story from Flint, MI about three congregations—from different parts of the city and different backgrounds; two were predominantly white, one mostly black—that voted to merge and build a new church together. What they’re doing isn’t easy; it involves a lot of sacrifice and a lot of time and a lot of unselfish hard work to set aside your comfort zones and your old identity and culture and come together to grow a new identity and culture. The fact that they’re doing it, and committed to doing it, for the sake of the gospel is a truly beautiful thing.

On the other hand, I also saw a depressing story of the institutional greed that drives too many of the decisions of this denomination: the Synod of the Sun voted to establish an Administrative Commission to take away some of the responsibilities of the Presbytery of South Louisiana. Specifically, they’re taking away the presbytery’s right to make decisions regarding the property of its congregations. Why? Because the presbytery was showing too much grace to congregations which wanted to leave, and too much concern for the welfare of the church of God as a whole, and not enough two-fisted insistence on keeping everything of value it could possibly lay a claim on. As Bob Davis wrote in his post today, “If ever there was a statement of institutional distrust, this would be it. Presbyteries are not to be trusted with the decisions the constitution specifically entrusts to presbyteries.” And why are they not to be trusted? Because they follow their own best judgment, not the diktat of the party apparatchiki.

(Update: according to a letter to Presbyweb from Greg Coulter of Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery, on the request of the presbytery council of the Presbytery of South Louisiana, the Administrative Commission was not given the authority to assume original jurisdiction. This is good to know, though I don’t think it ameliorates the picture as much as Mr. Coulter thinks it does. He categorizes this as “one governing body invit[ing] another governing body to partner with them”; but given that the presbytery had, potentially, a gun to its head, and knew it, it seems to me that categorizing their letter as an invitation is dubious.)

This sort of thing is the reason why, as Davis also writes in that post, the effort to make the PC(USA) more missional by revising our polity is completely wrongheaded and doomed not merely to failure but to actively worsening the problem: it’s an effort to use structure to fix a behavior problem. As someone has said, no constitution can withstand those charged to administer it; changing our constitution without changing the hearts of those in positions of authority may change their justifications for their actions, but it will not change those actions. To quote Davis, “polity reflects behavior. Polity does not initiate behavior.”

In the end, it all comes back to that quote from David Ruis: “The worship God is seeking relies completely on His initiative, knowing that the only true expression of worship is through the abandonment of all our agendas for His, as we trust in His sovereign power and unlimited grace.” The mission to which God calls us flows out of the worship to which he calls us. Until those who govern the PC(USA) are willing to abandon their own agendas for his, trusting in his sovereign power and unlimited grace—as those folks in Flint did, to their eternal credit—they will never be agents of his mission, no matter what else they do; and until that changes, the part of God’s church for which they are responsible will never prosper.

HT: Presbyweb

Pray for Zimbabwe; please, pray for Zimbabwe

One of the deep joys of my years in Colorado was the time I spent as a member of the Partnership Committee of the Partnership of Zimbabwe and Denver Presbyteries. The Presbytery of Denver had ended up involved in ministry in Zimbabwe through the work of a couple in one of its churches, and decided in consequence to establish and build a presbytery-to-presbytery relationship with the Presbytery of Zimbabwe, which is part of the Uniting Presbyterian Church of Southern Africa (UPCSA). I was never able to travel to Zimbabwe (though I would have been offered the chance if we hadn’t been leaving), which I regret, but I did have opportunities to meet a few of our partners on their visits to Colorado, and there are a couple whom I consider dearly-loved friends.

Which is why my heart breaks, and has been breaking, for the country of Zimbabwe. I could give you a long list of links about what Robert Mugabe has done to his nation over the last eight years—he was a good leader before that, as long as people kept voting for him, but once the voters began to tire of him, he turned on them; whether he rules well or ill, all that matters to him is keeping power—but I think Peter Godwin summed up the story well enough in the Los Angeles Times, at least for starters. Godwin, who dubbed Mugabe “Zimbabwe’s Ahab,” knows whereof he speaks, as a native Zimbabwean; he’s written several books, including the memoirs Mukiwa: A White Boy in Africa and When a Crocodile Eats the Sun: A Memoir of Africa, and still laments what was lost.

The presidential election is this Saturday, and there are those who have hope that maybe this time, the opposition and the international community will prevail, and the election will bring about the end of the Mugabe government. Please pray that it is so, and with a minimum of bloodshed. Please pray for the peace of Zimbabwe.