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/
|
The PC(USA) and Church Property, Part 4
By Mark D. Roberts | Thursday, September 18, 2008
Part 4 of series: The PC(USA) and Church Property
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
In my last post I began to lay out my objections to the notion, as stated in the PC(USA) Book of Order, that all church property is “for the use and benefit” of the denomination. I believe that denominations should exist for the sake of their particular churches, not the other way around. Church property, therefore, should, if anything, be employed “for the use and benefit” of the particular church. Moreover, if a congregation is considering leaving the PC(USA), denominational bodies should be mature enough to consider whether this will be better for the church and its ministry. It would be arrogant in the extreme for any denomination to believe that it is always the best denomination for its churches, or that church property would always be best used in that denomination only.
But I have an even more substantial problem with the statement that church property is “for the use and benefit” of the PC(USA). In fact, I would have the same objection if the Book of Order were to state that church property is “for the use and benefit” of the particular church. It seems to me that either “held in trust for the use and benefit” statement is at best in theological tension with, and at worst an outright contradiction to, the opening section of the Book of Order. Here’s how the Book of Order begins:
G-1.0100 1. The Head of the Church
Christ Is Head of the Church
a. All power in heaven and earth is given to Jesus Christ by Almighty God, who raised Christ from the dead and set him above all rule and authority, all power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come. 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
b. Christ calls the Church into being, giving it all that is necessary for its mission to the world, for its building up, and for its service to God. Christ is present with the Church in both Spirit and Word. It belongs to Christ alone to rule, to teach, to call, and to use the Church as he wills, exercising his authority by the ministry of women and men for the establishment and extension of his Kingdom.
We believe that Christ has given the Church “all that is necessary for its mission in the world,” which surely includes its property. Notice, Christ gives this to the Church with a capital ‘C.’ This is not the same thing as saying that Christ gives all that is necessary for mission to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). We are simply one small facet of “the Church.”
Moreover, Christ has the authority “to call, and to use the Church as he wills” for the purpose of “the establishment and extension of his Kingdom.” If this is true, then I wonder:
Aren’t we compelled to say that all church property exists, ultimately and most truly, for the use and benefit of Jesus Christ and his kingdom?
Can we ever know with certainty that Christ would never lead a PC(USA) congregation to leave the denomination with its property?
Does our attachment to property trump our submission to Christ and to his mission?
Isn’t the most important question of all when it comes to church property this one: What does Christ want to do with his property?
For the record, I’m not assuming that in every instance a church that votes to leave the PC(USA) has done the right thing. And I’m not assuming that every church that wants to leave should always be able to take its property. What I’m saying is that I’m deeply disturbed from a theological point of view by the way we PC(USA) folk have framed this issue. (Photo: A church building in Bodie, California, a ghost town. This was last a Methodist church.)
As I’ve said earlier in this series, I understand that the language in the Book of Order that claims church property “for the use and benefit” of the denomination is meant to have legal clout. It’s not, on the surface, a theological statement. But in the unqualified way the Book of Order talks about church property, it is making an implicit theological statement. Moreover, this statement has encouraged members and leaders of the PC(USA) to take for granted the notion that all church property rightly belongs to the PC(USA). I have never heard someone in this debate add something like: “But, of course, we know that the real owner of the property is Christ, and what matters most is what he wants to do with his property.” (I’m sure some have said this, but I’ve never heard it myself.)
Yet Christ’s ownership of all church property is, I submit, the most important thing to say about church property. In spite of what legal documents might say, the property belongs ultimately and rightly to the Lord. It exits for his use and benefit. This fundamental fact must undergird every single conversation about church property. And it must trump every legal claim or statement in the Book of Order. The only question that really matters is: What does Jesus want to do with his property?
Sadly enough, this question seems rarely to be asked by denominational officials when congregations are wanting to leave the PC(USA) with their property. In fact, when congregations leave and try to hang onto their property, what often happens these days is that some of Jesus’ people use a lot of Jesus’ money to sue others of Jesus’ people who defend themselves with a lot of Jesus’ money over the question of who gets to use Jesus’ property. Both churches and presbyteries, communities of Jesus’ people, initiate these lawsuits. Meanwhile, Jesus’ money that could have been used for Jesus’ ministry and mission gets consumed in legal battles.
I believe that there is a way out of this sad situation. I’ll explain this way out in my next post.
Topics: PCUSA: Church Property | 7 Comments »
The PC(USA) and Church Property, Part 3
By Mark D. Roberts | Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Part 3 of series: The PC(USA) and Church Property
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
Friends: Thanks for your many helpful comments. I’m glad this can be a place where people can interact freely and respectfully. I hope we can continue to discuss and even disagree in Christian love. Please understand that, though I read your comments, I often don’t have the time to comment on them. I wish I did, but sometimes writing a blog post takes all the time I’ve got.
In my last post in this series I began to consider the implications of the PC(USA)’s claim to “own” all congregational property. One implication is the possibility that what holds the PC(USA) together as a denomination isn’t so much theological conviction or covenant communion as property and money. This seems to be implied when people fear that letting churches leave with their property would lead to hundreds of departing congregations.
I realize that what I’ve just said doesn’t reflect well upon the PC(USA). I’m quite sure that there are hundreds of churches that are joyfully part of the PC(USA) and would never consider leaving. For them, the church property issue is moot. But as I try to understand what’s going on in this church property issue, I read things that deeply trouble me about the health of the PC(USA). Let me start at the foundation, with the statement of property ownership in the Book of Order. It reads:
G-8.0201 Property Is Held in Trust
All property held by or for a particular church, a presbytery, a synod, the General Assembly, or the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), whether legal title is lodged in a corporation, a trustee or trustees, or an unincorporated association, and whether the property is used in programs of a particular church or of a more inclusive governing body or retained for the production of income, is held in trust nevertheless for the use and benefit of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).
I understand that this language has a legal tone because it was intended to prevent churches from leaving the denomination with their property. But when I read the last clause, my theological conscience cringes. Should we say that church property “is held in trust nevertheless for the use and benefit of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)”? Legally, this language may be defensible, some would say necessary. But is it theologically defensible? Is church property actually meant for the use and benefit of a denomination? Isn’t church property meant first and foremost for the use and benefit of the Lord? Shouldn’t we say this when we talk about church property? What if Christ, for his purposes and in his wisdom, actually wanted a PC(USA) church to join another denomination? What if it was actually better for some congregation to be allied with another denomination? Are we in the PC(USA) open to that possibility? Or are we certain that in every case the best thing for a congregation and for the kingdom of God is for church property to remain in the PC(USA)?
An analogy might be helpful here. When I became ordained as a Minister of Word and Sacrament in the PC(USA), I made many strong commitments to our denomination. But if I believed that God was calling me to be a pastor in a sister denomination, that wouldn’t be frowned upon or prohibited. In fact, my switch to, say, the ELCA would surely be blessed my presbytery, representing the whole PC(USA). The PC(USA) doesn’t believe it has some lasting and irrevocable claim on my services. I am not “held in trust . . . for the use and benefit of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). So doesn’t it make sense that we view church property in a similar vein?
Again, I get what the Book of Order is trying to do. And, in general, I’m not one to encourage churches or individuals to leave the denomination. In fact, I’ve never done so in my life. I’ve been a member of the PC(USA) (previously, the UPCUSA) for over forty years, and an ordained PC(USA) pastor for half of that time. Whenever members of my former church in Irvine would raise the issue of leaving the PC(USA), I’d discourage this idea. Nevertheless, I am concerned that the way the Book of Order talks about property is inconsistent with the true purpose of the denomination, and even with our basic convictions about the nature of the church.
Part of what concerns me about the statement that church property is “for the use and benefit of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)” is that it gets the order backwards. I have argued elsewhere that denominations exist to support, advance, and extend the ministry of individual congregations. That’s their primary purpose. Particular churches, after all, are on the front lines of ministry. At their very best, denominations help churches do their ministry faithfully and effectively. Churches do not exist to support and further denominational concerns, for the most part. Denominational interest in church property, therefore, should focus on the use and benefit of the individual congregation in its community, not the use and benefit of the denomination. If a church is considering leaving the PC(USA), what should matter most to a presbytery is the question of what is best for the particular church and its mission. The Book of Order gets things backward, in my opinion.
There may well have been a time when denominations were a primary instrument of ministry and mission. I have argued, in fact, that denominations have done many valuable things throughout the ages. (See my series: What’s Good About Denominations?) But almost everyone who studies church life today concludes that the age of denominationalism has passed. And, in my opinion, there’s no biblical argument for the necessity of denominations. Yes, churches will continue to be involved connectionally in ministry and mission. Yes, churches will gather for worship and communion. But future partnerships will be less and less rigid and institutional, and more and more flexible and organic . . . rather like the body of Christ, come to think of it.
In addition to my “getting it backwards” criticism, I have another, even more significant objection to the idea that church property exists “for the use and benefit” of the denomination. I’ll explore this in my next post.
Topics: PCUSA: Church Property | 14 Comments »
The PC(USA) and Church Property, Part 2
By Mark D. Roberts | Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Part 2 of series: The PC(USA) and Church Property
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
In my last post in this series, I offered some reasons why it is hard for a church, and therefore church members and pastors, to leave the Presbyterian Church (USA). One of the main problems for churches that might want to leave is that, according to PC(USA) polity, the particular church doesn’t actually have the rights to the property. Every bit of church property “is held in trust . . . for the use and benefit of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)” (Book of Order, G-8.0201). This means that if a church votes to leave the PC(USA), it might very well lose all of its property, unless the local presbytery allows the congregation to keep it. Sometimes presbyteries do; sometimes they don’t. And in some recent cases, when the presbytery does this, it gets in trouble with higher governing bodies. Most of the time, the PC(USA) wants to keep its property.
The legality of the “property held in trust for the denomination” clause is being challenged in a variety of state courts, as churches sue presbyteries to keep their property and presbyteries sue churches to evict them. Most recently, Kirk of the Hills, a large, formerly PC(USA) church in Oklahoma that is now an EPC congregation, lost its two-year legal battle to maintain its property. But the church will appeal the decision to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, so who knows how it will end? At any rate, the Presbytery of Eastern Oklahoma has been victorious, so far, in its effort to oust the 2400 members of Kirk of the Hills, who, incidentally, paid the considerable expense of developing the property. But, as an attorney for the presbytery said:
“When a local church participates in, prospers from and enjoys the benefits afforded by the parent church, as has been the case here for more than 40 years, it cannot then disclaim affiliation when it disagrees with the parent body, so as to shield church property from the equitable or contractual interests of the parent church.”
No, I have no reason to believe that this attorney was being ironic.
As I begin to discuss the issue of church property ownership, I must lay my cards on the table. I feel a deep sadness concerning situations like this one. It might be because I was a pastor of a local church for sixteen years, a church that labored with great effort and faithfulness to build two buildings so that we might faithfully pursue our mission in Irvine, California. So I may very well be biased in this matter. But, whatever the reason, when I read about what has happened with Kirk of the Hills, my heart feels very heavy, with a good bit of anger mixed in. It seems incredible to me that we in the PC(USA), who also happen to be brothers and sisters in the body of Christ, would actually be fighting over property in this way. I just can’t imagine how it advances the cause of the kingdom of God for presbyteries to prohibit congregations from continuing to use the buildings they have, in most cases, worked so hard to build and maintain for ministry. Will the kingdom of God be better off if Kirk of the Hills is evicted? In most cases, it’s not as if presbyteries have thriving churches ready to use the vacated buildings. Moreover, I can’t believe that we Presbyterians think it’s edifying to the PC(USA) or helpful to our mission, not to mention the mission of God’s kingdom, to conduct our property fights in secular courts.
In conversations with Presbyterian leaders from various theological persuasions, I have sometimes said, “Why don’t we make it possible for churches to leave with their property if two-thirds of the members believe this is what’s right for their church? I don’t care if it’s a liberal church leaving a conservative presbytery, or a conservative church leaving a liberal presbytery, or some other situation. Why won’t we just let churches leave so they can continue their ministries?”
In my experience, most younger church leaders can envision the benefit of letting churches leave the denomination with their property. But most mature church leaders don’t think we should do this. Some point to our covenant connectionalism and shared ministry. Others say something like, “You can’t leave your family just because you want to.” Others point to the Book of Order as if it offered God’s Final Word on such matters. But other leaders have been more practical, responding with something like: “If we open up the door for churches to leave, hundreds will do so. This will devastate our denomination. Presbyteries won’t have the funding to continue operating, since many of the departing churches would be the larger, wealthier ones. Denominational finances would be in shambles. We’d have to lay off tons of presbytery and GA staff, and lots of missionaries. It would be terrible for the PC(USA).”
I don’t know if this fear is valid or not, though I think it probably is. If the PC(USA) changed the Book of Order to allow churches to leave with their property, I do expect that many (but certainly not all!) theologically conservative churches would leave. I wouldn’t be surprised if a few of the liberal churches in conservative presbyteries might follow suit, perhaps joining the United Church of Christ where they’d be free to pursue the mission they believe is right. And, yes, I expect that all of this would be very difficult for the PC(USA) in terms of denominational income.
But if this is true, what are we saying about our unity as a denomination? We can talk all we want about covenant communion and the missional benefit of unity, but it seems that, for tens of thousands of Presbyterians, what holds us together isn’t theology or shared mission or even a desire to be together, but property and money. Is mammon the glue that holds the PC(USA) together? Lord help us!
In my next post in this series I’ll explore further the implications of the PC(USA)’s claim to “own” all congregational property.
Topics: PCUSA: Church Property | 21 Comments »
Why Not Just Leave the PC(USA)? Part 6
By Mark D. Roberts | Monday, September 15, 2008
Part 6 of series: Why Not Just Leave the PC(USA)?
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
This post is Part 6 of the series Why Not Just Leave the PC(USA)? It is also Part 1 of a new series called The PC(USA) and Church Property.
So far in this series I have given five reasons why I am not currently planning to leave the PC(USA). In my last post I explained one reason frequently given for not leaving that is not persuasive to me. In today’s post I want to explore one of the stronger reasons for not leaving the PC(USA), a reason that is fraught with complication and controversy.
If you are committed to your local Presbyterian church, whether as the church’s pastor or a member, then you’d tend not to want to leave the PC(USA) unless your church leaves with you. But, in many cases, it’s a very difficult and painful thing for a church to leave the PC(USA). There are two main reasons for this.
First, when churches vote to leave the PC(USA), they rarely do by a vote of 100% for leaving and 0% for staying. (In June of this year, Lancaster Presbyterian Church in New York did vote 243-0 to leave the denomination, but this sort of unanimity is unusual.) This means that when a congregation votes to leave the PC(USA), it is also voting to split itself into two different congregations. People who have worshipped together, prayed together, and served together will now be in separate churches. Friends may very well end up on different sides of the vote and therefore in different churches. From a relational and emotional perspective, therefore, it’s hard for a church to leave the denomination.
Second, when a church votes to leave the PC(USA), it is not entitled to keep its property. Unlike the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, which allows congregations to leave the denomination with its property if two-thirds of the members vote to leave, the PC(USA) claims to own the church property even if 100% of the members vote to leave. This claim is ensconced in the PC(USA) Book of Order, which reads:
G-8.0201 Property Is Held in Trust
All property held by or for a particular church, a presbytery, a synod, the General Assembly, or the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), whether legal title is lodged in a corporation, a trustee or trustees, or an unincorporated association, and whether the property is used in programs of a particular church or of a more inclusive governing body or retained for the production of income, is held in trust nevertheless for the use and benefit of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).
This means, in effect, that a particular church does not really own its own property. If it leaves the denomination, it leaves its property, or at least it surrenders the right to keep its property. This is true, in principle, even if, as is almost always the case, the property was purchased and developed by the members of the church, with relatively little assistance from denominational bodies.
The Book of Order does not address directly a situation when a church votes 100% to leave the PC(USA). It does speak of what should happen when a congregation has a split vote to leave.
G-8.0601 Property of Church in Schism
The relationship to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) of a particular church can be severed only by constitutional action on the part of the presbytery. (G-11.0103i) If there is a schism within the membership of a particular church and the presbytery is unable to effect a reconciliation or a division into separate churches within the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the presbytery shall determine if one of the factions is entitled to the property because it is identified by the presbytery as the true church within the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). This determination does not depend upon which faction received the majority vote within the particular church at the time of the schism.
What this means is that, in theory, the presbytery of which a church is a member has the right to dismiss that church to another denomination. (I say “in theory” because presbyteries that have voted to let churches leave with their property are being challenged by their synods.) In most cases, however, the presbytery will decide that the faction that has voted to remain in the PC(USA) is “the true church” within the PC(USA), and therefore entitled to the property. This has nothing to do with the percentage of the vote. Even if 95% of a church voted to leave the denomination, the presbytery could decide that the “true church” was the remaining 5%.
In fact, as more and more churches are voting to leave the PC(USA), presbyteries are responding quite diversely. Some have allowed churches to leave with their property without any payment. Other presbyteries have required churches to pay some relatively small amount of money to keep their property. Other presbyteries have required departing congregations to leave without their property. When congregations have refused, these presbyteries have taken them to court. So you end up with a situation where a presbytery and a former congregation of that presbytery are suing each other in civil court.
In my next post I’ll have a few things to say about this regrettable situation. For now I simply want to note, by way of summary, that it is not an easy thing for a church to leave the PC(USA). I’m not suggesting, by the way, that it should be easy. But sometimes you’ll hear people recommend that evangelical churches leave the denomination as if it was a simple and painless thing to do. In fact, it is neither simple nor painful.
This discussion will be continued in the series: The PC(USA) and Church Property.
Topics: PCUSA: Why Not Leave, PCUSA: Church Property | 8 Comments »
Sunday Inspiration from The High Calling
By Mark D. Roberts | Sunday, September 14, 2008
A Holy People
All who remain in Zion
will be a holy people—
those who survive the destruction of Jerusalem
and are recorded among the living.
In the opening chapters of Isaiah, God condemns Israel for its immorality and godlessness, predicting a day of painful judgment. But God also looks forward to a time of restoration, when the people and land will be blessed. In that time, those who have survived the judgment “will be a holy people.”
What does it mean to be a holy people? The basic sense of the Hebrew word for holy is “separate” or “set apart.” Holy things are not for ordinary use, but for special purposes in the temple. Holy people, by analogy, are set apart by God for him and his purposes. Holiness isn’t simply a matter of being separate from the world. It is being fully devoted to and invested in God’s kingdom.
We who have faith in Jesus are called to be a holy people. This doesn’t mean we cut ourselves off from the world, however. Like Jesus, we are intimately involved in this world and its people. But we are different, in heart and in action, because of our relationship to a holy God.
QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION: How do you understand holiness? In what ways do you live as a holy person? How do you reflect the distinctiveness of God in your daily life?
PRAYER: Gracious God, even as you once called Israel to be holy, so you have called us. Those of us who know you through Christ have been set apart from his world. Yet we remain in this world to bear witness to you through our words and deeds.
Help your church, dear Lord, to be a holy people. Teach us how we are to be different from the world and its values. Teach us also how to reach this world, how to extend your love and grace to the people around us. May our holiness be like your holiness: separate in crucial ways from the world, yet profoundly engaged with the world and its people. 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 »
A Strange View of Hurricane Ike
By Mark D. Roberts | Friday, September 12, 2008
Tonight at the football game of Boerne Champion High School, we had a strange view of the outer cloud bands of Hurricane Ike. Boerne, Texas, where is live, is about 200 miles from Houston, safely out of danger from Ike’s gale force winds and heavy rain. What we saw tonight was strangely beautiful . . . strange because of the peril developing not too far away. For us, the outer cloud ring of Ike made for a beautiful sunset. For those in Galveston, Houston, and neighboring communities, Ike looks very scary right now. It’s odd, isn’t it, how nature can be both terrifying and beautiful at the same time, depending on your point of view.
Topics: Musings | 6 Comments »
Only in Texas . . .
By Mark D. Roberts | Thursday, September 11, 2008
Here’s a photo of a recent billboard at the community center in my hometown of Boerne. I don’t know about you, but I’m kind of interested in the “PLUMBING GUITAR DANCE.” I’ve been to plenty of dances in my life, but I’ve never even heard of a Plumbing Guitar Dance. Maybe I should check it out . . . .
Like I’ve said before: “Only in Texas . . . .”
(More on the PC(USA) later.)
Topics: Only in Texas | 3 Comments »
Why Not Just Leave the PC(USA)? Part 5
By Mark D. Roberts | Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Part 5 of series: Why Not Just Leave the PC(USA)?
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
So far in this series I’ve given five answers to the question: Why don’t you just leave the PC(USA)? They are:
1. I’m not leaving the PC(USA) because my church is part of the PC(USA).
2. I’m not leaving the PC(USA) because I have dear friends and partners in ministry in this denomination.
3. I’m not leaving the PC(USA) because, as of this moment, I have not been required by the denomination to do something that is contrary to my conscience.
4. I’m not leaving the PC(USA) because there is no perfect denomination or church.
5. Scripture calls us to make “every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph 4:3).
Today I want to mention a reason that is not keeping me in the PC(USA). This is a reason I sometimes hear, but do not find persuasive.
I am not staying in the PC(USA) because I believe the theological diversity in the denomination is good for me. I’ve heard this sort of thing from my friends, both evangelicals and progressives. An evangelical will say, “I need to be in a church with [supply name of your favorite liberal] because she challenges me and helps me to think more clearly and truly and not to get into an evangelical rut.” A liberal will say, “I need to be in a church with [supply name of your favorite evangelical] because he challenges me and helps me to think more clearly and truly and not to get into a liberal rut.”
I’m not persuaded by this argument. I have plenty of friends who are more conservative than I am theologically, and plenty of friends who are more liberal than I am theologically. These friends challenge me and help to keep me honest in my theology and discipleship. I appreciate these friends and I am glad they’re in my life. But they are not members of the PC(USA). In fact, given their views on various issues, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for us to be in the same denomination. Yet we can be friends. We can join together in certain kinds of short-term ministry. We can talk theology and challenge each other. We can love each other with the love of Christ. We can be in the church of Jesus Christ together. But our differences are such that we’d have a very hard time being in the same particular church or denomination. If we tried to be a denomination together, we’d exhaust ourselves trying to manage our differences, leaving very little time for mission.
When folks say, “I need so-and-so in my denomination to challenge me and keep me honest,” it almost sounds as if they’re limiting their Christian relationships to people of the same denomination. Yet if this is not true, won’t they be challenged and kept honest by Christian brothers and sisters from other denominations?
Admittedly, I’m making certain assumptions about what a denomination ought to be. A denomination, it seems to me, exists primarily to further the mission of Jesus Christ through supporting, building upon, and expanding the mission of individual churches. If churches are to be united in mission, they need to agree on many basic things, like, for example, the nature of Christian mission. If they don’t agree on this, then their efforts to join in mission together will be hampered. To be sure, liberals and conservatives can come together for certain projects, like hurricane relief. But they have a much harder time doing mission together when, for example, they don’t agree on what evangelism is, or on how Christians ought to be involved in politics, or on sexual ethics, etc.
In my opinion, one of the main reasons the PC(USA) is failing in its mission and losing members at such a rapid rate is the ineffectiveness that comes from untenable theological diversity. We have been trying so hard to stay together in spite of our differences that we don’t have the energy and focus needed for effective mission. For example, years ago I served on the Evangelism Committee of Los Ranchos Presbytery. We were a relatively strong and effective committee, partly because committee members all agreed on a few basics, like what evangelism was. But then a woman joined our committee who saw evangelism as something other than sharing the good news of Christ in order to help people become his disciples. For her, evangelism meant doing good works, working for justice, and not saying anything about Jesus. For one year this woman made our committee work extremely difficult, not because she was hard to work with, but because we were all making such a giant effort to include her and not hurt her feelings. We wanted to be a “big tent” committee. We were a big tent, I suppose, but didn’t get much done. Our mission of helping the churches in Los Ranchos Presbytery to do evangelism effectively was stymied by our theological diversity.
Now I’m all in favor of contexts in which those who are committed to evangelism are challenged to consider the biblical call to social justice. And I’m equally open to conversations that challenge the justice folk to consider how their efforts should be a reflection of the Christian gospel. But I believe that efforts of people actually to do evangelism and efforts of people actually to do justice can be hampered if they can’t agree on what evangelism is or what justice is. A certain measure of theological diversity will strengthen a denomination or a church or a committee. But too much diversity will weaken them and make it almost impossible for them to fulfill their mission.
Again, let me emphasize once again that I’m not saying theological diversity is always to be avoided. In fact, I work now at Laity Lodge, a ministry with strong evangelical convictions that has, nevertheless, a wide ecumenical reach. We have at Laity Lodge both conservative Southern Baptists and progressive Episcopalians, not to mention all sorts of different Methodists, Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Pentecostals, Church of Christ folk, and independents. I enjoy our fellowship in Christ and conversations about our theological differences. But if we all tried to start a church together or form one denomination, we’d have quite a mess in our hands because our theological and practical diversities are too broad for this kind of institutional and missional unity.
I should add, by the way, that I think certain kinds of diversities are crucial beyond just theological ones. In fact, it may be more important for Christians to have significant relationships with other believers who are diverse in non-theological ways than for us to have lots of friends with different theologies. For example, as a middle-aged, Anglo-upper-middle-class-American-male-intellectual, I need to have fellowship with Christians who are other than I am, including: people who are older and younger than I am, persons of color, persons both wealthier than I am and poorer than I am, people who are not Americans, women, people who are freer in expression and more in touch with their emotions than I am, etc. etc. etc. Denominations can help to foster relationships of this sort, though often they bring together people who are more or less the same, even if they have theological differences.
So, in sum, I’m not staying in the PC(USA) because I need to be in fellowship with people who have different theologies than I have. I have plenty of non-PC(USA) friends who fill this bill, and could always find more if needed. I do believe that a certain amount of theological diversity is healthy in a church or denomination. But, in my opinion, what we have in the PC(USA) is too diverse to support effective mission. We PC(USA) folk are like a team of backpackers who are carrying such a giant tent on our backs that we can’t make it up the mountain we’re supposed to climb. As a result, we’re unable to fulfill our mission. At some point we’ll have to choose, I expect, whether we want to keep hanging on to our big tent and remain missionally stuck, or whether it’s time to carry smaller tents that will enable us to start moving up the mountain. (Photo: The High Sierra in California from Kaiser Wilderness.)
Topics: PCUSA: Why Not Leave | 13 Comments »
Why Not Just Leave the PC(USA)? Part 4
By Mark D. Roberts | Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Part 4 of series: Why Not Just Leave the PC(USA)?
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
To this point I’ve given four answers to the question: Why don’t you just leave the PC(USA)? They are:
1. I’m not leaving the PC(USA) because my church is part of the PC(USA).
2. I’m not leaving the PC(USA) because I have dear friends and partners in ministry in this denomination.
3. I’m not leaving the PC(USA) because, as of this moment, I have not been required by the denomination to do something that is contrary to my conscience.
4. I’m not leaving the PC(USA) because there is no perfect denomination or church.
My next reason is biblical and theological.
5. Scripture calls us to make “every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph 4:3).
The New Testament letter known as Ephesians begins by revealing God’s grand plan for the cosmos: “to gather up all things in [Christ], things in heaven and things on earth” (Eph 1:10). This bringing together of all things happens through Christ, whose death leads not only to individual salvation, but also to the unifying of divided people (Eph 2:1-22). The church, through its unity, becomes a demonstration to the cosmos that God’s plan has been implemented and has begun to work (Eph 3:7-13). Thus, when Ephesians gets to practical matters of how to live out this theological vision, it’s no surprise to read Paul’s appeal:
I therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all (Eph 4:1-6).
Since the unity of the church is grounded, not only in the gospel, but also in the very nature of God, it is essential that Christians make every effort to maintain that unity. The English phrase “making every effort” translates the Greek participle spoudazontes, which means “being eager or zealous, exerting great effort, or acting with haste.” Unity is not something to be taken for granted or ignored. It is to be sought with eagerness and effort.
One of the main reasons I remain a member of the PC(USA) in spite of years of unhappiness with many of our decisions and actions is that I believe I need to “make every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” I will confess that I am not always eager to preserve Presbyterian unity. But even when my zeal lags, I still exert effort in the cause of unity.
The NRSV translation “making every effort” seems to imply that there would never be a time to step back from unity, since there would be no end to possible efforts on could make. This implication, however, does not capture the precise sense of the Greek verb spoudazein. Paul is not saying that there never is a time to back away from Christian unity. But such a time should be very unusual, and should come only after a significant effort to preserve unity.
One of Paul’s letters to the Corinthians provides an example of a time when unity in Christ should be broken, at least for a season. In 1 Corinthians 5, we learn of a believer who is engaging in sexual relations with his stepmother (5:1). The Corinthians, probably misconstruing what freedom in Christ is all about, have been boasting about this man’s actions. Paul is incensed: “Should you not rather have mourned, so that he who has done this would have been removed from among you?” (5:2). The Corinthians are not to maintain the appearance of unity by tolerating the sinful behavior of the fornicating man. His persistent sin and unwillingness to repent has, in fact, fractured the unity of the Spirit. Breaking fellowship with the man is required, though with the hope that, in the end, he will be saved (5:5).
The second letter of John provides another scenario in which Christians are not to remain in fellowship together. The context is one of false teaching. Specifically, “many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh” (v. 7). John counsels his church to respond in this way:
Everyone who does not abide in the teaching of Christ, but goes beyond it, does not have God; whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. Do not receive into the house or welcome anyone who comes to you and does not bring this teaching; for to welcome is to participate in the evil deeds of such a person (vv. 9-11).
So, if a supposedly Christian teacher denies the incarnation of Christ, this person is not to be welcomed or received into the house (church). The church is not to tolerate heretical teaching on the central issues of faith. Heresy can lead to the breaking of tangible unity because, in a way, heresy itself shatters the unity of the Spirit.
So how does all of this relate to the PC(USA)? There have been a few in the PC(USA) who have denied such basics as the deity of Christ. I heard one pastor do this very thing in a Presbytery meeting where he was involved in examining a candidate for ordination. This pastor was upset that the candidate has said so plainly that Jesus was God incarnate. At the time, I thought the examination was going in the wrong direction, and the candidate should have been examining the pastor! But the vast majority of Presbyterians, including those who are more liberal in their theology, profess such central doctrines as the deity and humanity of Christ and salvation through him alone. Moreover, the PC(USA)’s Constitution is very clear about the basic doctrines of the Christian faith, and these are not being denied or debated by most people in the denomination. Thus, the “making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit” command prevails over the “do not receive into the house command” at this time, at least in my opinion.
If, however, the PC(USA) were to vote in the next year to approve of the ordination of active gays and lesbians, or if our top judicial body endorses that which allow for such ordinations even without a change in the Book of Order, then we who are seeking to be faithful to Scripture may find ourselves in situation analogous to 1 Corinthians 5. We may end up in a church that approves of what Scripture identifies as sin. And if the denomination fails to exercise appropriate discipline with a person who sins and intends to continue, then we’ll have to consider whether it’s right for us to remain the denomination. In this case, the call to make every effort to maintain unity is in tension with the call to uphold biblical standards of righteousness. We’re caught between our commitment to unity and our commitment to purity.
Some have argued that if the PC(USA) officially endorses what Scripture reveals as sinful, then the PC(USA) itself has broken the unity of the Spirit. There is no more unity to be maintained, or so the argument goes. I’m not quite sure I buy this argument, though I do believe that it’s possible for the denomination to do that which effectively severs our covenantal bonds. Some have argued that the actions of the 2008 General Assembly did, in fact, severely damage or even break our covenantal unity. (See, for example, a declaration that is being presented to the Beaver-Butler Presbytery for a vote later this month. Thanks to Presbyweb for publishing this declaration.)
Returning to Ephesians 4, we see that part of preserving the unity of the Spirit involves “bearing with one another in love” (Eph 4:2). One might just as well translate the original Greek as “putting up with one another in love.” This “putting up” does not have to do with our response to those who sin against us. This requires the response of forgiveness. Rather, we put up with each other when they do things that bother us, things that get on our nerves, things that make us want to run in the other direction.
One of the recent commentators on my blog made a helpful distinction, one he learned from Richard Lovelace. It’s the distinction between “tolerable stupidities” and “intolerable stupidities.” (Thanks, Paul.) I rather like that difference. Much of what has bugged me about the PC(USA) over the years has fallen into the “tolerable stupidities” category. But, increasingly, the tolerable seems to be morphing into the intolerable. So when a General Assembly votes to allow for the ordination of active gays, and when it votes to endorse lawsuits against a sister denomination, and when it encourages us to worship alongside Muslims as if our theological differences were minor, and when it votes to approve of those who reject our accepted church rules, I begin to wonder whether I should continue to “bear with the PC(USA) in love.” I wonder if the unity of the Spirit I am seeking to preserve still exists.
Topics: PCUSA: Why Not Leave | 6 Comments »
Why Not Just Leave the PC(USA)? Part 3
By Mark D. Roberts | Monday, September 8, 2008
Part 3 of series: Why Not Just Leave the PC(USA)?
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
So far I’ve offered three answers to the question: Why don’t you just leave the PC(USA)? They are:
1. I’m not leaving the PC(USA) because my church is part of the PC(USA).
2. I’m not leaving the PC(USA) because I have dear friends and partners in ministry in this denomination.
3. I’m not leaving the PC(USA) because, as of this moment, I have not been required by the denomination to do something that is contrary to my conscience.
Here’s another reason:
4. I’m not leaving the PC(USA) because there is no perfect denomination or church.
The PC(USA) has problems, plenty of them. But it’s not as if other denominations and churches are hassle-free. The Southern Baptists aren’t exactly having a happy church picnic. Neither are the Episcopalians. Nor the Methodists. In fact, every denomination of which I am aware has its share of problems. So if I were to switch from the PC(USA) to a denomination what was theologically and missionally more in line with my own convictions, before long I’d realize that the grass really wasn’t too much greener on the other side of the fence after all.
I have learned this lesson indirectly from several friends who have left the PC(USA). For example, about ten years ago, a friend I’ll call Greg decided that he’d had enough of the PC(USA)’s theological “all-over-the-mapness.” He wanted to be in a denomination that was theologically conservative and clear. So, though he as a PC(USA) pastor and had graduated from Princeton Seminary, a PC(USA) flagship, he determined to leave the denomination. Before long he was called to be the pastor of a PCA church. The Presbyterian Church in America is a conservative denomination, which, in 1973, broke off from the denomination that became the PC(USA) over issues of biblical authority, theological clarity, and the ordination of women. In the last few years, the PCA has been growing steadily, unlike the shrinking PC(USA), though it continues to be considerably smaller than the PC(USA). There are many outstanding PCA churches, notably Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City, where Tim Keller is the senior pastor.
Anyway, back to my story about Greg. He and I remained friends after he left the PC(USA), though we didn’t have much contact for a while. A couple of years after he had joined the PCA, Greg and I had lunch. I asked him how it was going in his new denomination, expecting to hear how much happier he was now than before. “I’ve got to be honest,” he said, “though I’m in much greater in agreement with the PCA theology, I’m getting tired of debates about whether the days in Genesis 1 are literal or not. Sometimes I wish I were back in the PC(USA), where I could be a conservative standing up for biblical truth, rather than someone whose conservative credentials are suspect. Plus, we have plenty of churches with lots of problems. I’m glad I’m pastoring the church I’m in, but sometimes I regret leaving the PC(USA), in spite of all of its issues.”
There isn’t a prefect denomination. Were I to switch to something else, I’d leave behind one set of problems but take on another set.
I expect that, at this point, some of my readers might want to shout: “Then why not join an independent, non-denominational church? You wouldn’t have denominational hassles to worry about.” Indeed. Sometimes non-denominationalism seems to offer much greener grass. I know of some fantastic non-denominational churches, like RockHarbor Church in Costa Mesa, California, near where I used to live. This is a dynamic, growing, theologically-solid church. I know several of the pastors there, and hold them in high regard. (Photo: Todd Proctor is the Lead Pastor [i.e. Senior Pastor] of RockHarbor. Curiously enough, he’s not the primary teacher/preacher. Todd is an accomplished worship leader and composer who has strong leadership gifts.)
But even RockHarbor has its problems. Moreover, I’ve watched lots of independent churches struggle mightily in ways denominational churches often avoid. Because they’re free to make it up as they go along, rather than follow denominational wisdom and be held accountable by denominational bodies, non-denominational churches sometimes get into huge messes. For example, I know of one megachurch in which the board of elders was unhappy with its Senior Pastor. So the board got together and fired the pastor, hiring a brand new pastor in the same meeting. When people arrived at the worship service on the next Sunday morning, they were informed that they had a brand new Senior Pastor. You can imagine the reaction from the people, most of whom had no idea there were problems with the former pastor. The lack of any sort of pastoral transition contributed to the ultimate demise of this once thriving church.
I’ve also had friends who have been summarily fired without due process by their independent churches. In one case, a pastor who thought he was doing a good job was terminated, given only two weeks notice and compensation. The fact that he was supporting a family of four children didn’t seem to matter to the board. This man had no recourse other than to sue his church, which he refused to do on biblical grounds. So he and his family entered an extended season of grief, anger, and financial hardship.
Now I expect some of my readers are wondering why we should bother with the church at all. I can understand such wondering. Sometimes I’ve thought the same myself. But I believe that the church is, in addition to being a human institution with plenty of problems, the body of Christ and the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit. Yes, the church in general and churches in particular have lots of problems. That’s the way it is this side of the new creation. But churches also do lots and lots and lots of good, often representing Christ quite faithfully. Moreover, there are strong theological reasons to be committed to the church, and even to hang with a denomination in crisis. I’ll touch upon some of these reasons in my next post.
Topics: PCUSA: Why Not Leave | 8 Comments »
Sunday Inspiration from The High Calling
By Mark D. Roberts | Sunday, September 7, 2008
All Authority
Jesus came and told his disciples, “I have been given all authority in heaven and on earth.”
All authority! The Heavenly Father gave Jesus all authority in the universe. This does not mean, however, that everything in creation has been renewed. Full restoration has yet to come. But Jesus is Lord over all things now, even though all things and all people do not recognize his sovereignty.
When we put our faith in Jesus, we acknowledge his authority over our lives. We put ourselves under this authority, submitting our will to his. We do this with the confidence that he wants the very best for us. Thus we live joyfully and freely with Jesus as our Lord and Master.
But Jesus is not merely your Lord and my Lord. He is Lord of Heaven and earth. He has ultimate authority: over nations, over corporations, over armies, over cities, over families, over friendships. In time, every aspect of creation will be brought under the lordship of Christ. In the meanwhile, we live so as to demonstrate and extend his rule on earth. We do so, not by coercion or domination, but by living lives of obedience and love.
QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION: What does it mean that Jesus is Lord of your life? Do you live under his authority? How? Where do you struggle to submit to the authority of Jesus?
PRAYER: All praise be to you, Jesus, Lord of heaven and earth.
All praise be to you, Lamb of God, for you chose the path of humiliation and suffering, and for this reason were exalted to the highest place alongside the Father.
All praise be to you, Lord of lords, for you are my gracious and merciful Lord, the one who always wants what is best for me.
All praise be to you, King of kings, for you are manifesting your kingdom in this world, even through people like me. As we wait for the fullness of your kingdom that is yet to come, may we live each day in submission to you. And may your kingdom be seen in and through us. 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 »
Why Not Just Leave the PC(USA)? Part 2
By Mark D. Roberts | Saturday, September 6, 2008
Part 2 of series: Why Not Just Leave the PC(USA)?
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
Yesterday I began to answer the question: Why don’t you just leave the PC(USA)? My first reason was:
I’m not leaving the PC(USA) because my church is part of the PC(USA).
Today I’ll add a couple more reasons.
2. I’m not leaving the PC(USA) because I have dear friends and partners in ministry in this denomination.
My second reason for staying put, at least for now, is like the first. It’s a matter of relationship and partnership in ministry. This answer points to a network of relationships that is broader than my local church. I’ve been a member of the PC(USA) for about 40 years, and an ordained pastor in this denomination for about half that time. Over the years I’ve built close friendships with many outstanding Christians in the PC(USA). Many are fellow pastors with whom I have shared in fellowship and mission. Most of these folk are in Los Ranchos Presbytery (Orange County and part of Los Angeles County, California), where I was a member for sixteen years. Since I moved to Texas, I joined Mission Presbytery, where I’m getting to know some fine folk.
Now I should mention that many of my brothers and sisters in the PC(USA) share my deep concerns about what’s happening in the denomination. We are not just sitting around enjoying each other’s company, that’s for sure. It’s possible that the day will come when many of us will feel compelled to leave the PC(USA). Or it’s possible that we will be involved in some sort of major restructuring of the denomination. Or it’s possible that we will feel called to remain in the PC(USA), standing for biblical truth and authority even though we might be in the minority. Or . . . well, God only knows. But, as I said with respect to my church, I hope that whatever happens between me and the PC(USA), it happens not just with me, but with those who share my commitments and vision for the church.
3. I’m not leaving the PC(USA) because, as of this moment, I have not been required by the denomination to do something that is contrary to my conscience.
Let’s take the most obvious example. As a Minister of Word and Sacrament in the PC(USA), I have always been free to act according to my conscience in all matters, and with regard to gay and lesbian ordination, in particular. Even though the General Assembly of the PC(USA) (our bi-annual national meeting) has voted three times to change our Book of Order to allow for the ordination of actively gay people, so far the church as a whole has not supported this change. We’ll see what happens in 2009, as the presbyteries vote on the latest recommendations from the 2008 General Assembly. But, as of September 5, 2008, I am not required to support the ordination of gays or to condone their lifestyle choices.
If, in 2009, the presbyteries vote to change the Book of Order so as to allow the ordination of active gays and lesbians, then my situation will be different. I have promised to uphold the polity of the PC(USA). If that polity allows for gay ordination, I will be expected to support this practice. I’ve heard people say that perhaps an allowance will be made for people to remain faithful to their convictions if they believe gay ordination is wrong. But, given our history when it comes to ordination, and given the very nature of our connectional polity, it’s hard for me to imagine that the PC(USA) would allow for gays to be ordained, but somehow also allow those of us who think this is wrong not to recognize their ordination.
If the presbyteries vote in 2009 to allow for the ordination of active gays and lesbians, I may feel led to leave the PC(USA). But, before I do this, I would need to pray long and hard about whether God wanted me to remain in the denomination as an advocate of biblical truth. I know quite a few Episcopal pastors who disagree with their denomination’s current position on homosexuality, yet who feel called to remain in the Episcopal Church and to bear witness to biblical teaching. This may be my calling as well in the PC(USA). Then again, it may not be. Time will tell. (Photo: No, not a gathering of Presbyterians, but penguins in Antarctica.)
I have friends who left the PC(USA) because they believed that they had been required to do that which was contrary to their conscience. The most obvious example has to do with money. A small portion of the offerings we give to PC(USA) churches ends up in the coffers of the denomination as a whole. (Some churches withhold all support for the denomination, but this is unusual, at least right now.) This means that whenever the denomination does something I find offensive, whether it has to do with changing the exegesis exam or making outlandish statements about Palestine and Israel or any number of other things, I am in a tiny way providing financial support for such actions. Yet I this has not led me to leave the PC(USA) because I still believe that much of what we do as a network of churches is consistent with the mission of Christ, and because the actual amount of my contribution to things I don’t support is miniscule. I don’t always like what my government does either, but I haven’t felt the need to leave the U.S. in search of a country that would never offend me. I just can’t imagine living in Antarctica.
Topics: PCUSA: Why Not Leave | 5 Comments »
Why Not Just Leave the PC(USA)?
By Mark D. Roberts | Friday, September 5, 2008
Part 1 of series: Why Not Just Leave the PC(USA)?
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
This series is an extension of my recent series, The End of the Presbyterian Church USA? Revisited. That series took a brief detour into a related topic, Presbyterian Exegesis Exam Changed. Now I want to finish up my thoughts about the crisis in the PC(USA), and to do so in a personal way.
I finished The End of the Presbyterian Church USA? Revisited with the question: Where do we go from here? I began to answer that question by urging us to move thoughtfully and prayerfully, yet with full awareness of the deep problems we evangelical Presbyterians face in a denomination that has been moving further and further from its biblical roots. This movement shows no signs of abating, and, in fact, it seems to be accelerating. The recent changes in the PC(USA) exegesis exam provide a striking illustration of this acceleration, and one that has nothing to do with homosexuality, our usual flash point.
Throughout my discussion of the PC(USA) crisis, I have tried to be as honest as I can be about the problems we face in this denomination, as I see them. For a long time, my evangelical colleagues and I have had a tendency to look on the bright side, to focus on mission, and to believe that things in the PC(USA) will, by God’s grace, improve. But in light of events at the 2006 General Assembly, and even moreso at the 2008 General Assembly, such a positive approach seems unduly pollyanaish. We can’t live in denial anymore about the deep theological fissures in our denomination and the negative trends we are facing. We can’t simply focus on the mission of our churches and ignore denominational issues because our mission is becoming increasingly impacted, one might even say hampered, by our denominational connections.
My effort to be blunt but fair about where I think we are in the PC(USA) has been distressing to some of my readers. A few have expressed frustration that I’m hanging in there. They think it’s well past time to leave, and believe I’m dragging my heels. Other readers have seen in my candid criticisms of the PC(USA) clear signs of my imminent departure from the denomination. “Mark’s on his way out,” they say with a sigh. They believe that I have moved too hastily, without giving internal reform, or even the Holy Spirit, a chance to make things better. I expect I have other readers (or former readers!) who are tired of this issue and hope I’ll leave it alone one way or another. As one person said to me: Why not just leave the PC(USA)?
That’s a good question, one I intend to chew on for the next few days. I’m going to answer this question, not as some sort of representative of the evangelical members of the PC(USA), but personally, as an individual who has wrestled with this question for several years. I’m going to try and explain why, as of this moment, I have not left the PC(USA), and why, in fact, I don’t have plans to do so, though my plans could change in the future.
Ironically, I’m in a position now where I’m much freer to leave the PC(USA) than I have been for many years. From June 1991 through September 2007, I was the Senior Pastor of Irvine Presbyterian Church. If I had chosen to leave the PC(USA) during that stretch of time, I would have had to resign my pastorate. Or I would have found myself in the messy position of leading a church out of the denomination. In either case, my personal decision would have impacted more than 1,000 people, not to mention my own family. Today, however, I could leave the PC(USA) with minimal impact on others. My ministry at Laity Lodge requires me to be an ordained pastor, but I expect that, without too much trouble, I could find another denomination or church that would endorse my ordination. I could even continue to be part of the fellowship at my PC(USA) church, though I’d no longer be an official parish associate. So, my current situation gives me a freedom to leave the PC(USA) that most of my pastoral colleagues do not share. This fact is perplexing to some, who still want to know: Why don’t you just leave the PC(USA)?
Here begins my answer to that question.
1. I’m not leaving the PC(USA) because my church is part of the PC(USA).
Yes, I know it sounds like I just contradicted myself. I could leave the PC(USA) and still worship at St. Mark Presbyterian Church in Boerne, where I live. I’m quite sure nobody in the church would kick me out. But, even though, as an ordained pastor, I’m not technically a member of St. Mark, but a member of Mission Presbytery, I consider this church to be my home church. My wife is a member there. My children are actively involved there. I’m enjoying getting to know the people there. They have warmly welcomed me and my family. The pastor at St. Mark is a man of admirable integrity and biblical commitment, as are his staff colleagues. I appreciate the theological solidness of preaching and worship at St. Mark. So, if anything, I want to strengthen my ties with this congregation, not weaken them. If things with the PC(USA) get worse, as I fear they will, I want to wrestle through these challenges with my fellow believers at St. Mark, because they are my church family. (Photo: The chancel of St. Mark Presbyterian Church in Boerne).
I realize that it may seem odd to some of my readers that my first reason for staying in a denomination has to do with my personal relationship with a particular church. Why not just stay with this church but cut ties with the PC(USA) as a whole? The reason is that my relationship with the PC(USA) as a whole has never been primarily a matter of denominational affiliation so much as a personal relationship with a particular church and its people. I became a pastor in the PC(USA), not mainly because I affirmed denominational beliefs and practices, but because I was actively involved in a PC(USA) congregation, the First Presbyterian Church of Hollywood. I am a Presbyterian today mostly because of relationships I have had and continue to have with other Presbyterians. Because these relationships matter greatly to me, I am not inclined to break or injure or threaten them. If I’m ever in a place where I must leave the PC(USA), I hope I’ll be doing so with many others of like conviction, and not as a solo venture. This isn’t just about feeling connected. It’s a matter of theological conviction about the importance of corporate discernment and fellowship.
I’ll have more to say about why I’m not leaving the PC(USA) next time.
Topics: PCUSA: Why Not Leave | 11 Comments »
Postscript: Michael Card and the PC(USA) Exegesis Exam
By Mark D. Roberts | Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Part 5 of series: Presbyterian Exegesis Exam Changed
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
I had thought that I was finished weighing in on recent changes in the PC(USA) exegesis exam. But an experience I had this past weekend motivated me to add a postscript to my series. This experience was of Michael Card.
If you’re familiar with Michael Card, you probably know him as an award-winning Christian musician and songwriter. His best known song is “El Shaddai,” which was recorded by Amy Grant, among many others. Michael has released over 30 musical albums, and has won several Dove awards from the Gospel Music Association (the Christian music Grammy). You may not know that Michael Card is also a fine author, having written many books, several of which have also won awards. And you may not know that he is also a radio talk show host and a fine Bible teacher.
Michael came to Laity Lodge this past weekend in the unusual role of speaker and musician. Usually two or ever three people fill these roles in a Laity Lodge retreat. But Michael did it all . . . quite splendidly, I might add. He was also a delight to hang around with. He’s not impressed that he’s Michael Card, even when those around him are.
Michael’s subject was not one that would immediately jump out at you as something you’re dying to learn more about. In six messages he addressed the issue of slavery: in the Old Testament, New Testament, and in our lives. Though he mentioned the ethical crisis of slavery in today’s world, his focus was not so much on questions of justice as it was on what it means for us to be slaves of our Heavenly Master, the one who took the form of a slave in giving himself up for us on the cross.
Michael offered many new insights into Scripture. Among other things, he showed beyond question just how important it is for us to understand slavery if we’re going to make sense of New Testament Christianity. Slavery played a major role in the culture of the Roman world, and the imagery of slavery fills the pages of the New Testament. Jesus, for example, told many parables in which slaves were prominently features (for example, Matt 25:14-30). Paul identified himself as a slave of Christ (for example, Rom 1:1). The prominence of slave language in the New Testament is hidden by most English translations, which prefer to translate doulos, the Greek word for slave, with servant, rather than slave. But close attention to the original Greek of the New Testament proves how central slavery is to the life and theology of the first Christians. (Photo: Michael Card teaching at Laity Lodge. If you look closely, you’ll see doulos, a Greek word for slave, on the tablet behind him.)
Michael Card was able to see the centrality of slavery in the New Testament, in spite of the limitations of English translations, because he has some facility with Greek (also Hebrew). I didn’t ask him how much Greek he has studied, but he used it frequently and competently. His knowledge of Greek enabled him to see things that would be almost impossible for someone without some knowledge of Greek to see.
As he taught, I couldn’t help but thinking of my recent laments about the PC(USA) exegesis exam, which no longer expects potential pastors to demonstrate basic knowledge of the ancient biblical languages. Although candidates are still expected to take these languages in seminary, I fear the new standards for the exegesis exam serve as a sign of the PC(USA)’s lagging commitment to serious study of the Bible.
What I experienced with Michael Card this past weekend at Laity Lodge was a powerful reminder of why it’s so important for Ministers of Word and Sacrament to know and to use Greek and Hebrew (even if with the helpful crutch of a computer). Translations, no matter how good they might be, only get us so far in the task of biblical interpretation. One who can investigate the original languages has an unparalleled chance to find deeper truth, just as Michael Card has done when it comes to slavery.
The main point of Michael’s study of slavery was to challenge us to consider how we can be truly free by submitting ourselves fully to Christ as our Master. The point is not bondage, not at all. It is experiencing the freedom of the Christian life, a “better freedom,” as Michael calls it. If you’re interested in what this is all about, let me point you to a new song Michael has written, called “A Better Freedom.” It is not available on one of his CDs yet, but it can be found on the “By/For” website. (This website, by the way, is a wonderful new ministry inaugurated by Michael and some of his colleagues. It seeks to make available for free works of art, music, and teaching that are “by the church” and “for the church.” Be sure to check out www.byfor.org.)
Michael Card also did a concert for us as a part of his leadership of the Laity Lodge retreat. It was a giant blessing to enjoy his music both in person and in such an intimate venue (70-person venue). I have enjoyed his music for more than two decades, but have never heard him in person. (Photo: Michael Card in concert at Laity Lodge from my perspective in the front row. Click here to see a short clip of Michael at the concert.)
If you’re not familiar with his music, I’d certainly recommend it. Michael is wonderfully gifted musician (singer, guitar player, piano player, etc.). But what makes him almost unique is his ability to write songs based on Scripture, songs that tell the story of the Bible in profound poetry. After this weekend, I now know one more reason why Michael is such a fantastic songwriter: his deep study of the biblical text includes attention to the original languages, which gives him the ability to write songs such as “El Shaddai” (a Hebrew term for God, usually translated “God Almighty”).
To sum up, my point in this post is to show how knowledge of biblical languages isn’t just some arcane denominational requirement that should be jettisoned. Rather, it is a precious tool that allows a teacher – and even a contemporary Christian songwriter – to plumb the depths of biblical truth.
Topics: PCUSA: End of? | 11 Comments »
A Thought for Labor Day
By Mark D. Roberts | Monday, September 1, 2008
On this Labor Day, may you consider the meaning of your work,
and how you can do all things for the Lord.
May you have a blessed Labor Day!
Topics: Holidays | 1 Comment »