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/
|
Interview of Chris Smith: Part 1
By Mark D. Roberts | Monday, July 21, 2008
Part 1 of series: Rediscovering the Books and Beauty of the Bible
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
Note: I have more to say about the PCUSA issues, but am away speaking at a conference right now. So I’ll put up an interesting interview I recently did with Chris Smith. I’ll get back to the PCUSA soon.
If you’re a regular reader of my blog, you know how much I value the Bible as God’s Word. Thus it won’t surprise you to know that I’m troubled by the surveys that show most Americans, even most Christians, don’t read the Bible very much. We own Bibles, sometimes many of them. But we don’t tend to open them very much.
There are some good reasons for this, apart from obvious spiritual ones like sin. Many of us don’t read the Bible because it isn’t easy to read. Many translations make the Bible seem like a distant relative who speaks English with a strong accent we don’t easily comprehend. Even the layout of the Bible makes it seem more like a rulebook and less like a story we’d actually like to read.
Thus I’m interested in efforts to help today’s people actually read and understand the Bible. Eugene Peterson’s fantastically successful The Message is the most familiar of such endeavors, but his is not the only one. Chris Seay of Ecclesia, an emergent church in Houston, is heading up a project called The Voice. This is an effort to gather scholars, writers, and poets together and produce an accurate, contemporary translation of the Bible. It’s something like The Message for the next generations.
Another effort to help folks get into Scripture comes from The International Bible Society. It’s called The Books of the Bible. It’s not a new translation of Scripture, but rather a new presentation of the biblical text. One might argue that it’s really a renewed version of the original presentation of the biblical books, before editors got to them. One of the major goals of The Books of the Bible is to convey the beauty of the biblical text, especially its narrative.
I learned about The Books of the Bible from an old friend, Chris Smith. He and I got reconnected through the Internet, renewing our college friendship. In the course of our communication, Chris shared with me what he’s been doing recently, and much of this focused on The Books of the Bible.
I thought it would be helpful for my readers to get to know Chris, and especially to learn more about his exciting biblical project. So, beginning today, I’m doing an online interview of Chris. I expect you’ll be as fascinated as I was to learn about his Bible project. (Photo: Chris Smith)
Interview of Chris Smith, Part 1
Mark: Hello, Chris. Thanks so much for taking the time to do this interview. We were good friends while at Harvard. Only recently have we made contact through the Internet. So what have you been doing since 1980?
Chris: Yes, I’m afraid it has been that long. I went to Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and then did a Ph.D. in the ecumenical, interdisciplinary theological studies program at Boston College and Andover Newton. Before finishing seminary, I took several years off and worked first as a pastor and then as a writer-editor for the Department of Communications in Canada, where my wife Priscilla is from. After finishing my doctorate, I pastored the First Baptist Church of Williamstown, Massachusetts for nine years. Lots of students from Williams College came to the church and it was great to work with them. I’ve now just completed a six-year pastorate at the University Baptist Church of East Lansing, Michigan, where I once again enjoyed working with undergraduate, graduate and international students at Michigan State University, as well as faculty, staff and administrators.
Mark: So you’ve been a student, a writer-editor, and a pastor during the last 28 years. How did you end up getting involved in a project to reconfigure the Bible to enhance its readability?
Chris: Over the years I’ve also been writing and teaching. I’ve pursued a particular interest I have in the books of the Bible as literary creations. I guess this dates back to my years as an English major at Harvard, and even farther back to my being raised by a father who is a pastor and a mother who is a professor of literature. I’ve written in academic journals about the literary structures of biblical books, and taught adjunct and extension courses on books of the Bible. In 1999 I offered a course on “The Bible Without Chapters and Verses” at the Regent College Summer School in Vancouver. Through this course, Glenn Paauw, director of product development for the International Bible Society, found out about my work. He asked me to help him and his team with the new Scripture format they wanted to design. I and a couple of others began working with them as consultants in 2003. Today’s New International Version (TNIV), for which IBS holds the copyright, was being released in 2005. The goal was to have an edition of the TNIV in the new format ready soon after the original release of the translation. The Books of The Bible was published in the summer of 2007. (Photo: Members of the Bible design group, from left to right: Glenn Paauw, Lisa Anderson, John Dunham, Gene Rubingh, Chris Smith, Paul Berry, Jim Rottenborn. Missing from this picture: John Kohlenberger, Micah Wierenga.
Mark: So why did you want to change the way the Bible is presented? It almost sounds like you’re tampering with Scripture. You’re not messing around with God’s truth, are you?
Chris: Not at all. In fact, our starting point was the belief that the Bible is the inspired word of God and that therefore, when we open our hearts to its message, the Holy Spirit brings us to faith and transforms our lives, relationships, and communities. The problem is, people just aren’t reading the Bible. Research has shown that while millions of Bibles are distributed in America every year, relatively few of them are ever read. One of the main reasons for this is the format in which the Bible is presented. People see two columns of tiny type, sprinkled with large and small numbers, crowded between notes and references, and it looks like no book they’ve ever seen before. It’s unattractive, and they don’t want to read it.
Mark: As I get older and my vision gets worse, I’m quite aware of that “tiny type” reality. But I’d imagine that the peculiar way in which the Bible is printed can even keep younger readers with great vision from digging in to God’s truth. Yes?
Chris: Yes, indeed. The visual presentation of the biblical text discourages people from picking up a Bible in the first place. But even when people do try reading the Bible, they often don’t understand or enjoy it.
Mark: Okay, so where did we get those chapter and verse numbers, anyway? I know they weren’t in the original biblical manuscripts. When were they added?
Chris: The chapters and verses that the Bible was divided into came many centuries after its books were written. Chapters were introduced around 1200 AD, so that authors of commentaries could refer to passages more easily. Verses were added around 1550 AD, originally so that a concordance to the Greek New Testament could be prepared. In other words, chapters and verses were introduced so that reference works could be created. They were never intended to guide devotional reading or to structure public teaching.
Mark: It seems strange to think of the Bible without the chapters and verse numbers, since they’re so much a part of the Bibles we read today. They almost seem sacred, though I know they’re not. Why do these get in the way of our understanding of Scripture?
Chris: Chapters were intended to be roughly all the same length. But the natural sections of biblical books are of greatly varying lengths. Thus chapters tend to divide up a longer sections into shorter ones, or else put shorter sections together into what looks deceptively like a coherent unity. For example, in 1 Corinthians, discussions of single topics have been divided into chapters 1, 2, 3 and 4; into chapters 8, 9 and 10; and into chapters 12, 13 and 14. Meanwhile, two shorter discussions have been combined in chapters 6, 7, and 11. Another short discussion is attached to Paul’s travel plans and greetings in chapter 16. Only chapters 5 and 15 consist of a single discussion in its entirety. How can anyone understand a book that’s been divided up like this, if they try to read it chapter by chapter?
Mark: When I’ve read devotionally through the Bible, going chapter by chapter, I’ve experienced what you’re talking about. But I’ve never given this too much thought, honestly. So what’s wrong with the verse numbers?
Chris: Adding verses to chapters made things even worse. Verses create the impression that the Bible consists of series of independent statements–that it’s a collection of authoritarian rules or doctrinal propositions. This is particularly deadly for a postmodern audience, which is not really receptive to those things. But postmodern people are very receptive to art, music, poetry and the like. If we can make the original literary forms of the biblical books visible once again, postmoderns will be much better able to receive the message the Bible has been trying to convey all along through its stories, songs, letters and poems. All of us, in fact, would do better to engage the Bible as a collection of literary creations that together trace the path of God’s redemptive work.
Topics: Books and Beauty of the Bible | 1 Comment »
Sunday Inspiration from The High Calling
By Mark D. Roberts | Sunday, July 20, 2008
The Compassion of Jesus
Then Jesus called his disciples and told them, “I feel sorry for these people. They have been here with me for three days, and they have nothing left to eat. I don’t want to send them away hungry, or they will faint along the way.”
A few days ago we read the story of the feeding of the 5,000. Today we come upon a similar narrative in which Jesus multiplies bread and fish to feed 4,000 men (plus many women and children).
One of the unique features in this story is the description of Jesus’ motivation for feeding the crowd. According to the New Living Translation (2nd ed), Jesus said “I feel sorry for these people” (v. 32). The original Greek text uses a verb that means “to have compassion.” We might paraphrase, “My heart is moved for these people.” (Ironically, the Greek verb is based on the word for the intestines, which was thought to be the seat of emotions. The heart was a place of thinking and willing.)
On a literal level, Jesus felt compassion for the crowds because they were hungry. But what this story illustrates goes beyond the literal. It helps us to envision the compassion Jesus has for all who are needy, including us. We may not suffer from actual hunger, but we do have a yearning for God. Even when we know God through Christ, we still ache to know God more deeply. We seek his presence, his power, his peace.
QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION: Have you ever experienced God’s compassion for you? When? Does it sometimes seem as if God doesn’t care about you? In times when God feels distant, what helps you to have confidence in his love?
PRAYER: Dear Lord, what an encouragement it is to know that you have compassion for people. There are times, I must confess, when it seems as if you’re far away from me and don’t care. But this story from Matthew reminds me of the truth, that you feel compassion for me when I hurt, when I’m lost and struggling to find you. Thank you, Lord.
Even as you have compassion for the needy, help me to do the same. When my heart is hard, may your Spirit bring tenderness. When I fail to see the needs of people, give me your eyes. May I feel genuine compassion today for the people around me. Then may I act out my heart of love for them, just like you did . . . and still do. Amen.
A P.S. from Mark
Immediately after I finished writing this Daily Reflection, I checked my email. I got a note about a man who is struggling physically and facing yet another surgery. I don’t really know this man, though we’ve spoken on the phone once. But, by God’s grace, I my heart was moved by his condition, and by the Spirit. So I called him up. We had a warm conversation and then I closed by praying for him. Thanks be to God for answering my prayer for a more compassionate heart!
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 »
Catching My Breath . . .
By Mark D. Roberts | Friday, July 18, 2008
Thanks for all of your helpful, encouraging, and challenging comments on my recent posts on the PCUSA crisis. I have more to add to that series, but need to catch my breath. Right now I’m helping to facilitate a conference at Laity Lodge (my day job!). We are blessed to have some wonderful resource people for this retreat, including: Dr. J.I. Packer (theologian; Regent College); Dr. Terry Hargrave (professor; Fuller Seminary; counselor); Charles Webb (pianist; retired dean of Indiana Univ. School of Music).
At Charles’s urging, we invited a 19-year-old violinist, Esther Kim. She is an amazing artist and musician, and a sweet human being as well. Esther has won lots of international awards for her artistry, and adds a magical touch to our retreat. For more about Esther, check out her website. And for a real treat, watch this YouTube clip of Esther when she was only 13 years old. Amazing!
Topics: Sharing Laity Lodge | 3 Comments »
Can We, Can We All Get Along? Section 4
By Mark D. Roberts | Thursday, July 17, 2008
Part 8 of series: The End of the Presbyterian Church USA? Revisited
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
No, We Can’t All Get Along as a Unified Denomination
Of course we Presbyterians haven’t been getting along very well for a long time. We’ve been fighting over homosexuality for thirty years. This isn’t just a matter of intransigence or a quest for power. I’ve shown that those who support gay ordination see it as a matter of fundamental justice, while those who oppose it see it as a matter of fundamental righteousness. If I’m anywhere close to correct in this analysis, then it’s obvious why the PCUSA is so divided today, has been so divided in the past, and will continue to be so divided in the future. We’re not dealing with relatively insignificant matters of church practice or theological issues about which we can agree to disagree, but with fundamental biblical realities and convictions. We’re talking here about justice and righteousness, and ultimately about sin and love. It doesn’t get much bigger than this.
So, though we who disagree on this issue can get along in a wide variety of contexts, we clearly cannot get along when it comes to the question of who should and should not be ordained. And this is one of the essential functions of a denomination. Thus we can’t just agree to live and let live when it comes to homosexuality and ordination. If one group of Presbyterians ordains someone and another group of Presbyterians cannot recognize that ordination, then those groups are profoundly divided. Such a division makes denominational connectionalism extremely difficult if not impossible to maintain. It also cripples many efforts at unified mission. And it greatly complicates the ministry of individual churches.
It seems that the new moderator of the General Assembly, Bruce Reyes-Chow, agrees with me about this, though we come down on opposite sides of the gay ordination issue. Here’s an excerpt from one of his blogs:
For some issues I think this [agreeing to disagree] is entirely possible. For me I can live with agreeing to disagree on things such as . . .
How do we engage in evangelism and mission
What language we use for God
Our voice/action in regards to the Middle East
Positions on a myriad of social issues;
But when it comes to homosexuality, regardless on which side of the aisle you live on, how long can one be engaged in a community where the position is held in the contrary? Could we agree to disagree about the ordination of women? Could we agree to disagree about interracial marriage? I don’t think we could, but yet for some reason we believe we can in this case.
This is not a call for folks who disagree either way to get the heck out of dodge, but it is a little nudge out there to see what folks are thinking. If in the end, it looks like we are headed in a particular direction or if we are already there, would our efforts be better spent in grace-filled disengagement that allows for new life? Do we keep passionately engaged in the discourse trying to reach some kind of resolution? Do we sit in the middle with a posture of “wait and see” and/or “don’t ask, don’t tell”? (Photo: Bruce Reyes-Chow as moderator)
I’m grateful for Bruce’s willingness to raise this issue and to speak so openly. Even though he and I disagree on several things, I find his candor to be a breath of fresh air. And I would be quite glad to team up with him in a variety of ministries, even though I’m not sure it would be productive for us to serve in the same denomination indefinitely. Along with Bruce, I wonder if our efforts as Presbyterians would “be better spent in grace-filled disengagement that allows for new life?”
For thirty years members of the PCUSA have battled over the ordination of active homosexuals, with one side fighting for justice and the other side fighting for righteousness. Most votes, whether in General Assemblies or in presbyteries, have been relatively close. Whether one side or the other is on top for the moment, the denomination is deeply divided. And this division will continue because, whatever you might think of PCUSA folk, or if you are one, whatever you might think of the other side in this debate, both sides operate with integrity and conviction and persistence given their beliefs about homosexuality. Neither side will surrender its integrity or give up its conviction, even if it’s currently losing the battle. In the end, either one side will win definitively, and the other side will leave the PCUSA, or both sides will keep on fighting until there is no more PCUSA to fight for. If current trends continue, the end of the PCUSA, one way or another, is both inevitable and imminent.
Topics: PCUSA: End of? | 31 Comments »
Can We, Can We All Get Along? Section 3
By Mark D. Roberts | Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Part 7 of series: The End of the Presbyterian Church USA? Revisited
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
In my last post I tried to explain the ideological and emotional motivation of those who support the ordination of gays and lesbians. They believe it’s a matter of justice, even divine justice.
For Opponents of Gay Ordination: A Matter of Righteousness
Those who oppose gay ordination see it as a matter of fundamental righteousness. It has to do with right and wrong, with right relationships and wrong relationships. Opponents of gay ordination base their moral judgments on their interpretation of the Bible’s teaching about sexuality in general and homosexuality in particular. For them, Scripture is abundantly clear about “fidelity and chastity.” Sex can be right only in the context of a monogamous marriage between a man and a woman. Sex outside of this relationship, whether it be homosexual or heterosexual, is sinful.
Those who regard all homosexual activity is sinful do not insist that persons with homosexual feelings cannot be ordained. They ask such people to live in chastity, just as they ask those who are heterosexual but unmarried. Moreover, opponents of gay ordination do not deny that homosexual Christians can be gifted for ministry. They do believe, however, that such people should live according to biblical righteousness. And this, in the view of gay ordination opponents, makes no room for homosexuality activity.
Even if you disagree with folks who oppose the ordination of active homosexuals, you must at least recognize that they aren’t necessarily crazy or bigoted or homophobic. The vast majority of Christians throughout history have believed that homosexual behavior is wrong. And the vast majority of Christians throughout the world today still believe this. Some of these people may have been motivated by ignorance or meanness. But many have come to their conclusion prayerfully and with genuine compassion for gay and lesbian people. I know many parents who deeply love their gay or lesbian adult children, and who continue to have positive relationships with them even though they believe that their children are making wrong choices with regard to their sexual expression. Many of these parents would love to be able to affirm their children’s choices completely, but their commitment to Scripture precludes this option.
Christians who consider Scripture as their primary source for divine guidance usually conclude that homosexual behavior is always wrong. This isn’t a case of irresponsibly reading one’s own views willy-nilly into the text (even if it’s an incorrect reading of Scripture). Consider some basic evidence: Not one passage in the Bible speaks positively of homosexual behavior or gay relationships. Not one passage in the Bible provides a positive example of an active homosexual in leadership. Wherever Scripture speaks directly about homosexual behavior, it judges it to be wrong. Some gay advocates claim that the Bible doesn’t condemn sexual intimacy between loving, mature, committed persons of the same sex. But even if they’re correct, which I doubt, this leaves gay advocates who seek to base their position on Scripture with, at most, an argument from silence combined with many explicit counter-examples. That’s why most supporters of gay ordination do not base their position upon the Bible alone. It’s seems clear to me that those who see homosexual behavior as sinful are in line with the plain and consistent teaching of Scripture, even if, in the end, they’re wrong to regard all homosexual activity as sinful. (Of course those of us who hold this position don’t believe we are wrong.)
So, if the PCUSA were to ordain people who are engaging in homosexual behavior and who intend to keep on doing so (as opposed to repenting of it), then folks on the pro-righteousness side believe that the PCUSA would be endorsing sin. It would be a contradiction of biblical righteousness. It would be just as if the PCUSA allowed avowed racists to be ordained on the ground that racism is not always wrong. One cannot be committed to the PCUSA and to the belief that homosexual behavior is sinful and simply let the PCUSA approve of sin. Live and let live just won’t work here. Folks who oppose gay ordination are compelled by their commitment to the PCUSA and by their biblically-shaped moral convictions to fight against any allowance for gay ordination. Their perception of biblical righteousness requires it. Their sense of faithfulness to God demands it.
In my next post I’ll draw some conclusions about our “getting along” as a denomination in light of what I’ve explained in this and the last post.
Topics: PCUSA: End of? | 10 Comments »
Can We, Can We All Get Along? Section 2
By Mark D. Roberts | Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Part 6 of series: The End of the Presbyterian Church USA? Revisited
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
In my last post I continued my reflections on the crisis in the Presbyterian Church USA. Given our disagreements and divisions over many things, centrally, the ordination of active gays and lesbians, is it possible for members of the PCUSA to compromise, to find away to move forward without major reorganization or separation. In the classic question of Rodney King, “Can we, can we all get along?”
I answered this question with a clear yes . . . and no. Yes, we can get along in many ways, the ways we Presbyterians get along with folk in other denominations. But the division in the PCUSA over the issue of gay ordination is so deep, and the convictions associate with it so strong, that I have come to believe we can’t get along as a united denomination, at least not in the forms of our past.
This conclusion is one I have arrived at slowly. It has come, substantially, from my having listened for years to folks on both sides of the issue. As you might well expect, I have found it easier to listen to those with whom I agree. But I have also spent many, many hours listening to those with whom I disagree, hearing their concerns, their pains, their hopes. I have heard their resolve, their passion, their commitment to their side of this issue. This has led me to conclude that neither side in this debate is apt to be persuaded to change its mind, and that neither side is apt to give up the matter as inconsequential.
I will try to explain this as best I can, beginning with the side that affirms gay ordination. If you’ve been reading my blog for a while, you know that this is not my side. I will try to be fair, nevertheless. I do have quite a few friends on “the other side,” as it were. And, though I disagree with them, I have respect for them and their convictions.
For Supporters of Gay Ordination: A Matter of Justice
Those who support gay ordination see it as a matter of fundamental justice. They believe that the PCUSA has been oppressing gays and lesbians, denying them their basic rights as Christians and as members of the PCUSA. Folks on the pro-gay side believe that it is not always sinful for people to engage in homosexual activity, and therefore it is wrong to preclude the ordination of all active gays and lesbians. In fact, supporters of gay ordination differ widely on the conditions required for same-sex intimacy to be okay. A few would argue that it’s acceptable only if two people have a lifelong, monogamous commitment to each other, a gay marriage, if you will. Most on the pro-gay side do not limit acceptable sexual expression only to such a relationship. They see sex between two mature, loving people (gay or straight) as potentially blessed by God even when there is no religious or civil union.
When people believe that the ordination of homosexuals is a matter of basic justice, then they’re not going to drop it, even if they continue to lose the votes in General Assembly or the presbyteries. They will continue to fight for what they believe in, even if the fight goes on indefinitely. They feel justified in their cause. They are convinced that God is on their side, or, that they are on God’s side, the side of justice.
One who appears to take the justice side in this debate is the new moderator of the PCUSA, Bruce Reyes-Chow. Here’s what he writes on his blog about homosexuality and justice:
The fundamental dilemma . . . is where one places homosexuality itself. At the core of the debate is whether or not one considered homosexuality a sin or a natural God-created trait. I obviously hold the latter way of thinking. Much like race - and this is a huge debate in the brown community - I see sexual orientation as the same created gift as gender and race. I think as long as it is still seen as a SIN, the “love the sinner, hate the sin” is simply a friendly gesture to maintain some facade of civility. Yes, you are not screaming for outright violence, but there is still a message of division that is shared. On the other hand, if one does NOT think homosexuality is a sin, then one engages differently and focuses on what I would consider more shared human areas of brokenness: poverty, oppression, violence, etc. (Photo: Bruce Reyes-Chow running for moderator)
It’s easy for me to understand why those who support gay ordination, as people who are committed to justice, believe that they’re acting in accord with God’s will. The Bible is filled with the call to justice, especially on behalf of those who are marginalized or oppressed. Thus, many Christians have seen advocacy for gay and lesbian people as a part of their faithfulness to God, even to the Scripture that calls us to do justice. The PCUSA, in their view, has marginalized and oppressed gay people by not ordaining them. Divine justice requires a change in ordination policy, and they will fight for this change.
From their point of view, those who deny ordination to gays and lesbians are perpetrators of injustice. Thus supporters of gay ordination can’t sit back and “get along” with the other side as long as it prevails. They must fight for justice until they win. So, when the PCUSA votes to deny ordination to gays and lesbians, they don’t stop fighting, but press on to seek what they believe to be divine justice.
For many on this side of the issue, they believe they’re not only on the side of justice, but also on the side of love. They often have close relationships with gay and lesbian Presbyterians who have been hurt by the church’s ordination stance. Thus, compassion for those who have been excluded seems to demand a change in Presbyterian polity, in addition to a call to justice.
When people believe they are on the side of God’s justice, and when their hearts are moved by compassion, they are apt to be steadfast and immovable in their convictions and in their efforts to foster institutional change. This is exactly what we have seen in the last thirty years in the PCUSA.
But then there’s the other side. In my next post I’ll explain how those who oppose gay ordination see the issue.
Topics: PCUSA: End of? | 18 Comments »
Can We, Can We All Get Along? Section 1
By Mark D. Roberts | Monday, July 14, 2008
Part 5 of series: The End of the Presbyterian Church USA? Revisited
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
On March 3, 1991, in Lake View Terrace, California, only about seven miles where I lived at the time, an African-American motorist named Rodney King was pulled over by Los Angeles police officers. What exactly happened in the next moments is disputed, but, before long, the officers were savagely beating King. The bulk of this beating was caught on video by a spectator, and his footage was subsequently shown endlessly on television.
On April 29, 1992, when three of the four officers who beat Rodney King were acquitted by a jury that included no African-Americans, catastrophic riots broke out in Los Angeles. By the end of the riots, 55 people had been killed and there were over $1 billion in property damages. In the midst of the riots, Rodney King himself made a televised plea for peace. “Can we, can we all get along?” he asked, plaintively. “Can we, can we get along?” (Photo: Rodney King makes his plea.)
If you’re a faithful member of a PCUSA church, but one who hasn’t been active in the thirty-year PCUSA fight over homosexuality, you may want to ask, “Can we, can we all get along? Why not simply admit our differences and get on with our mission? Why do we have to keep on fighting? Why can’t we just live and let live? Why can’t those who have been fighting for gay ordination just drop it? Or, conversely, why can’t those who have been resisting gay ordination let individuals, churches, and presbyteries make up their own minds about the matter. Why must we keep fighting for a uniform Presbyterian standard on the ordination of homosexuals? Can we, can we all get along?”
These questions gain force when you consider the sad history of the PCUSA since we started arguing about homosexuality. That debate began in 1978, when the churches that would soon merge to form the PCUSA (UPCUSA and PCUS) had well over 3,000,000 members. Thirty years later, total membership in the PCUSA has declined by a net of over 30%. Though we’ve gained new members along the way, our losses have been staggering, and are increasing.*
I’m not claiming that our membership loss is related only to our endless argument about homosexuality. But when you consider how this debate has looked to potential PCUSA members, and when you consider the vast resources we have poured into it, and when you think of those who have left the denomination because of our various and confusing positions on homosexuality, surely this debate has contributed to our numerical decline. Though our argument about homosexuality hasn’t come with the billion dollar price tag of the L.A. riots, I’m quite sure it has cost the PCUSA millions of dollars in salaries, informational material, travel to meetings, and so forth, not to mention lost revenue. And when you consider the time we Presbyterians have devoted to this issue for the past three decades, the loss for actual ministry is staggering.
So, then, can we, can we all get along?
Yes. And no. There is no simple answer to this question. It all depends on what you mean by “get along.” We can get along when we worship and pray together. We can get along when we participate in common mission, building a house with Habitat for Humanity, or reaching out to victims of a natural disaster. We can get along in our common confession of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and in the fellowship of his table. We can learn from each other and share our victories and struggles together. In these ways and many more we who support the ordination of homosexuals and we who oppose it can get along.
But what I’ve just described is exactly the kind of getting along that Presbyterians enjoy with Episcopalians, Lutherans, and Methodists. It’s the getting along that bridges denominational barriers. Yet we who believe in the presbyterian form of church government (rule by elders) would not be able to be in the same denomination as Episcopalians, Lutherans, and Methodists, who affirm an episcopal form of church government (rule by bishops). Though we share a fundamental oneness in our faith, and though we share much in common from a missional point of view, our differences are substantial enough to keep us in separate denominations.
I have come to believe that, in the end, Presbyterians who support the ordination of gays and lesbians, and Presbyterians who oppose is, will not be able to get along in the sense of being in the same denomination, unless that denomination has very loose ties. The only compromise I can possibly imagine would involve a massive reorganization of the PCUSA into governing bodies divided according to their views and practices in a number of areas, including homosexuality. But this sort of union would be very little union at all, and, in all likelihood, would be at most a temporary measure.
Okay, okay, let me acknowledge one other genuine compromise, which really would be no compromise at all. It’s always possible that the Spirit of God could sweep through the PCUSA in such a way that minds and hearts were changed, with the result being genuine unity on many theological issues by the vast majority of Presbyterians, including the moral character of homosexual activity. You’ll notice that I haven’t prejudged which way the Spirit might blow, though I’d surely expect this to be in a biblical direction, away from gay ordination, given my beliefs about homosexual activity. Folks on the other side would expect the Spirit to blow in the opposite direction. I do believe that such major renewal of the PCUSA is possible, but only because I believe in the God of the impossible. The past thirty years of PCUSA infighting, as well as my understanding of the issues, do not suggest that God is engaged in such spiritual renewal in the PCUSA. History suggests that we PCUSA folk will never get along as members of the same denomination when it comes to the issue of gay ordination.
If you’re not close to this debate, what I’ve just said about the unlikelihood of compromise may seem unduly negative. Surely there must be some way to get us together. Of course if you look at the history of the PCUSA for the last thirty years, you’d have to admit that I’m just being realistic. But let me explain further why I believe ultimate compromise on this issue is unlikely. It has to do with what the folks on either side believe about it, and the strength of these beliefs.
___________________
*Note: in 1983 the PCUSA had 3,121,339 members. In 2007 it had 2,209,546 members. That’s a net loss of 911,792 members, or 29%. Though I don’t have the figures, I’m quite sure the combined totals of the UPCUSA and PCUS were higher in 1978. Thus my conclusion of a 30% loss in that last 30 years.
Topics: PCUSA: End of? | 42 Comments »
Sunday Inspiration from The High Calling
By Mark D. Roberts | Sunday, July 13, 2008
Buried Treasure
“The Kingdom of Heaven is like a treasure that a man discovered hidden in a field. In his excitement, he hid it again and sold everything he owned to get enough money to buy the field.”
The phrase “kingdom of heaven” appears commonly in the Gospel of Matthew. It is a variation of the phrase “kingdom of God” that appears occasionally in Matthew and more frequently in Mark and Luke. “Kingdom of heaven” employs a Jewish linguistic convention that tries not to speak directly of God. It would be similar to my grandmother’s saying “Good heaven!” where others would have said “Good God!”
The kingdom of heaven is God’s reign over the earth. It began to be present in the ministry of Jesus and continues to be present on earth through the Spirit-filled people of God. Someday, God’s kingdom will fully come on earth, when all things are recreated according to God’s master plan. In the meanwhile, we who have put our faith in Jesus have the opportunity to live under God’s reign each day. We are able to do the works of God, guided and empowered by his indwelling Spirit.
The parable of buried treasure reminds us of just how wonderful it is to live under God’s kingdom. When we realize that we have the chance to live in relationship with the King of kings and to serve him in our daily lives, and when we see how fantastic this can be, we’re willing to give up everything for the sake of the kingdom. Nothing in life compares with the joy of knowing and serving God.
QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION: How much do you value the kingdom of God? Would you be willing to sell everything you have if that were required to live in God’s kingdom? Why or why not? What helps you to realize how wonderful it is to know and serve God?
PRAYER: Gracious God, every now and then I grasp the wonder of your kingdom. I see how magnificent it is. I am floored by the fact that I can know you and serve you. In these times, I’m excited to give up everything for you.
But, to be honest, there are so many times when I’m rather more nonchalant about your kingdom. I can come before you in prayer with a ho-hum attitude. The opportunity to give away your love and kindness can seem almost boring. Forgive me, Lord, for so undervaluing the treasure of your kingdom.
Even today, help me to see afresh the glory of your kingdom. May I realize what a marvelous treasure you have offered to me. And then, may I offer all that I have and all that I am to 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 »
A Windmill
By Mark D. Roberts | Saturday, July 12, 2008
Here’s a photo of a windmill on the H.E. Butt Foundation property, where Laity Lodge is located.
Topics: Sharing Laity Lodge | No Comments »
A Brief Account of the Not-So-Brief History of the PCUSA and Homosexuality, Section 2
By Mark D. Roberts | Friday, July 11, 2008
Part 4 of series: The End of the Presbyterian Church USA? Revisited
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
In my last post I began to chronicle the history of the PCUSA and homsexuality. In a nutshell:
1978: The General Assembly votes to provide Definitive Guidance, making it clear that homosexual activity is sinful, and therefore active homosexual people should not be ordained.
1993: The General Assembly reaffirmed this Definitive Guidance, offering an Authoritative Interpretation to back it up.
1996: The General Assembly passes the “fidelity and chastity” clause, which is added to the Book of Order when passed by the presbyteries in 1997. It specifies that all church officers are required “to live either in fidelity within the covernant of marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singlenss.”
But even before the dust settled after the 1996 General Assembly vote, members of the PCUSA were hard at work to get the fidelity and chastity clause removed from the Book of Order.
1997: General Assembly Approves Amendment A, “The Fidelity and Integrity” Amendment
The 1997 General Assembly reversed ground, approving a replacement amendment to Amendment B of 1996. The new amendment, which, in a most unhelpful manner was called Amendment A, read as follows:
Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Jesus Christ, under the authority of Scripture and instructed by the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to demonstrate fidelity and integrity in marriage or singleness, and in all relationships of life. Candidates for ordained office shall acknowledge their own sinfulness, their need for repentance, and their reliance on the grace and mercy of God to fulfill the duties of their office.
This amendment, especially as a replacement to Amendment B of 1996, was seen as opening the door to the ordination of actively homosexual people (as well as people engaging in heterosexual activity outside of marriage). It passed in the General Assembly by a 60% to 40% margin, and was then referred to the presbyteries. It wouldn’t become part of the Book of Order unless a majority of presbyteries approved. After a monumental battle in the whole denomination, Amendment A was voted down by the presbyteries, with 66% rejecting the amendment. This was an increase of about 10% over the last vote of presbyteries supporting fidelity and chastity. Though the pro-homosexual side won in the General Assembly, it lost more soundly in the presbyteries.
A personal aside:
Around this time, I had two experiences that shaped my understanding of what was going on in the PCUSA when it came to homosexuality. The first happened when I was asked to speak at a Presbyterian church where the leadership favored homosexual ordination. I was invited to represent “the other side” in the debate. I didn’t exactly relish this assignment, but the pastor was a friend and I appreciated his effort to be fair. I spent about an hour explaining in depth why I believed that the Bible does not endorse homosexual behavior, even though it calls us to love homosexual people. At the end of my presentation, I fielded questions and comments. Almost nobody wanted to talk about the Bible. Virtually every comment said something like this: “I understand what you’re saying about the Bible, and that’s probably true. But I have a friend whose son is gay, and I just can’t imagine causing more pain for my friend and her son. So we need to approve of him and affirm him. I just can’t go with what the Bible says.” I realized for the first time that the question of what the Bible actually teaches about homosexuality was becoming moot for many Presbyterians. Out of their feelings of compassion they were not going to follow biblical teaching.
My second experience happend in the context of a presbytery meeting in which we were voting on Amendment A. The debate was fairly predictable, as was the vote. My presbytery leaned in a conservative direction by about two-thirds to one-third. After the meeting, I was walking out behind a man who had spoken strongly in favor of a biblical understanding of homosexuality. A man I did not know came up to him and said, loudly, “You’re a bigot,” and then stormed off. Apparently one could not be a person of conscience and deny ordination to gays and lesbians. Since that time, I’ve heard this sort of thing again and again and again from the pro-gay side. It has eroded our fellowship in Christ, even as has the unloving treatment of homosexuals by persons on the conservative side. (Photo: The patio entrance of Irvine Presbyterian Church, where I was serving in the 1990s.)
1999 General Assembly Rejects Committee Recommendation to Delete “Fidelity and Chastity”
A General Assembly committee voted thumbs up for a revision of the Book of Order that removed the “fidelity and chastity” clause, replacing it with” “the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) commits itself not to exclude anyone categorically in considering those called to ordained service in the church, but to consider the lives and behaviors of candidates as individuals.” The General Assembly rejected the committee recommendation.
2001 General Assembly Votes to Delete the “Fidelity and Chastity” Clause
By a vote of 60% to 40%, the General Assembly voted to delete the “fidelity and chastity” clause, replacing it with a statement that church officers’ “suitability to hold office is determined by the governing body where the examination for ordination or installation takes place, guided by scriptural and constitutional standards, under the authority and Lordship of Jesus Christ.” In other words, every individual governing body (church session, presbytery) is free to determine for itself whether people must live in fidelity and chastity or not. Once again, however, this proposed change to the Book of Order required approval of the presbyteries. And, once again, a major battle was waged throughout the denomination. And, once again, the “fidelity and chastity” clause was upheld, this time by 57% of the presbyteries.
Summing Up
The recent history of the PCUSA shows a deeply divided denomination when it comes to the issue of homosexuality. It also demonstrates that the General Assembly is often more pro-gay in its votes than the presbyteries. To review:
1997-1998: “Fidelity and Chastity” added to Book of Order; GA vote = 57% to 42%; presbyteries vote 55% to 45%
1998=1999: GA votes to remove “Fidelity and Chastity” 60% to 40%; presbyteries reject GA vote, maintaining “Fidelity and Chastity” by 66% to 33%
2001-2002: GA votes to remove “Fidelity and Chastity” 60% to 40%; presbyteries reject GA vote, maintaining “Fidelity and Chastity” by 57% to 43%
One cannot read this history without noting that the PCUSA has spent an inordinate amount of time, energy, and money debating homosexuality. And I haven’t even begun to include the many church court cases, plus the running dispute over same-sex marriage. There is no consensus in the PCUSA, nor does one seem likely, even if one side is able to prevail in the Book of Order. As long as the PCUSA maintains its current structure and population, increasingly strident debates about homosexuality will continue indefinitely, unless Christ returns to free us from our confusion.
No doubt some of my readers are wondering why this fight has to keep on going and going. “Can’t you folks declare a truce?” you might wonder. Or if you’re in the PCUSA, you might want to ask, “Can we all get along?” I’ll address this question in my next post.
Topics: PCUSA: End of? | 11 Comments »
A Brief Account of the Not-So-Brief History of the PCUSA and Homosexuality, Section 1
By Mark D. Roberts | Thursday, July 10, 2008
Part 3 of series: The End of the Presbyterian Church USA? Revisited
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
In order to understand the significance of the actions of the recent PCUSA General Assembly with respect to homosexuality, a bit of history is necessary. This issue has been roiling in my denomination for over 30 years, as you’ll see. In this history I will include only the main points having to do with General Assembly actions. In fact, there have been dozens of other incidents involving church courts cases and other ecclesiastical matters. If these were included in the history, you’d see an even more confused and uneven process than what I’ll outline below.
1978: General Assembly Offers Definitive Guidance
In response to requests for “definitive guidance” with regard to the ordination of practicing homosexuals, the General Assembly approves a policy statement that offers “authoritative interpretation” of the church’s stance. This includes the line: “That unrepentant homosexual practice does not accord with the requirements for ordinationset forth in Form of Government, Chapter VII, Section 3 (37.03).” Beyond the issue of ordination, the General Assembly calls for the end of “homophobia” and advocates legal changes to give homosexuals more civil rights.
A personal aside:
In 1977-78, while I was in college, a friend and relative of mine, Don Williams, who was at that time a Presbyterian pastor, served on the task force that brought recommendations to the 1978 General Assembly. That task force was “stacked” from the beginning to ensure a pro-gay conclusion. The majority report, predictably enough, recommended the ordination of sexually-active homosexuals. But the Assembly took the recommendations of the minority report, establishing the “definitive guidance” that homosexual activity was sinful, and therefore active gays and lesbians should not be ordained. The Assembly called for an end to “homophobia” and defended civil rights for gay and lesbian people.
As a result of his work on the task force, Don Williams wrote a book about homosexuality: The Bond that Breaks: Will Homosexuality Split the Church? An ironic title, don’t you think, given subsequent history? I edited the book for Don. In the process, I studied in depth the biblical passages concerning homosexual behavior. This was in 1978, when I was quite liberal politically and therefore greatly inclined to favor gay liberation. But I also wanted to discover what the Bible actually said about sexuality and homosexuality. My study led me to the conclusion that there is no credible biblical argument supportive of homosexual activity. In the end, I contributed several paragraphs to The Bond that Breaks, my first published writing. Since that time, I’ve spent several hundred hours studying these same passages in a wide range of contexts: as a Ph.D. student in New Testament at Harvard, as a pastor, as a seminary professor, etc. I could certainly be wrong in my understanding of God’s will for our sexual behavior, but it isn’t for a lack of serious effort in trying to understand the biblical text.
1993: General Assembly Reaffirms the Authoritative Interpretation
The General Assembly reaffirmed the Authoritative Interpretation of 1978, concluding that “current constitutional law in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is that self-affirming, practicing homosexual persons may not be ordained as ministers of the Word and Sacrament, elders, or deacons.”
1996: General Assembly Approves Amendment B, “The Fidelity and Chastity Amendment”
The Assembly, acting on a report from the church’s Human Sexuality and Ordination Committee, approved the following addition to the Book of Order:
Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament. (G-6.0106.b).
Even though the Assembly voted for Amendment B by a vote of 57% to 42%, according to Presbyterian polity, it would not be added to the Book of Order unless a majority of presbyteries voted to approve it. Thus began a titanic battle in the whole church over whether or not to approve Amendment B. In the end, the majority of presbyteries (55%) voted to add Amendment B to the Book of Order, thus making fidelity in marriage and chastity in singleness official church policy.
If you’re an outsider to this process, you might think that the addition of the “fidelity and chastity” clause to the Book of Order settled the matter once and for all. But what happened in 1996 was just the beginning of more strife and confusion, as I’ll explain in my next post.
Topics: PCUSA: End of? | 7 Comments »
What Did the General Assembly Do to Endanger the Existence of the PCUSA?
By Mark D. Roberts | Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Part 2 of series: The End of the Presbyterian Church USA? Revisited
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
As I explained in my last post, the Presbyterian Church USA is on the ropes, at best, perhaps even down for the count, or even fully knocked out, at worst. Though my denomination has been on a downward course for decades, what happened in our latest General Assembly meeting in San Jose, California, has brought the PCUSA ever closer to its demise. (Photo: The San Jose Convention Center, where the General Assembly convened, from my hotel room. The Convention Center is the large building with the curved roof in the upper center of the photo.)
Much of what happened in the General Assembly was quite positive. The Assembly reaffirmed the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, rather than giving in to the cultural pressure to endorse same-sex marriage. The Assembly also approved a statement that called upon Presbyterians to “Grow God’s Church Deep and Wide.”
But several actions of the General Assembly have stirred up a storm of concern among many Presbyterians, as I demonstrated in my last post. Not all of them have to do with ordination and sexuality, but these are clearly the most incendiary. In order to explain these controversial actions fairly, I will quote from a letter sent by denominational leaders to churches and pastors. These leaders, who support the actions of the Assembly and who are positive about the future of the denomination, describe the contentious items in this way:
Perhaps the subject that will make the most headlines has to do with the ordination standards of our church. It is a subject with which Presbyterians are familiar and one that tends to evoke great debates and deep emotions. With that in mind, we want you to know what the assembly did—in the actual wording—in regard to ordination standards, and what will happen next.
- By a 54% to 46% margin, the assembly voted to propose an amendment to our Book of Order to change one of our current ordination standards. The change is to replace the current language that says officers of the church must live by “fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness” (G-6.0106b) to this new language: Those who are called to ordained service in the church, by their assent to the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003), pledge themselves to live lives obedient to Jesus Christ the Head of the Church, striving to follow where he leads through the witness of the Scriptures, and to understand the Scriptures through the instruction of the Confessions. In so doing, they declare their fidelity to the standards of the Church. Each governing body charged with examination for ordination and/or installation (G-14.0240 and G-14.0450) establishes the candidate’s sincere efforts to adhere to these standards.
- By a 53% to 47% vote, the assembly adopted a new Authoritative Interpretation (AI) on G-6.0106b: Interpretive statements concerning ordained service of homosexual church members by the 190th General Assembly (1978) of the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, and the 119th General Assembly (1979) of the Presbyterian Church in the United States and all subsequent affirmations thereof, have no further force or effect.
- By a 54% to 46% vote, the assembly adopted a new AI on G-6.0108 which restores the intent of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity of the Church report (2006) to allow someone who is being considered for ordination or installation as a deacon, elder, or minister to register a conscientious objection to the standards or beliefs of the church and ask the ordaining body to enter into a conversation with them to determine the seriousness of the departure.
- The assembly left unchanged the definition of marriage found in the Directory for Worship (W-4.9000)—“a civil contract between a woman and a man.”
By its actions, the assembly has initiated a new opportunity to focus ordination on primary allegiance and obedience to Jesus Christ, as well as to Scripture and the church’s confessions. The assembly places the responsibility onto sessions and presbyteries for discerning a candidate’s fitness for ordination.
If you’re unfamiliar with the way Presbyterians do business, let me add a couple of words of explanation and commentary:
1. Out of context, the new language proposed for the Book of Order would be unobjectionable, even laudable. How wonderful that candidates for ordination “pledge themselves to live lives obedient to Jesus Christ the Head of the Church, striving to follow where he leads through the witness of the Scriptures, and to understand the Scriptures through the instruction of the Confessions.” Yet by removing the call for candidates to pledge to live by “fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness,” this amendment clearly and intentionally implies that one can fulfill the standards for ordination while being sexually active outside of marriage. This would be true for both gay and straight candidates, by the way.
2. The proposed change to the Book of Order is not in force until it is approved by a majority of the presbyteries (regional governing bodies) of the church. Twice before, in 1997-98 and 2001-2, the General Assembly voted to remove the fidelity and chastity clause, but this was rejected by the presbyteries. This could very well happen again. But that’s why my next point is so significant.
3. Perhaps the actions of greatest concern are the most confusing of all. The Assembly adopted two new Authoritative Interpretations of the Book of Order. One of these revoked a 30-year understanding that homosexual behavior is sinful. The other gave candidates for ordination the opportunity “to register a conscientious objection to the standards or beliefs of the church and ask the ordaining body to enter into a conversation with them to determine the seriousness of the departure.” By clear implication, this is meant to give the governing body the freedom to decide that the departure is not serious enough to preclude ordination. In others words, even though the Book of Order currently requires a candidate to live by fidelity and chastity, a local governing body is free to decide that this isn’t required, or that “fidelity” could mean “faithful within a homosexual relationship” or something similar. (Prof. Robert Gagnon believes that the new Authoritative Interpretation actually doesn’t give such freedom to a governing body. Though I hope he’s right, I don’t share his confidence. And even if he is right, logically speaking, I sincerely doubt governing bodies and judicial commissions in the PCUSA will think as clearly as Gagnon about the matter.)
4. As a leader, I understand the need to put a happy face on a sad situation. Generally we call this spin. I must confess that I find the statement that “the assembly has initiated a new opportunity to focus ordination on primary allegiance and obedience to Jesus Christ, as well as to Scripture and the church’s confessions” to be a good example of such spin. The letter is more forthright when it says, a couple of paragraphs later: “We know the assembly actions may do little to ease the anxiety that seems to permeate our life together as a denomination. The debate isn’t new and the future holds difficult challenges.” Once again, however, spin is crouching at the door. The actions of the General Assembly didn’t just “do little to ease the anxiety.” Rather, they greatly added to that anxiety, and, in fact pushed the PCUSA into a new level of crisis.
5. Given the General Assembly’s actions to allow for gay and lesbian people to be ordained, presumably because the majority of the Assembly believed that physical intimacy between members of the same sex can be okay, I find the Assembly’s failure to redefine marriage to be particularly odd. If one believes that gay sex is right in some context, then the only context in which this could be possible, from a theological point of view, would be a marriage relationship between same-sex partners. Though I don’t believe the Bible gives support to the idea of same-sex marriage, I do believe that the only defensible position by those who allow for gay ordination would be in the case of same-sex marriage. By allowing for the rightness of same-sex intimacy, but not approving of same-sex marriage, the General Assembly has implicitly ordained sex outside of marriage. I expect the Assembly believed, rightly so, that though consistency required the approval of same-sex marriage, a vote to do this would have euthanized the PCUSA immediately.
If you’re watching all of this from the bleachers, you may wonder why some of us PCUSA types are so upset by what happened at the General Assembly. Then again, you may wonder why any of us are sticking around in a denomination that has strayed so far from biblical teaching. In order to understand what has happened and why we have responded as we have, you need a bit of history concerning the PCUSA and homosexuality. I’ll supply this bit in my next post.
Topics: PCUSA: End of? | 15 Comments »
The End of the PCUSA? Revisited
By Mark D. Roberts | Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Part 1 of series: The End of the Presbyterian Church USA? Revisited
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
Two years ago I wrote a blog series in which I asked: Has the Presbyterian Church USA (my own denomination) come to an end? My answer was: “Well, maybe. It doesn’t look good.”
Today I want to begin to revisit the question of whether the PCUSA is in its own end times, so to speak. Let me explain why I’m raising this tired topic yet again.
2006: The End of the PCUSA?
In 2006, following the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA, I wrote a blog series entitled The End of the Presbyterian Church USA? In that series, I described recent actions of that General Assembly with respect to the issue that Presbyterians have debated for over thirty years . . . human sexuality. That Assembly reaffirmed the section of the Book of Order (the PCUSA guidebook for the church) that requires candidates for ordination to practice “fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness” (G-6.0106b). But then, in a move that perplexed and distressed many Presbyterians, including me, the Assembly approved a report (the so-called PUP Report, for “Peace, Unity, and Purity”), that allowed the governing bodies that ordain church officers to decide for themselves whether a candidate for ordination needed to obey the stated rule or not. No longer would a candidate be required, according to this new guidance, to practice fidelity in marriage or chastity in singleness. Any governing body was free to determine its own conclusion in the matter, thus opening up the door to the ordination of people who were sexually active outside of marriage, whether in straight or gay relationships.
In my 2006 blog series, I spoke of how the action of the Assembly broke trust with those of us who have been committed to the PCUSA. I considered whether or not this was adequate reason to leave the PCUSA, given biblical teaching on the nature of Christian community. My conclusion was tentative. I was not prepared to leave the PCUSA, but was not ruling out the possibility. It did seem to me that the actions of the 2006 General Assembly hastened the end of the PCUSA as we knew it.
Today: The End of the PCUSA? Revisited
The 2008 General Assembly, held in San Jose, California, recently wrapped up. Much of what happened at the Assembly and many of the votes taken were find and dandy. But several actions of the 2008 Assembly make what happened in 2006 look like the minor leagues. We PCUSA types are now in the big leagues of church crises. (Photo: San Jose, California)
This would be true even if the General Assembly had done nothing controversial, by the way. Shortly before the Assembly convened, the denomination released its statistics for 2007. Overall, the PCUSA lost 57,572 members, or 2.6% of its total membership. At this rate, the membership of the PCUSA will hit zero in less than forty years. I suppose the issue of gay ordination will be finally and definitively settled by the last person standing in 2046.
But I doubt the PCUSA will make it to 2046 intact. What happened in the last General Assembly has caused an unprecedented crisis in the denomination. I knew we were in trouble when, during my recent trip to San Jose to speak at a breakfast associated with the Assembly, I ran into a good friend who has been for many years one of the most enthusiastic supporters of the PCUSA, even though he has solid evangelical credentials. Even before the Assembly convened, my friend was deeply concerned. He spoke more negatively about the denomination than I had ever heard before. Something monumentally bad was about to happen, or so it seemed as I listened to him.
In the aftermath of the General Assembly, the comments of dyed-in-the-wool Presbyterians confirmed my friend’s prediction of doom and gloom. Here is an assortment of comments by biblically-committed and highly-respected leaders in the PCUSA:
The actions of the 218th General Assembly have made it clear that the PC(USA)’s compromise of the Gospel of Jesus Christ has reached an unprecedented level. It is clear that the PC(USA)’s confession of the Lordship of Jesus Christ and commitment to our Reformed confessions has weakened to the point that we can no longer assume a common framework of conversation.
I am shocked and dismayed. . . . [T]he General Assembly of the PCUSA has taken a number of actions which are at odds with Scripture and threaten to unravel any vestige of purity, peace, and unity that may still exist within the denomination. . . . [T]he PCUSA is clearly on a path of self-destruction in cutting herself off from the larger, global church. These actions are the product of bad theology. Bad theology always hurts people. The word “heresy” means “to choose.” With the actions of this General Assembly, the PCUSA has chosen to walk a different path than the path God has revealed to the Church in His Word.
- Ronald W. Scates, pastor of Highland Park Presbyterian Church, one of the largest and most influential churches in the PCUSA
With the most recent General Assembly in San Jose, the smoke seems at last to have cleared, and the steaming debris of the PC(USA) has settled into place. It’s not a pretty sight. One thing for sure: this Humpty won’t be getting back together again for a long time, if ever.
- Vic Pentz, pastor of Peachtree Presbyterian Church, the largest church in the PCUSA
Today the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) lies gravely wounded, by the hand of its own General Assembly. This Assembly has struck multiple blows, threatening to sever the sinews that hold us together as a Christian body and as a part of the larger body of Christ. This is a day for grieving. . . . We grieve for the Assembly’s terrible loss of faith. We grieve for the thousands of churches in our denomination who receive this news with shock and dismay. And we grieve for all those who are encouraged by this action to engage in sinful behaviors that God does not bless.
- Presbyterian Renewal Network, a group of biblically-committed PCUSA organizations
Of course not all Presbyterians were upset by the actions of the Assembly. Consider, for example, the following comments:
This is an amazing moment in history. I give thanks to God for all of you who have been praying, believing and working for the Presbyterian Church (USA) to end discrimination against its own lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender daughters and sons, sisters and brothers in Christ. . . . There is clearly a sea-change in our Church, society and world as more people are letting go of the old beliefs and prejudice about homosexuality, same-gender loving persons and embracing what it means to recognize Christ and the divine image within all of God children. . . . For this moment, on this day, we rejoice in the fact that this Assembly has provided a way forward for our beloved Church. Together we are building a Church for all God’s people!
- Michael Adee, Executive Director of More Light Presbyterians
We give thanks for the decision of the 218th General Assembly to send to the presbyteries a thoughtful revision of the standards for ordination. The Authoritative Interpretation that was also approved immediately removes the specific references that have proved most hurtful to GLBT persons who are otherwise called and prepared to serve the church. This is a day that has been thirty years in coming and we give thanks for the hope that it offers to so many in the church who have been and still are excluded from ordained office. . . .
With gratitude to God, the board, staff, and community of That All May Freely Serve rejoice in the vote by the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) to open the door to the gifts and callings of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer members by removing its institutional barriers to ordination.
What an astounding diversity of responses to the General Assembly actions! If nothing else, these various statements illustrate the extraordinary lack of visionary and theological unity in the PCUSA. What some people folks see as heresy and tragedy, others receive as liberation and hope. What some see as cause for grief and repentance, others experience as a reason for thanks and celebration. It’s hard to imagine a Christian group less unified than the PCUSA at this time. We’re pretty much tied with the Anglicans, as far as I can tell.
If you haven’t been following this story closely, you may wonder what the General Assembly did to elicit such passionate and contradictory responses from its leaders. I’ll explain the Assembly’s actions in my next post.
Topics: PCUSA: End of? | 19 Comments »
Some Strange Texas Sights
By Mark D. Roberts | Saturday, July 5, 2008
Trucks are everywhere in Texas. This is true even during times of high gas prices, though I’ve heard that sales of trucks are down. For most of us, trucks are a means of transportation along paved roads. But some folks actually use their trucks as, well, trucks! They drive on dirt roads and no roads, hauling ranch supplies or animals they have shot in the woods. As you might well imagine, sometimes trucks used for such offroad purposes get a little dirty. The picture to the right, taken in my local HEB grocery store parking lot proves the point, don’t you think?
Then I came upon some even stranger in my local Home Depot. The display was ordinary enough, a bunch of cans of pruning seal. If you’re not familiar with this stuff, it’s a black, spray-paint like substance that you use when pruning. By covering a pruned area with pruning seal, you keep bugs from hurting or killing the recently pruned bush or tree.
But, as it turns out, there are other uses for pruning seal. As the Home Depot sign says, “It’s not just for pruning.” What else can you do with pruning seal? You can waterproof clay pots, or seal your gutters, or spray under your mower to protect the deck. And . . . you can spay!
That’s what the sign says: * Spay. As in, “You need to spay your cat.” Or “Is your dog spayed?” I looked up definitions of “spay” just to see if there was some other meaning I had missed. “Spay” is the name of a three-year-old male red deer. (Seriously!) But the basic meaning of “remove the ovaries” of an animal is the main one. Now I’m not quite sure how you’d use pruning seal to spay your animals. And, frankly, I don’t want to know.
Now you might think that the Home Depot sign was simply wrong, a result of human error. Maybe the sign maker wanted to say “Spray” and didn’t get it right. But that particular sign was up in my Home Depot for at least two weeks. Nobody made an effort to do a new sign or to cross out “spay.” So, all I can conclude is that pruning seal as a veterinary use that I did not anticipate.
Only in Texas . . . .
Topics: Only in Texas | 6 Comments »
You Know You’re in a Small Town When . . . More from the Boerne Police Blotter
By Mark D. Roberts | Thursday, July 3, 2008
May 9
1700 block Water St. Comfort, 4:38 p.m. A called worried that sounds of a distressed cow had been coming from the creek. The caller was advised that three heifers were being weaned and although animals had food and water, they were “just not happy.” [MDR: Weaning is a drag, I’ve got to say.]
100 block Glenn Oaks, 6;09 p.m. A resident wanted advice regarding a porcupine that was in a tree. [MDR: My advice: Don’t reach up and try to save it without wearing really thick gloves.]
May 12
200 block of Bluebonnet Drive, 8:21 p.m. A caller reports that an arrow had been shot through his house. [MDR: “Through” his house? Meaning “in one side and out the other”? Or “into his house”? Or ????]
500 block of Main Street, Comfort, 6:23 p.m. A caller with a rat in a shoe box wanted it picked up. [MDR: A gift for the police?]
Johns Road, 7:50 p.m. Two men in the area were acting like they were pulling a rope across the street as cars went by. [MDR: These guys have too much time on their hands.]
1400 block of East Blanco, 12:43 p.m. When the dryer in the laundry facility refused to open at the end of the drying cycle, the man called to report that he was going to break it open in order to get his clothes out so he could go to work. [MDR: Better to tell the police about your vandalism beforehand. It makes the arrest process much smoother.]
May 13
1300 block of South Main Street, 6:06 p.m. A Liberty County Constable reported to have parked in fire zone after driving recklessly. Constable was questioned and said that he had “no excuse.” [MDR: Now that’s something you don’t hear very often!]
May 16
1400 block of East Blanco, 2:14 p.m., A woman was arrested on a Comal County warrant for failure to obey a commitment order. [MDR: Finally, there is such a thing as a commitment order! Now husbands can be ordered to be committed to their wives. Children can be legally compelled to be committed to their schoolwork. The sky’s the limit!]
May 17
900 block of East Blanco, 2:24 p.m., A caller reported a man was lying halfway out of a doorway. Police contacted the man who had been drinking and passed out in his doorway. [MDR: Good rule of thumb. Get all the way into our house before you pass out.]
300 block of Edge Creek, 3:35 p.m., A man reported that his truck had been broken into and an iPod and sunglasses were taken. [MDR: But not his beer or his gun rack.]
1000 block of North Main Street, 7:11 p.m., A caller reported a fuel card was missing. [MDR: Only in Boerne will the police help you locate your lost stuff.]
100 block of W. Hampton Run, 11:37 p.m., A 19-year-old was issued a citation for consumption of alcohol by a minor after the car he was driving ran into a house. [MDR: And they didn’t issue a citation for running a car into a house. Just for the drinking?]
Topics: Small Town | No Comments »