My blog has moved! http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markdroberts/
|
 |
Twitter Feed for My Recent Blog Posts and Other Tweets |
My blog has moved! http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markdroberts/
|
Sunday Inspiration from The High Calling
By Mark D. Roberts | Sunday, October 5, 2008
Is Pride Always Wrong?
The LORD of Heaven’s Armies has done it
to destroy your pride
and bring low all earth’s nobility.
Once again, Isaiah condemns human pride. In Isaiah 22, the pride of a leader was indicted by the Lord. This time it’s the pride of a whole nation.
Years ago when I was a college pastor, I led a Bible study on a passage that identified pride as sinful. One of my students interrupted me by asking: “What’s so wrong about pride? I thought we were supposed to take pride in ourselves. What’s so bad about feeling good about the things I have accomplished?” At the time, I was unprepared for such a blunt question. But I’ve thought about it for years since then. When, if ever, is pride okay? When is it sinful?
In part, I think the rightness or wrongness of pride depends on what happens in the heart of the individual. Sinful pride takes way too much credit, forgetting God’s grace and gifts. Sinful pride says, “I did it! I am great!” Yet there’s another quality of pride that is mixed with humility and gratitude. This sort of pride says, “I did it, by God’s grace! I did it! How blessed I am!” It’s the kind of pride we hear when Paul writes to the Philippians: “For I can do everything through Christ, who gives me strength” (4:13). The emphasis here is not upon “I can do everything,” but rather upon “through Christ, who gives me strength.” Such pride is consistent with the command of Scripture: “If you want to boast, boast only in the Lord” (1 Cor. 1:31).
QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION: When you feel pride, what happens in your soul? Does your pride draw you near to God in humility and gratitude? Or does your pride lead you away from God as you glory in yourself?
PRAYER: Dear Lord, you know my heart. You know what happens in me when I feel proud. Forgive me, Lord, when my pride is selfish, when I take credit for that which comes from your grace in my life. Help me to see myself and my accomplishments in the clear light of your truth. Whether I feel pride because the lawn I just mowed looks good, or because I’ve contributed to the work of your kingdom, may my feelings of pride be marinated in humble gratitude. Let me live each day, thankful for how you are at work through me, yet continuously aware of just how much I depend on you in all things. Above all, may you be my pride and joy. When I boast, may I boast in you! Amen.
Daily Reflections from The High Calling.org
This devotional comes from The High Calling of Our Daily Work (www.thehighcalling.org). You can read my Daily Reflections there, or sign up to have them sent to your email inbox each day. This website contains lots of encouragement for people who are trying to live out their faith in the workplace.
Topics: Sunday Inspiration | No Comments »
Only in England . . . and Texas!
By Mark D. Roberts | Saturday, October 4, 2008
Even those who have never made the trek to the English countryside outside of Salisbury will recognize Stonehenge. It is one of the world’s most famous historical sites. Scholars aren’t exactly sure what motivated the people who built Stonehenge. It was certainly a burial ground of some sort. But was it more than just a graveyard? Perhaps a dwelling for departed spirits? Or a place for miraculous healing? Or pagan worship? Or ???? The purpose of Stonehenge remains a mystery.
Texas offers its own Stonehenge mystery. Several months ago I was driving through the Hill Country outside of San Antonio on FM 1340 (Farm Road). All of a sudden, a couple miles west of Hunt, I found myself looking at Stonehenge, or at least something very much like it. What was this? I wondered.
No, Stonehenge II (as it’s called) was not created by aliens or Druids or Hill Country pagans looking for a place to worship. It was built by two men, largely for fun. You can read the story at their website. It all began when Doug Hill had an extra block of limestone after building a patio. He gave it to his friend, Al Shepperd, who stood it on end in the middle of his field. Soon Hill and Shepherd added to the stone, turning it into an arch. Then Shepperd, who had visited the original Stonehenge, became inspired. Soon he and Hill were producing giant “stones” made of metal and plaster. Nine months later, Stonehenge II was finished. I’ll bet the neighbors are glad that Al Shepperd hadn’t visited the Great Wall of China or the Great Pyramid of Giza!
So, if you can’t make it to England to see the real Stonehenge, come visit us in Texas and see Stonehenge II. Besides, it’s only 82.5 miles away from the Alamo, Alamo I, that is.
Topics: Only in Texas | 4 Comments »
The PC(USA) and Church Property, Part 12
By Mark D. Roberts | Friday, October 3, 2008
Part 12 of series: The PC(USA) and Church Property
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
I ended yesterday’s post by promising to discuss another stunning move by the General Assembly in relationship to the church property issue. I will fulfill this promise on Tuesday. Today and Monday I want to focus on a breaking story from Oklahoma. (If you’re new to my blog, I should say that my weekend blogging is lighter and more inspirational. I get back to heavy lifting when the week starts.)
According to the Tulsa World, the Presbytery of Eastern Oklahoma has offered to sell the property where the Kirk of the Hills had been meeting for forty years to Kirk of the Hills for $1.75 million. Here’s a bit of history: Two years ago, Kirk of the Hills, a 2500+ member congregation in Tulsa, Oklahoma, voted almost unanimously to leave the PC(USA) and join the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. The congregation intended to keep its well-developed property, which it had built at its own expense. Apparently, the presbytery had helped Kirk of the Hills get off the ground financially forty years ago, but these costs had been repaid over the years. Nevertheless, the Presbytery of Eastern Oklahoma demanded that the congregation vacate the property, even though the presbytery had no congregation that needed the property, and Kirk of the Hills had no other property to use for ministry. An extensive court battle ensued, and in August, an Oklahoma judge ruled that the presbytery did own the property. Kirk of the Hills promised to appeal the decision. (I have no idea how much of Jesus’ money got burned up in this litigation, but I bet it was plenty.)
The presbytery’s offer to sell the property to Kirk of the Hills was not without strings attached, even in addition to one and three-quarters million financial strings. If Kirk of the Hills buys the property, the congregation must also drop its legal appeal. But if the church appeals and wins, it owns the property without having to pay the presbytery. If the church does not appeal and pays what the presbytery demands, it owns the property and the presbytery has a whole lot of money. Moreover, the legal precedent would help to intimidate most other churches who might think about challenging the financial empire of the Presbytery of Eastern Oklahoma.
The Rev. Greg Coulter, the leader of the presbytery, said that the $1.75 figure was “a very fair and reasonable settlement” since the property was worth more than this figure. He didn’t mention that it was worth so much because the congregation built the buildings at their own expense. But it could be that Coulter is speaking truly here. If, for example, the property, with its buildings, is worth $17.5 million, then the presbytery is asking for a tithe of its value, which impresses me as a fair request. If the property is worth more, the fairness increases; if less, it decreases, as far as I’m concerned.
Rev. Coulter went on to explain what he and the presbytery were trying to accomplish:
“We’re trying to find an appropriate balance between our constitutional responsibilities as members of the Presbyterian Church USA and our pastoral responsibilities toward our brothers and sisters in Christ who have been partners in ministry for more than 40 years with us.
I want to parse this statement carefully, since it helps us to understand the presbytery’s motivation. Rev. Coulter says that the presbytery is “trying to find an appropriate balance between our constitutional responsibilities . . . and our pastoral responsibilities.” He assumes that constitutional responsibilities go on one side of the scale and pastoral responsibilities go on the other. That creates the balance. In the way Rev. Coulter and the presbytery see things, their constitutional responsibilities are opposed to their pastoral responsibilities. They seem to know that their actions are not helpful to the church, but they defend these actions as being demanded by the PC(USA) Constitution.
If this is true, doesn’t it call into question the rightness of the PC(USA) Constitution? If loyalty to the Constitution means that presbyteries have to do what which is not pastoral, that which is not best for congregations, then shouldn’t the Constitution be changed? Do we want to have a church Constitution that puts institutional loyalty ahead of pastoral care?
Frankly, I think Rev. Coulter and his colleagues should re-read the PC(USA) Constitution, and not just the part about church property held in trust for the denomination (G-8.0201). Consider what is said in our Book of Order about the responsibilities of a presbytery (G-11.0103, italics added):
b. to coordinate the work of its member churches, guiding them and mobilizing their strength for the most effective witness to the broader community for which it has responsibility; . . .
f. to provide encouragement, guidance, and resources to its member churches in the areas of leadership development, church officer training, worship, nurture, witness, service, stewardship, equitable compensation, personnel policies, and fair employment practices; . . .
g. to provide pastoral care for the churches and members of presbytery, visiting sessions and ministers on a regular basis; . . .
i. to divide, dismiss, or dissolve churches in consultation with their members; . . .
j. to control the location of new churches and of churches desiring to move; . . .
Also, through its Committee on Ministry, the presbytery offers special care for churches in hard times (G-11.0502, italics added):
i. It shall serve as an instrument of presbytery for promoting the peace and harmony of the churches, especially in regard to matters arising out of the relations between ministers and churches. Its purpose shall be to mediate differences and reconcile persons, to the end that the difficulties may be corrected by the session of the church if possible, that the welfare of the particular church may be strengthened, that the unity of the body of Christ may be made manifest.
From these passages, it’s clear that pastoral care for churches is not something to be pitted against constitution responsibilities. Indeed, caring for congregations, wanting their best, and even sending them to other denominations is an explicit constitutional responsibility of the presbytery. The presbytery is expected by our Constitution to do far more than make sure church property stays in the PC(USA).
Furthermore, I would encourage Rev. Coulter and his colleagues to read, not just the chapter in the Book of Order on presbyteries, but also the first four chapters of the Book of Order. These chapters place our whole ministry as a denomination within the larger work of God in the world. We’re not in the business of building a denomination, but serving God by participating in his mission in the world. Therefore, if it’s in the best interest of a congregation and its mission to keep its property when it moves to another denomination, then it could be completely constitutional for the presbytery to release that congregation, property and all. There is no demand in the Constitution that a presbytery must hang onto the property when a church leaves, though there could be situations when this would be best (as in a close vote of a congregation, or in a case where another church could use the vacated property, etc.).
Moreover, as I’ve explained earlier in this series, the PC(USA) exists under the authority of and for the mission of Jesus Christ. All church property belongs truly and ultimately to him, to be used for his purposes. So Rev. Coulter and his colleagues in the Presbytery of Eastern Oklahoma are not in any way bound or encouraged by our Constitution to kick Kirk of the Hills out of the property they themselves developed, if that property would be well used for that congregation and its mission, even when it is an EPC church. Surely the leaders of the Presbytery of Eastern Oklahoma would acknowledge that the EPC is part of the kingdom of God, and that an EPC church belongs to Jesus Christ. If a church were trying to sell its property to a commercial enterprise or to a pagan cult, then the presbytery would do well to prevent it. But, when I last checked, the EPC is pretty much like the PC(USA) in the basics of faith and mission. In fact, to my knowledge, no denomination is closer to the PC(USA) than the EPC.
For many reasons, I would argue that a balanced reading of our Constitution makes it clear that there is no need to pit constitutional concerns against pastoral concerns for a congregation. The presbytery is constitutionally compelled to do what’s best for its congregations and their mission, and I don’t see where this responsibility ends just because a congregation moves to another limb of Christ’s body. If a presbytery has another congregation that needs and can use well the property of a departing church, then it might have a good argument for hanging onto the property. But if a presbytery doesn’t have such a congregation, if it’s planning to rent or sell the property, and if the departing congregation will be able to use the property in the mission of Christ, then, I believe, the Constitution of the PC(USA) directs the presbytery to let the church go with its property.
I’ll finish up my response to this story on Monday.
Topics: PCUSA: Church Property | 19 Comments »
The PC(USA) and Church Property, Part 11
By Mark D. Roberts | Thursday, October 2, 2008
Part 11 of series: The PC(USA) and Church Property
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
In my last post I summarized one action of the 2008 General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA). The Assembly voted in favor of a Resolution 03-21, which authorized the denomination to help pay for lawsuits pitting PC(USA) presbyteries against churches and/or denominational bodies of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. The churches in the lawsuits are congregations that have left the PC(USA) for the EPC, and that are trying to keep their church property. Because the resolution was amended so that the funding for the lawsuits would come from special gifts only, the resolution lost its teeth. Nevertheless, it made a strong symbolic statement of the will of the General Assembly on the matter of legal battles associated with church property.
As I mentioned in my last post, I disagree strongly with this action of the General Assembly. There are many reasons for my disagreement, including:
1. While the PC(USA) is cutting funds for essential ministry and mission, it seems ludicrous to devote funds to lawsuits over church property. This remains true even if those funds are from special, dedicated gifts. The General Assembly should be directing giving to evangelism, church planting, doing justice, and caring for the poor — not to suing fellow Presbyterians.
In fact, what actually happened at the General Assembly is even more unsettling. Though I was not there at this time, one of my blog readers was present. He describes the context for the vote on Resolution 03-21 this way:
[R]right before GA took up this overture, we saw a video presentation about the horrors of pastoral sexual abuse at a mission in San Francisco. Generations of young men had been abused. We were asked to give San Francisco Presbytery $100,000 to help defray the massive counseling costs for these victims. We voted it down. In the next item of business, we authorized $2,000,000 for lawsuits. I have never felt so heartsick in my life.
I can only shake my head with wonder and sadness.
2. The PC(USA)’s understanding of the Church of Jesus Christ does not hold that only PC(USA) churches are truly and correctly ministries of God’s kingdom. We acknowledge other denominations and believe that God is working in and through them. Thus it is fully consistent with our basic theology to allow that some PC(USA) might be better served to be aligned with other denominations. We have no inherent theological reason to insist that churches and church properties must remain in the PC(USA).
3. When PC(USA) churches and governing bodies engage in lawsuits with other churches or denominations, this make a horrendous public statement about our values, theology, and utter lack of grace or charity. Nothing would confirm a cynic’s view of the church more than seeing churches and church bodies using God’s money to sue each other.
4. The damage to congregations when churches and church bodies sue each other is major. Out of pastoral concern for the people involved, we should make every effort to refrain from such lawsuits.
5. I want to reiterate a point I made earlier in this series. Is it ever right for some of Jesus’ people to use Jesus’ money to sue others of Jesus’ people over who gets to use Jesus’ property?
6. My strongest reason for disagreeing with the action of the General Assembly is that it is contrary to Scriptural teaching. Though there is not place in the Bible that directly addresses the case of churches suing churches, we do find an analogous situation in 1 Corinthians 6. Here is the passage:
When any of you has a grievance against another, do you dare to take it to court before the unrighteous, instead of taking it before the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels—to say nothing of ordinary matters? If you have ordinary cases, then, do you appoint as judges those who have no standing in the church? I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to decide between one believer and another, but a believer goes to court against a believer—and before unbelievers at that? In fact, to have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded? But you yourselves wrong and defraud—and believers at that. (1 Cor 6:1-8, NRSV)
This passage clearly teaches that Christians should not sue other Christians in secular court. Such disagreements should be solved in the Christian community. A wronged party, according to this passage, should choose to be wronged rather than to seek victory in secular courts.
I wasn’t present for the debate in the General Assembly over Resolution 03-21. I don’t know if somebody reminded that Assembly of 1 Corinthians 6. And I don’t know if somebody responded to this point with some biblical justification in favor of PC(USA) lawsuits against other Presbyterians. But the apparently cavalier way in which the General Assembly approved of a resolution that seems, on the surface, to be inconsistent with Scripture is deeply distressing to me. It suggests that the PC(USA) has indeed jettisoned biblical relevance and authority, and not simply when it comes to homosexuality.
I should note at this point that the majority of lawsuits between churches leaving the PC(USA) and presbyteries are initiated by the churches. The presbytery is usually the defendant in the lawsuit. I wonder how many churches have wrestled with the implications of 1 Corinthians 6 before they sued their presbytery. And I wonder how many presbyteries grappled with the biblical statement: “In fact, to have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded?”
I have never been directly involved in a church leaving the PC(USA), so I can’t speak from personal experience about why a church would sue its presbytery. But I do know from what several people have reported to me that churches have done this to protect themselves from harsh and vindictive presbytery actions. Some presbyteries, it seems, if they get word of a church discussion of leaving the PC(USA), have threatened to engage in extreme measures to snuff out the conversation. Pastors will be put on leave or removed. Church elder boards will be ousted and presbyteries will take over. It appears that such actions have been encouraged by national leaders in the PC(USA). So, rather than turning to their presbyteries for guidance and grace, churches try to protect themselves from atrocious behavior on the part of their presbyteries.
Now I’ve been around the PC(USA) long enough to realize that blame for this sickening situation falls on both sides of the fence. Presbyteries have sometimes mistreated churches and engendered the fear that churches feel. Churches have sometimes failed to honor their presbyteries and done that which is contrary to our Constitution, not to mention Scripture, in their relationships with presbytery leaders. When Presbyterians end up spending tons of money suing each other in secular court, it’s the sad, natural consequence of a long history of relational conflict.
By its vote on Resolution 03-21, the General Assembly not only failed to help heal this conflict, but actually made matters worse. The Assembly encouraged the kinds of lawsuits that are unbiblical, unedifying, and, I would argue, ultimately unPresbyterian. The Assembly poured fuel on the fire of schism, bitterness, and terrible stewardship.
But then, only one day later, the General Assembly weighed in once again on the issue of churches leaving the denomination. And, once again, the Assembly did something stunning. I’ll explain tomorrow.
Topics: PCUSA: Church Property | 3 Comments »
The PC(USA) and Church Property, Part 10
By Mark D. Roberts | Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Part 10 of series: The PC(USA) and Church Property
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
In my last post in this series I suggested that if a congregation has engaged in an appropriate process to consider leaving the PC(USA), and if the vote was at least two-thirds in favor of leaving, then the presbytery responsible for that congregation should, in most cases, allow it to leave with its property. I added that the congregation should consider contributing financially to the presbytery it is leaving.
Sometimes this very thing has happened. Often it has not. In fact, in many cases, either presbyteries or congregations have initiated legal action, thus taking the church’s business into the secular courts. This sort of thing can be quite expensive, not to mention costly in terms of energy, good will, and the image of the church, presbytery, and denomination. For example, when Londonderry Presbyterian Church in Londonderry, New Hampshire, voted to leave the PC(USA), it found itself in a legal battle with the Presbytery of Northern New England. In this case, the church initiated the lawsuit. The cost to the presbytery has been over $200,000 so far. One might assume that the congregation that left the PC(USA) had similar legal expenses. That’s a lot of money that wasn’t use for ministry and mission!
Note: The Londonderry Church voted 200-86 to leave the PC(USA) and join the New Wineskins Presbytery of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. This presbytery was formed for former PC(USA) that join the EPC. Expensive legal fights ensued between the leaving congregation, the remaining congregation, and the presbytery. Late in the summer a settlement was reached in which the leaving congregation received a substantial amount of vacant property while the remaining congregation and presbytery retained use of the church facility and its land. From a distance, this seems fair to me. Too bad it couldn’t have been reached more graciously and inexpensively. (Photo: Londonderry Presbyterian Church)
In light of the legal costs they were incurring, the Presbytery of Northern New England sponsored resolution 03-21 in the PC(USA) General Assembly meeting last June. It stated, in part:
That the 218th General Assembly (2008) do the following:
1. Provide funds to the Office of General Assembly for the purpose of sharing the cost of legal fees defending our Constitution against the New Wineskins Non-geographic Presbytery of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church and a group which has joined that denomination.
2. From these funds, reimburse the Presbytery of Northern New England for half of all of its remaining legal costs up to a maximum of $185,000.
It was originally proposed that the denomination come up with $2,000,000 of funds for lawsuits against the New Wineskins Presbytery of the EPC and congregation that join the EPC. From this $2,000,000 the Presbytery of Northern New England would receive $185,000.
So, basically, the General Assembly was asked to approve a resolution that would fund lawsuits by PC(USA) presbyteries against the New Wineskins EPC presbytery, which is made up of congregations that, until recently, had been part of the PC(USA).
When the resolution was discussed in the General Assembly, someone added an amendment:
3. That the Office of the General Assembly establish and promote an Extra Commitment Opportunity (ECO) account that will be the source of this support and welcomes contributions from the whole church.
In other words, the funding for lawsuits would not be taken from the denominational budget, but would come from extra donations given precisely for this purpose. The amendment passed with 60% in favor. Then, after debate, the amended motion passed with 57% in favor (395 yeas; 286 nays; 9 abstentions)
In fact, the amendment stripped the resolution of its possible impact. It’s hard to imagine that people would give very much to support legal action against former PC(USA) churches and a fellow Presbyterian denomination. But, nevertheless, the fact that the General Assembly passed this resolution still astounds me . . . and distresses me. It seems, more than almost anything the General Assembly did, to strip away our mask of integrity and show the decaying heart of the PC(USA).
Or at least of part of the PC(USA). There were 286 people voting against the motion. Among these was Robert Austell, the Pastor of Good Shepherd Presbyterian Church in Charlotte, North Carolina. Austell was a commission to the 2008 General Assembly. He spoke passionately and persuasively against the “sue our fellow Christians” motion. Austell posted his testimony on his website:
Brothers and Sisters, please vote ‘no’ on this motion.
There is an immeasurable cost to what this motion proposes. And brothers and sisters, that cost is not the two million dollars, which is inconceivable enough as we struggle to support our missionaries. The immeasurable cost is the damage done to real human beings in our midst and to our witness to Jesus Christ in the world as “Christians sue Christians.” Friends, there is a better way!
One might say that we are experiencing a kind of divorce between some congregations and the PCUSA. In a local congregation, when a divorce is in process, a sharp attorney might advise one spouse to get all they can while the getting is good. But, as pastors and elders, we have a different perspective, particularly if one or both parties are Christian. We must be concerned that in these church dismissals, we function first as pastors and elders in Christ, rather than as legal counsel for one party. Brothers and sisters, there is a better way!
But what if a church initiates action? Jesus doesn’t call us to stockpile arms, but to lay down arms and shepherd his sheep. Will this encourage more churches to leave? On the contrary, grace is inviting and winsome while legal threat or retaliation further divides. In the big picture, litigation is a lose-lose situation for the people in our churches and it is deadly to the cause of Christ. Beloved, there is a better way!
I urge you to vote NO on this motion.
Way to go, Robert! Thanks for such a strong and wise word.
Tomorrow I’ll say a bit more about this, laying out my reasons for believing the the General Assembly acted unwisely in passing Resolution 03-21..
Topics: PCUSA: Church Property | 9 Comments »
Preachers Challenge IRS by Endorsing Candidates
By Mark D. Roberts | Monday, September 29, 2008
Yesterday, preachers throughout the country specifically endorsed candidates for President, thus challenging the IRS ruling that prohibits churches from such endorsements if they want to preserve their nonprofit status. (See, for example, this article from the Los Angeles Times.) The preachers were participating in “Pulpit Freedom Sunday,” which was initiated by the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative group based in Arizona.
I have many concerns about this effort, some of which I have already written about in this blog. If you’re interested, you can check out my series on Churches, Elections, and the IRS. The most pertinent material begins with Part 7 of the series, “On Preachers and Politics, Section 1.”
In a few days I’ll have more to say about preachers endorsing candidates. But first, I must finish up my seemingly interminable series on the PC(USA).
Topics: Church Life | 13 Comments »
Sunday Inspiration from The High Calling
By Mark D. Roberts | Sunday, September 28, 2008
Eager to Do What Is Right
[T]hen God will establish one of David’s descendants as king.
He will rule with mercy and truth.
He will always do what is just
and be eager to do what is right.
In the middle of a prophecy of doom upon Moab, we find unexpected words of hope. After the destruction is over, God will anoint a ruler who will seek and do what is right. The messianic king will be in the line of David.
We, of course, know that this prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus. But I’m especially struck by one line that describes the future king: “He will . . . be eager to do what is right.” The Hebrew reads, more literally, “He will . . . be quick [to do] righteousness.” He won’t know what is right yet procrastinate. He won’t be lackadaisical about righteousness. Rather, he’ll yearn for it and do it PDQ.
I want to be that kind of person. I want to be eager to do the right thing, knowing that my good works honor God. I want to do what’s right quickly, even when part of me resists. I think, for example, of times when my relationships at work are challenged by conflict. I know what’s right: to go to the person with whom I have differences and seek to reconcile. If I have done wrong, I should admit it and ask for forgiveness. When I have been wronged, I should forgive. Now I know all of these things, but there are times when I delay doing the right thing. I don’t look forward to an awkward conversation, or to apologizing for my mistakes. Sometimes I simply want to bask in self-pity for a while longer. Perhaps you can relate to what I’m saying. Or perhaps there are other areas of life where you are less than quick to seek righteousness. What God wants for us is clear, however. Like the Messiah, like Jesus, we are to be eager to do what is right, and to do it quickly.
QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION: Are there times when you are not eager to do what’s right? Why are you hesitant? Are there right actions you know you should do today, but have been avoiding? What will help you to do these things?
PRAYER: Gracious Lord, I want to be eager to do what is right. I want to be quick in my obedience. There are certainly times when this is true of me, times when doing the right thing is also the pleasant thing. I’m perfectly happy to be quick to tell my wife I love her, for example.
Well, not always, I guess. There are times, Lord, when I feel angry or hurt and want to punish Linda by my lack of affection. It’s hard sometimes to initiate reconciliation. This is true, not only in my family, but also in the workplace. I don’t like conflict and so often would rather avoid and deny than be quick to do what’s right.
So, dear Lord, forgive me when I delay doing the right thing. Help me to be eager to do what is right. By your Spirit, inspire me to be quick in my obedience. As I grow in you, may doing the right thing become more and more natural to me, something I desire and do because you are shaping me to be like you. Amen.
Daily Reflections from The High Calling.org
This devotional comes from The High Calling of Our Daily Work (www.thehighcalling.org). You can read my Daily Reflections there, or sign up to have them sent to your email inbox each day. This website contains lots of encouragement for people who are trying to live out their faith in the workplace.
Topics: Sunday Inspiration | No Comments »
Mo Ranch . . . Only in Texas
By Mark D. Roberts | Saturday, September 27, 2008
Last week my church enjoyed a retreat at Mo Ranch in the Hill Country of Texas (about 90 minutes from San Antonio; 30 minutes from Laity Lodge). Mo Ranch was not named for Moe of Three Stooges fame, but for Daniel J. Moran, who owned the ranch before selling it to the Presbyterian church. Mr. Moran was the chairman of Conoco Oil Company. (Photo to right: The outdoor chapel)
We had a great time at Mo Ranch, which is a large conference center. One of the highlights of the weekend was worshiping in the outdoor chapel. The view was fantastic.
One of the children found an interesting view right behind the chapel. She spotted a snake resting underneath an oak tree . . . a rattlesnake, to be exact. I’m glad to say she knew enough to stay away. But I must say I’ve never seen a rattlesnake during a worship service before. In my Presbyterian tradition, we don’t do much snake-handling! (Photo: A sleeping rattlesnake. It’s right in the middle, a bit hard to see if you don’t look carefully.)
The photo below shows one of the meadows at Mo Ranch. What a delight!
Topics: Only in Texas | 3 Comments »
The PC(USA) and Church Property, Part 9
By Mark D. Roberts | Friday, September 26, 2008
Part 9 of series: The PC(USA) and Church Property
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
In my last several posts I’ve been proposing a basic process for a congregation that believes God might be calling it to leave the PC(USA). This process includes the following steps:
1. Put on the whole armor of God.
2. Congregation leaders should communicate with leaders from other churches that have considered leaving the PC(USA), or have left, to learn about what was good and not good in their process.
3. Congregation leaders should communicate with the presbytery.
4. The congregation should engage in a discernment process that is prayerful, biblical, humble, open, truthful, loving, respectful, fair, and timely.
So what should happen next if a congregation goes through a process like what I’ve proposed and votes to leave the PC(USA). What should the congregation do? What should the presbytery do?
Let me add a couple of technical notes. In my opinion, a church vote to leave the PC(USA) should be at least two-thirds in favor for the church to take action. Moreover, the actual motion that a church would be voting on would not to be leave the PC(USA), but rather to ask their presbytery to dismiss them to another denomination. According to the Book of Order, an individual congregation does not have the authority to leave the denomination. Only a vote of presbytery can make this happen.
So let’s suppose that a congregation has gone through an appropriate process and has voted by a strong margin (more than two-thirds) to ask the presbytery to dismiss it to another denomination. Further, suppose the congregation asks the presbytery to allow the church to keep its property.
What should the presbytery do?
In fact, presbyteries have been all over the map in their responses. Some presbyteries have allowed churches to leave with their property, with no further financial obligation. Other presbyteries have required departing churches to pay a certain amount for the property, with the amount varying from a small percentage of assessed value of the property to the whole assessed amount. Other presbyteries have acted swiftly to oust congregations from their property, and have filed suit in secular courts to secure title to the property.
I believe that the ousting and suing option is inconsistent with Scripture, with PC(USA) polity, with the PC(USA)’s commitment to ecumenism, with our missional purpose, with the biblical call to grace, and with Jesus’ command to walk the second mile. I’ll have more to say about this later. So I am clearly in the “allow a church to keep its property” camp. But I don’t think its always right for a church to leave with its property and not give anything back to the presbytery.
For one thing, when a church leaves the denomination, this will cost the presbytery the loss of the church’s per capita contribution to the presbytery. In the case of a large church, this could amount to a substantial amount of money, perhaps the salary of a full-time presbytery worker. Moreover, many churches contribute mission money to their presbyteries. This too would dry up when a church leaves. Thus it may be appropriate for a departing church to continue supporting the ministry of the presbytery for a period of time to allow the presbytery to recover the loss of income.
For another, most Presbyterian churches began as mission projects of their presbyteries. In many cases, presbyteries invested money in the church property and/or initial buildings. Often these investments were repaid by the church to the presbytery. Even so, it seems to me that it would be right, at least in some cases, for churches to compensate their presbyteries financially if they leave with their property.
How should this be worked out? In a spirit of mutual love, grace, and charity. Specifically, here’s what I see as a truly Christ-like response when a congregation asks a presbytery to dismiss it with its property:
If the congregational process was appropriate, and if the vote was at least two-thirds in favor of leaving the PC(USA), the presbytery should vote to dismiss the church with its property. Plus:
• If the church owes money to the presbytery for loans, these should be paid off in a timely fashion.
• The presbytery should ask the church to continue to pay its per capita for a period of time, perhaps by a decreasing percentage. This should not be a requirement, but a request.
• The presbytery should ask the church to consider making some sort of gift to the presbytery to help it with its ongoing mission. The size of the gift should be determined by the church and should not be a requirement. (If a church has sufficient resources, I’d think of a gift that’s perhaps a tithe of the value of the church’s property. Obviously this would not always be possible.)
• The presbytery should reach out to the members of the congregation that did not vote to leave the denomination, helping them to find a new church home if they wish. Some will stay with their churches, or course, even though they’d prefer to remain in the PC(USA).
I can imagine that some people would not like my suggestion because it means the PC(USA) loses title to church property. But, in light of our denomination’s commitment to Christ and the kingdom of God, such a loss isn’t a big deal. It’s not as if a church is being dismissed into the Church of Satan, after all. A congregation that joins the EPC or the UCC or the RCA is still engaged in the ministry of Christ, and in a way largely consistent with our own mission in the PC(USA). We’re still fighting in the same battle, only on different fronts.
You might wonder why I think a particular church should be able to keep its property, especially if there are some members of that church who vote to remain in the PC(USA). Shouldn’t these members retain the property? Why can’t the departing members build new church facilities? Wouldn’t this be a win-win solution?
In some cases it might be. But in most cases of which I am aware, votes to leave the denomination, while not unanimous, are strongly on one side or the other. If at least two-thirds of a congregation votes to leave the denomination, the remaining group often does not have the resources (or the will) to keep the existing church afloat. Even if it stays together as a congregation and remains in its buildings, the remnant is not able to remain healthy.
Moreover, the departing congregation, if it must start from scratch when it comes to buildings, will have to spend a tremendous amount of time, energy, and money to develop new church property. During my sixteen years at Irvine Presbyterian, we had four capital campaigns and built two major buildings. This meant we had fewer resources to devote to ministry and mission. (Photo: The Sanctuary and Activity Center of Irvine Presbyterian Church, built in 1995-6).
So, though there may be situations when the kingdom of God is well-served by a departing congregation building a new church campus and a remaining congregation keeping the property, in most cases the mission of Christ would be enhanced by allowing the departing congregation to keep its property and helping those who are left in the PC(USA) find other churches to join. This might even give these other churches a helpful shot in the arm, financially and otherwise. So perhaps a win-win-win situation.
Ironically, or perhaps providentially, as I was working on this blog post today, I received an email from someone in the Presbytery of the Mid-South (covering parts of Tennessee, Arkansas, and Missouri). He sent to me a statement that was recently approved by the presbytery: “Proposed Procedures, Guidelines, and Standards for Dismissing Congregations.” You can download a PDF of this statement here. It lays out in much detail a process very much like the one I have envisioned here, though with much more wisdom and attention to specifics.
In my next post in this series, I’ll look at two actions taken by the last General Assembly that relate to the issue of church property.
Topics: PCUSA: Church Property | 3 Comments »
The PC(USA) and Church Property, Part 8
By Mark D. Roberts | Thursday, September 25, 2008
Part 8 of series: The PC(USA) and Church Property
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
In my last few posts I’ve been suggesting a process for a congregation that thinks God might be leading it to leave the PC(USA). So far the steps are
1. Put on the whole armor of God.
2. Congregation leaders should communicate with leaders from other churches that have considered leaving the PC(USA), or have left, to learn about what was good and not good in their process.
3. Congregation leaders should communicate with the presbytery.
The next step would be:
4. The congregation should engage in a discernment process that is prayerful, biblical, humble, open, truthful, loving, respectful, fair, and timely.
I must admit that I do not have direct experience with churches leaving their denomination. I can’t offer the sort of wisdom one would receive from someone who has been down this road before. (Hence Step #2 above.) But I do have a few thoughts about what an appropriate discernment process would include.
First, it should be prayerful. Literally . . . full of prayer. The main point of a process to consider leaving a denomination is to discern God’s will. Thus a congregation should turn to the Lord and ask for his guidance. Those would believe they know that God’s answer will be in advance would do well to publicly surrender their agendas and desires to God’s gracious sovereignty.
Second, the discernment process should be biblical. I’m using the word “biblical” in two senses. On the one hand, the process should be guided by biblical principles for human relationships and for determining God’s will. On the other hand, the process should include ample study of biblical passages relevant to the issue(s) at hand. If, for example, a church is thinking about leaving the PC(USA) because of it’s view of homosexual behavior, the passages that address human sexuality should be studied by the congregation.
Third, the process should be humble. More accurately, all involved in the process should be humble before God and before each other. Such humility would include an admission by all that “I could be wrong in this.” Moreover, it would reflect the humility of Christ applied to human relationships. I’m thinking of Paul’s teaching in Philippians 2, for example:
If then there is any encouragement in Christ, any consolation from love, any sharing in the Spirit, any compassion and sympathy, make my joy complete: be of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves. Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others. Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,
who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God
as something to be exploited,
but emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
being born in human likeness.
And being found in human form,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to the point of death—
even death on a cross. (Phil 2:1-8)
Fourth, the discernment process should be open. I’m thinking a various dimensions of openness. Key deliberations should not be held in closed meetings. No smoke-filled rooms here (or coffee and donut filled rooms, as the case may be). There should also be encouragement for congregation members to share openly their thoughts and feelings. Any effort to railroad a specific conclusion should be avoided, both by congregation leaders and by presbytery leaders. (See my confession below.)
Fifth, the process should be truthful. Biblical truth should be foundational. Truthful representation of various specific issues is crucial. For example, the tendency of both sides of the gay ordination debate to misrepresent the other side should be avoided.
Sixth, the discernment process should be loving. Yes, of course this is obvious, but it needs to be said . . . and done. We’re called to speak the truth in love (Eph 4:15). Now this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t disagree, or that we must pretend that we can all get along theologically. But our communications should imitate the love of Jesus as represented in 1 Corinthians 13:4-7:
Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
In almost every congregation considering leaving the PC(USA), there will be members on both sides of the issue. This means the potential for mutual injury is huge. In fact, I think it’s unavoidable. No matter what conclusion a church reaches, some folks will disagree with that conclusion. Some will leave the church if it stays. Some will stay with the PC(USA) if it leaves. This will be painful. But if the process is governed by love, that pain doesn’t have too include bitterness and unforgiveness.
Seventh, the process should be respectful. Respect is due from each person for each person, especially among those who disagree with each other. People should be free to disagree about ideas, but not to impugn each other’s integrity. Respect should also be given to denominational officials. (Photo: Not an example of a respectful process.)
Eighth, the process should be fair. Now what does that mean? Among other things, it means that every person will have the chance to voice his or her opinion and to be heard. It means that if there is a strong majority in the congregation, the minority will be treated well and heard sensitively. It means that votes will be taken by secret ballot so people don’t feel awkward about disagreeing with others.
Finally, the process should be timely. It should be neither too long nor too short. I’m not able to put a specific number of months on the ideal range, though I can imagine something like three to nine months. If a process is rushed, then people will not have the chance to pray adequate, think carefully, speak openly, and listen attentively. If a process is dragged out, the church will be hurt by the delay. Let’s face it. If a congregation is considering leaving the denomination, this will take a great deal of that congregation’s time and energy. It will, for a season, distract a church from its mission. I can envision church leaders wanting to accelerate the process to a sprint and presbytery leaders wanting to slow it down to a crawl. Neither pace will be edifying to the congregation, or even to the presbytery. Church leaders, both in the congregation and in the presbytery, should be sure that the timetable for the process is neither too short nor too long. (If you’ve been involved in such a process in the past, I’d be interested in your input here. Please leave a comment below.)
A Confession: If I ever get to the point where I think I need to leave the PC(USA), I expect I will be extremely impatient with those who aren’t moving at my pace. I can just envision a congregational meeting in which well-intended but inexperienced people say things like: “Well, have we ever tried to change the Book of Order to make it more biblical?” or “Have you ever sat down with the people who disagree with you and tried to understand their perspective?” I will want to scream in frustration. After all, I’ve spent more than thirty years of my life dealing with the gay ordination issue in the PC(USA). I’ve been involved in many efforts to try and change the Book of Order for the better (as it is, today, but perhaps not for long). I’ve listened to “the other side” for hours and hours. If I ever decide it’s time to leave the PC(USA), this decision will have come after more than thirty years of effort and hundreds if not thousands of hours of thinking, listening, studying, praying, and writing. The problem is that many, many other people will not have invested such time. They’ll need time to understand the issues and the options. I will need to work very hard to demonstrate the first quality of biblical love: “Love is patient . . . .”
As I’ve been surfing around the Internet, I found a document prepared by the Presbytery of the Cascades called “A Process for Congregations Considering Leaving the PCUSA” (download PDF file here). There’s a lot of wisdom in this paper, both with respect to process and concerning specific issues that congregations might forget (like legal matters, insurance, etc.). I’m not saying that this document is perfect, but it has a lot to offer. (If you know of similar process documents produced by other governing bodies or churches, from both PC(USA) or non-PC(USA) sources, please let us know by leaving a comment below.) In my next post I’ll suggest what I think should be a presbytery’s response to a church that, having gone through an appropriate process, votes to leave the PC(USA).
Topics: PCUSA: Church Property | 7 Comments »
The PC(USA) and Church Property, Part 7
By Mark D. Roberts | Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Part 7 of series: The PC(USA) and Church Property
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
In my last post I began to consider what a congregation should do if it begins to think that God might be leading it to leave the PC(USA). On the basis of Ephesians 6:10-20, my proposed first step is:
1. Put on the whole armor of God.
I explained in some detail what this might entail for a church. Now on to the next steps.
2. Congregation leaders should communicate with leaders from other churches that have considered leaving the PC(USA), or have left, to learn about what was good and not good in their process.
For most of us, considering leaving a denomination leads us into uncharted waters. Yet others have navigated those waters before us. Some crashed on the rocks. Others made it safely through. There is much to be learned from the experiences of other churches.
3. Congregation leaders should communicate with the presbytery.
Now I know I’m going to get some negative comments about this suggestion. I know of many evangelical PC(USA) churches that find themselves in hostile presbyteries. I’ve heard of cases where presbyteries seek to remove pastors who even allow their churches to entertain a conversation about leaving the denomination, not to mention situations where pastors are in favor of leaving. Pragmatically speaking, it may seem foolish for a church to notify its presbytery about its considerations.
But, according to our Book of Order, presbyteries have the authority “to divide, dismiss, or dissolve churches in consultation with their members” (G-11.0103i). It is the rightful role of the presbytery to guide and support its churches, even when they’re thinking about leaving the PC(USA). Presbytery leaders should be mature enough and Christian enough to do this well, even if they strongly oppose a church’s dismissal. But even in a case when the presbytery leaders are not able to do what’s needed, I think a church should still be committed to acting rightly toward its presbytery . . . putting on the breastplate of righteousness, if you will. (Photo: The breastplate of Augustus, from the statue of Augustus found at Prima Porta.)
I do not have direct experience of something like I’m describing, so one could accuse me of being hopelessly naïve. Naïve I may be, but surely not hopeless! Yet I have watched a pastor friend who faced an analogous situation in his church. He had on his staff a director who worked with younger people in the congregation, primarily folks in their 20s and 30s. This director’s ministry was flourishing, much to the delight of my pastor friend. But his delight disappeared when the director starting talking about breaking off the group and starting a new church, not a PC(USA) church, I might add. The pastor made it clear to the director that this was not a good thing, in his view. But he didn’t fire the director immediately and demand that he never return. The pastor tried to walk the second mile with this director and the young adult group. When, in the end, they decided to leave the church and start a new church, the pastor refused to bad-mouth them or hamper their efforts. In fact, he believed that it was his calling to continue to pray for and support his former director and the new church he was planting. This was not easy for my friend, who felt plenty of grief and anger. But he tried to be faithful to God’s call.
A couple of years later, the new church that had broken off from my friend’s church was struggling along. My friend found himself in the strange position of being a mentor and encourager to his former director. Meanwhile, my friend’s church had a new young adult ministry that was thriving, stronger than ever before. His overall attendance and membership numbers were up noticeably, contrary to what one might have expected. I am convinced that my friend’s maturity in Christ, his graciousness, and his willingness to walk the second mile had everything to do with the blessing on his church.
I know there are other stories, stories that don’t have such happy endings, stories that illustrate human sinfulness and downright meanness. I have heard some of these stories, and they grieve me. But I believe that sometimes (often?) God calls us to do what seems foolish in terms of this world. Walking the second mile is pretty foolish. So is loving one’s enemies. The greatest foolishness of all is the gospel of Christ crucified. Therefore, if a church does what’s right by communicating directly with its presbytery, I believe that God will be honored by that action, and will find ways to bless the church, even if presbytery leaders are unwilling to respond graciously.
It will be rare, of course, for a presbytery to be enthusiastic about losing one of its churches. But, even so, there will be presbytery leaders who will be able to engage in a constructive process with a church. This is surely their calling as Christian leaders who are to imitate the servanthood of Christ. Moreover, if a presbytery is involved with a church that votes to leave, the involvement of presbytery leaders may very well pave the way for a church to leave with its property. Treat me with respect and I’ll be apt to treat you in the same way. Treat me with disrespect and I’ll be apt to return the favor. That reminds me of something someone said about treating others the way you want to be treated. Hmmmm. Maybe step #3 should read, simply: Treat presbytery leaders as you would like to be treated, or perhaps even, Do unto others as you would them them do unto you.
Topics: PCUSA: Church Property | 4 Comments »
The PC(USA) and Church Property, Part 6
By Mark D. Roberts | Monday, September 22, 2008
Part 6 of series: The PC(USA) and Church Property
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
If a congregation in the PC(USA) begins to consider leaving the denomination, what should it do? (When I say “congregation,” I mean especially the leaders of the congregation, including elders, deacons, and pastors.)
I’m going to sketch out some contours of an ideal process. I fully recognize that what I’m describing may not work in many, many cases. It requires that church leaders and denominational leaders be mature and gracious in seeking, not their own will, but God’s will. Sometimes this happens. Often it does not. In far too many cases, the hearts of church leaders on all levels, from local to national, are captured by some demonic power, perhaps unrighteous anger, spite, vengeance, or Mammon.
When the issue of church property arises, Mammon gets especially busy, and often prevails, at least in the moment. I’m not simply waxing poetic here. Scripture teaches that our true battle as Christians “is not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places” (Eph 6:12). Mammon is one of these powers specifically named by Jesus himself (Matt 6:24). Church property fights are not fundamentally battles between churches and presbyteries, though they might seem so. They are, more deeply, spiritual battles that engage all sorts of cosmic powers.
I say this not simply to be theological or dramatic. It seems to me that, if a church believes God might be leading it to leave a denomination, the very first step is to take seriously the spiritual dimensions of what lies ahead. If it’s true that the church’s leaving will strengthen its mission, then you can be sure that the hosts of Hell will do what they can to derail the process. Besides, Satan and his minions rejoice when Christians sue each other, when they drain away kingdom resources in court battles, and when they look like enemies before the eyes of the world.
So what should a church do if it begins to consider leaving the PC(USA)? The starting point, given the reality of Ephesians 6:12, is to follow Ephesians 6:13-18:
Therefore take up the whole armor of God, so that you may be able to withstand on that evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm. Stand therefore, and fasten the belt of truth around your waist, and put on the breastplate of righteousness. As shoes for your feet put on whatever will make you ready to proclaim the gospel of peace. With all of these, take the shield of faith, with which you will be able to quench all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. Pray in the Spirit at all times in every prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert and always persevere in supplication for all the saints.
So, then, here is the first thing a church should do if it thinks God might be leading it to leave the PC(USA):
1. Put on the whole armor of God.
Specifically, this means a congregation should ask itself questions like:
Belt of Truth
• Are we being faithful to the whole of God’s truth, including biblical passages that make us uncomfortable?
• Are we being truthful in all of our communications with members, with presbytery, etc.? (Photo: A mosaic of two Roman gladiators found in Kourion, Cyprus)
Breastplate of Righteousness
• Are our motivations truly righteous and honoring to God?
• How much are we willing to sacrifice for the sake of God’s righteousness?
• Are we committed to treating all people rightly, even and especially those who disagree with us?
• If we are in a presbytery that may not be supportive of us, will we always do the right thing in relationship with the presbytery? Are we willing to turn the other cheek and walk the second mile?
Shoes of the Gospel of Peace
• Have we made a legitimate effort to make peace with the denomination?
• Are we committed to being peacemakers in this process?
Shield of Faith
• Will be put our trust in God first and foremost? Or will we put our trust primarily in ourselves? Or in our lawyers?
• Will we offer all that we are to the Lord, including our property?
Helmet of Salvation
• Will we rest secure in the knowledge that we belong to Christ our Savior?
Sword of the Spirit
• Will see be guided by Scripture in all of our deliberations?
• Will we allow Scripture to challenge us as well as to encourage us?
• Will we obey biblical passages that govern relationships within the church? Will we avoid gossip? Will we be quick to reconcile and forgive?
Pray at All Times for all the Saints
• Will we pray faithfully throughout our process of deliberation?
• Will we pray for wisdom for ourselves, for presbytery officials, and for all others involved in this process?
If you’re a practically-minded person, you may find what I’ve just said to be distraction from what really needs to be done. But, given biblical teaching on what is most real, I believe that the most practical thing any church can do when it begins to consider leaving the PC(USA) is to put on the armor of God in tangible ways.
In my next post in this series I’ll consider what comes next.
Topics: PCUSA: Church Property | 4 Comments »
Sunday Inspiration from The High Calling
By Mark D. Roberts | Sunday, September 21, 2008
A Reminder of Justice
“What sorrow awaits the unjust judges
and those who issue unfair laws.
They deprive the poor of justice
and deny the rights of the needy among my people.
They prey on widows
and take advantage of orphans.”
Throughout the Scriptures, God cares profoundly about justice. As it says in Psalm 99:4, he is the “Mighty King, lover of justice.” In particular, God seeks justice for those who aren’t in positions of power or wealth. In Isaiah 10, he condemns unjust judges and lawmakers because “they deprive the poor of justice and deny the rights of the needy.” In fact, “they prey on widows and take advantage of orphans,” two categories of people who were most vulnerable in ancient Israel.
Though Christians differ on exactly how we’re to seek justice in today’s world, it’s clear that we must share God’s passion for justice, especially for those in our world who are disadvantaged. In our personal lives, in our charitable giving, in our professional endeavors, and in our political activities, we must strive for justice. Simply caring about ourselves and our families is not enough.
Recently I found myself in a conversation with a boss who needed to cut costs in his business. As he struggled with his financial challenges, he also sought to make sure his employees had enough hours to support themselves. He was looking out, not only for the good of the company, but also for the good of his workers. This is one tangible expression of a godly commitment to justice.
QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION: Where in your life do you have opportunities to express a commitment to justice? How might you live out this commitment even today?
PRAYER: Mighty King, lover of justice, this passage from Isaiah reminds me of just how much you care about justice, especially for those who can’t secure it for themselves. Help me, dear Lord, to share your passion for justice and to seek justice in my life. Guide me in my personal relationships, in my professional responsibilities, and in the exercise of my citizenship, so that I might seek your justice.
I’m also reminded today to pray for those who serve in government. I pray for lawmakers, judges, and executives in my city, county, state, and country. Guide them in the ways of your justice. And in this election season, may those on both sides show a commitment to justice, especially for the poor and needy, for widows and orphans, and for others in our world who can’t help themselves. Amen.
Daily Reflections from The High Calling.org
This devotional comes from The High Calling of Our Daily Work (www.thehighcalling.org). You can read my Daily Reflections there, or sign up to have them sent to your email inbox each day. This website contains lots of encouragement for people who are trying to live out their faith in the workplace.
Topics: Sunday Inspiration | 1 Comment »
My Son’s New High School
By Mark D. Roberts | Saturday, September 20, 2008
My son began 10th grade this year at a brand new high school: Boerne Samuel V. Champion High School in, you guessed it, Boerne, Texas. The school was named after a beloved, lifelong resident of Boerne who was also a school principal. Sam Champion died a few years ago, and the school is named in his honor.
This is a gorgeous school, nestled among live oak trees. One of the things I like most about the school is its commitment to water reclamation. You can see evidence of this in the photo below. The water tower is not merely an architectural element, but a functional part of a campus-wide water reclamation system. All of the roofs of the school act as gathering sources for rainwater. And the condensation from the air conditioning (a lot of water in Texas!) is also collected. The net result, in an average year, will be ten million gallons of water to be used for landscaping. (They don’t make students drink rain water.) Ten million gallons! What an immense number!
BCHS is must one more sign of how committed Texas is to excellence in education. Learning this has been one of the happy surprises about our move from California.
Topics: Only in Texas | 1 Comment »
The PC(USA) and Church Property, Part 5
By Mark D. Roberts | Friday, September 19, 2008
Part 5 of series: The PC(USA) and Church Property
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
In my last post I offered a theological critique of the Book of Order’s statement that all church property “is held in trust . . . for the use and benefit of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).” This statement is in tension with what is said elsewhere in the Book of Order about Christ and his church. In the first chapter we say that:
God has put all things under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and has made Christ Head of the Church, which is his body.
Christ calls the Church into being, giving it all that is necessary for its mission to the world . . . . . It belongs to Christ alone to rule, to teach, to call, and to use the Church as he wills . . . . (G-1.0010 a, b)
It seems to me, therefore, that any legal or ecclesiastical statement about the ownership of church property must always be qualified by the fundamental fact that all church property belongs to Christ, and that he can do with it as he wills.
This is surely implicit in the Book of Order, which may be why it isn’t included in the specific statement of church property being held in trust for the use and benefit of the PC(USA) (G-8.0201). If we were to ask those who actually wrote G-8.0201 about this, they might very well say: “Of course all property ultimately belongs to Christ, and it’s his to do with as he pleases.” At any rate, I think that’s what we in the PC(USA) should be saying today, in light of our own statements in the Book of Order about Christ’s headship, not to mention biblical statements concerning Christ’s lordship over all. After all, if our own bodies belong to the Lord and not ourselves (1 Cor 6:19-20), surely we’d have to say that land and buildings dedicated to him belong to him first and foremost. We’re just renters, in a way.
Actually, the Book of Order implicitly and explicitly allows that it could be right for a church to leave the PC(USA). In Chapter XV on “Relationships,” we state:
G-15.0203 Reception and Dismissal of Churches
a. When a particular church of another denomination requests that it be received by a presbytery of this denomination, the presbytery shall verify that the church has been regularly dismissed by the governing body of jurisdiction, and the advice of the highest governing body of that denomination dealing with relations between denominations has been received, and shall then receive the church in accord with its responsibilities and powers. (G-11.0103h.)
Dismissal of Churches
b. Similar procedures shall be followed in dismissing a particular church from this denomination to another. (G-11.0103i)
By recognizing that it’s okay for the PC(USA) to receive a particular church from another denomination into the PC(USA), we’re implicitly acknowledging that it can be right for a church to leave a denomination and join another. Our statement on the dismissal of churches makes this explicit. Though nothing in Chapter 15 mentions church property explicitly, it stands to reason that if a church can rightly leave a denomination, then it could be right for that church to leave with its property. If the PC(USA) recognizes that there are times when it’s right for a church to leave a denomination, surely we can allow such churches to leave with their property?
But could the PC(USA) ever let a church leave with its property since we state that all church property is held is “held in trust for the use and benefit of the denomination”? Yes, I think we could. I believe that the PC(USA) could, with freedom and integrity, allow churches to leave with their property. How? The argument would go something like this:
All church property in the PC(USA) is held in trust for the use and benefit of the denomination. Ordinarily, this means we strongly discourage churches from leaving the PC(USA) over minor differences of opinion. But when the differences between a particular church and the denomination are significant, when they involve central issues of theology and mission, and when these differences have led a church into a wise and godly process of discernment that has ended in super-majority vote of the congregation to leave the PC(USA), then it may very well be consistent with the “use and benefit of the PC(USA)” to allow a church to leave with its property. Why? Because the PC(USA) does not exist to advance its own cause or its own glory. It does not in fact exist for its own benefit. The PC(USA) exists to benefit Jesus Christ and to extend his kingdom. Thus hanging on the ownership of church property may not be for the benefit of the PC(USA) in all cases, given our greater commitment to Christ. Even as we confess individually that our chief end as human beings is “to glorify God and enjoy him forever,” so the chief end of all church property is God’s glory (Westminster Shorter Catechism, Question 1). We recognize that it may not always be most glorifying to God for the PC(USA) to retain ownership of all church property.
Again, the case of a pastor leaving the PC(USA) helps by way of analogy. When I became ordained as Minister of Word and Sacrament in this denomination, committed myself to the following (G-14.0405)
(5) Will you be governed by our church’s polity, and will you abide by its discipline? Will you be a friend among your colleagues in ministry, working with them, subject to the ordering of God’s Word and Spirit?
(7) Do you promise to further the peace, unity, and purity of the church?
(9) Will you be a faithful minister, proclaiming the good news in Word and Sacrament, teaching faith, and caring for people? Will you be active in government and discipline, serving in the governing bodies of the church; and in your ministry will you try to show the love and justice of Jesus Christ?
These were strong commitments, not simply to the Church of Jesus Christ, but to the PC(USA) in particular (lower case “church”). But the PC(USA) does not insist that, as a pastor in the denomination, I can never move to another denomination and maintain my ordination. Even as we recognize the ordination of pastors ordained in sister denominations when they join the PC(USA), so we can dismiss pastors to other denominations with their ordination intact. We understand that that PC(USA) is not the whole Church, but only a church within the whole Church. Perhaps this same sort of logic would give us the freedom to release congregations with their property. (Photo: From inside of Westminster Abbey, where the Westminster Shorter Catechism was considered in the 1640s.)
Now I realize that, in fact, it often gets very messy when churches consider whether or not to leave their denominations. This is especially true when churches feel threatened by denominational bodies, as is often the case in the PC(USA), and for good reason. On many levels, the denomination has made it clear that it will evict churches that vote to leave the PC(USA), and pursue legal action against churches that seek to leave with their property. In response, churches have sometimes not involved their presbyteries in the discernment process, and have even sued their presbyteries preemptively. Surely something is terribly wrong with this picture. (Sin, for example.)
So what should happen if a church, which usually means its leaders, begins to think that it should leave the PC(USA)? I’ll sketch out the contours of what seems to me a godly, just process in my next post in this series.
Topics: PCUSA: Church Property | 8 Comments »