As I posted a few weeks ago, the Rev. Dr. Paul E. Detterman, past PC(USA) associate for worship and current executive director of Presbyterians for Renewal, preached an excellent sermon on 1 John 2:1-11 and Matthew 28:18-20 at our February presbytery meeting. His sermon has now been posted on PFR’s website (note: it’s a PDF), and I encourage you to read it. He’s speaking in this message as a Presbyterian to Presbyterians, so it’s addressed specifically to intra-Presbyterian issues, but it is by no means limited to them. There’s a lot in this sermon, but I want to highlight a few things in particular.
You have invited me to preach the Word of God, and preaching God’s Word can be a very dangerous thing. God’s Word is liberal enough to make conservative people very nervous—but it is also conservative enough to make liberals squirm. And because most of us have our emotional/ideological feet far out in the aisle at any gathering like this, when God’s Word rolls through, toes will be smashed. It happens.
This was part of Dr. Detterman’s opening paragraph; I appreciated the reminder as he began speaking that we should never open the Scriptures assuming they’re only going to tell us what we’re comfortable hearing. God isn’t limited to what we like.
We forget basic theology so easily—like who God is and who we are and why we should care. Theological amnesia is not a liberal problem or a conservative problem—it is a human problem. It is the human problem, to be exact, and it is exactly where our passage from John’s letter begins.
Indeed, it’s all too easy to go about our normal lives in a very ungodly forgetfulness, rather than living out the reality of who we are in God in the cold, hard facts of our daily circumstances and situations and choices. Specifically, Dr. Detterman identifies the three great inhibitors of our call to carry out the Great Commission as the inverse of 1 Corinthians 13:13: we have forgotten biblical faith, hope, and love. That doesn’t mean we’ve forgotten those words—but we’ve forgotten what they really mean, and replaced their biblical content with our own.
We really don’t know how dark our present darkness really is until we see flashes of God’s penetrating light—then we see how much of God’s reality we are missing.
The problem is, as John notes, there is something in us that prefers darkness and resists the light, and so we let the darkness blind us, congratulating ourselves all the while on how well we see.It’s a great sermon, and there’s a lot more to it than this; again, I encourage you to read it for yourself, especially if you’re a part of the Presbyterian Church (USA)—no matter where you stand on the conflicts that wrack this denomination, Dr. Detterman’s sermon will challenge you toward greater faithfulness.
Thanks for posting this. Very interesting. I read this and would be interested in your perspective about it’s ultimate intent and outcome.
Do you think it was equally a challenge to both “conservative” and “progressive” voices?
Was he balanced and/or should he be?
What do you think his role should be as a PFR person as opposed to a GA Staff person?
I certainly had both positive and negative reactions to the sermon, but would be interested in knowing what you thoughts.
Given his particular audience, I’d say it was primarily a challenge to conservatives, as there are more of them in presbytery than there are liberals. As for “balanced,” it would depend partly what you mean by the term; I would say that he pulled no punches in his challenge, which applied to everyone and was intended to do so, but that he presented it in a truly irenic manner. He’s an advocate, that’s his job, but he’s not merely advocating for a list of positions–he’s advocating for a way of doing business with each other in the midst of our disagreements.
Regarding GA staff, it seems to me their job is to be guardians of the process–to ensure equal treatment, that everyone follows the rules and no one cheats, cuts in line, takes unfair advantage, etc.–without trying to influence the outcome. It doesn’t seem to me that’s how they see it, but it’s how I see it.
As for Dr. Detterman’s ultimate intent and outcome, I think his intent was to challenge those involved in the process to treat those who oppose them as brothers and sisters in Christ rather than as enemies. Unfortunately, and it was a real grief to me, when he challenged folks to get up and make things right before celebrating communion–several people said “yes” out loud when he asked, “Is there anyone in this room whom you dislike?”–no one did.
Oh, and I forgot to say, Bruce–thanks very much for your comment. Good questions, and I’d be interested to hear more of your thoughts and reactions. (Maybe on your own blog, where you have the space to stretch out a little.)
Good stuff (as usual), Rob – thanks…