A word of encouragement for the road ahead of us and the work before us:

  

 

 

"The restoration of the Church is the work of God, and no more depends on the hopes and opinions of men, than the resurrection of the dead, or any other miracle of that description. Here, therefore, we are not to wait for facility of action, either from the will of men, or the temper of the times, but must rush forward through the midst of despair. It is the will of our Master that His gospel be preached. Let us obey His command, and follow whithersoever He calls. What the success will be it is not ours to inquire. Our only duty is to wish of what is best, and beseech it of the Lord in prayer; to strive with all zeal, solicitude, and diligence, to bring about the desired result, and, at the same time, to submit with patience to whatever that result may be."

- The Necessity of Reforming the Church, John Calvin, Volume I of "Tracks and Letters"

 

And because you are all now going to ask where to find that quote, I give you www.banneroftruth.org. :-)

 

A friend of mine sent me the following (which is to say that I will not personally defend the veracity of the narrative. I will however defend the veracity of the point the story makes.)

 

In Florida, an atheist created a case against the upcoming Easter and Passover Holy days. He hired an attorney to bring a discrimination case against Christians and Jews and observances of their holy days. The argument was that it was unfair that atheists had no such recognized days. The case was brought before a judge. After listening to the passionate presentation by the lawyer, the judge banged his gavel declaring, “Case dismissed!”

 

The lawyer immediately stood objecting to the ruling saying, “Your honor, how can you possibly dismiss this case? The Christians have Christmas, Easter and others. The Jews have Passover, Yom Kippur and Hanukkah, yet my client and all other atheists have no such holidays.”

 

The judge leaned forward in his chair saying, “But you do. Your client, counsel, is woefully ignorant.”

 

The lawyer said, "Your Honor, we are unaware of any special observance or holiday for atheists."

 

The judge said, “The calendar says April 1st is April Fools Day. Psalm 14:1 states, ‘The fool says in his heart, there is no God.' Thus, it is the opinion of this court, that, if your client says there is no God, then he is a fool. Therefore, April 1st is his day. Court is adjourned.”

 

Any way you look at it, today is a day for fools.

 

As “April fool’s day” it is a day for the kind of fools who say there is no God. But for those whose hearts burn with the knowledge of the love of God revealed through the death of Christ on Calvary’s cross, today is likewise a day for fools.

 

Let us admit that we are fools for Christ.

 

First Corinthians 1:18-25 reminds us that “the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.’ Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know Him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.”

 

When it comes to the cross, count me a fool.

 

Many of you have asked, “why not just let folks in John Knox Presbytery (JKP) ordain who they want to ordain? Why not just leave them alone? Their decisions don’t affect us.” Wrong. 

G-14.0480 says, “Ordination for the officer of minister of the Word and Sacrament is an act of the whole church carried out by the presbytery, setting apart a person to the ministry of the Word and Sacrament.” That means that when JKP acts to ordain Scott Anderson, they are acting on behalf of all of us. And once ordained, he is ordained throughout the system, not just in JKP.

The actual “departure” from our ordination standards is almost irrelevant. In this case, it happens to be sexual practice, but it could theoretically be any number of things. The point is that he openly and honestly departs from our mutually agreed upon constitutional standards for ordination.

Those standards are spelled out in G-6.0106(a) and (b).

“a. To those called to exercise special functions in the church – deacons, elders, and ministers of the Word and Sacrament – God gives suitable gifts for their various duties. In addition to possessing the necessary gifts and abilities, natural and acquired, those who undertake particular ministries should be persons of strong faith, dedicated discipleship, and love of Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. Their manner of life should be a demonstration of the Christian gospel in the church and in the world. They must have the approval of God’s people and the concurring judgment of a governing body of the church.

“b. 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 (W-4.9001), 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.”

Further, when one becomes a candidate or officer in the PCUSA, our constitution recognizes that “one chooses to exercise freedom of conscience within certain bounds. His or her conscience is captive to the Word of God as interpreted in the standards of the church so long as he or she continues to seek or hold office in that body. The decision as to whether a person has departed from essentials of Reformed faith and polity is made initially by the individual concerned but ultimately becomes the responsibility of the governing body in which he or she serves. (G-1.0301; G-1.0302).” – from G-6.0108

The issue that now confronts us has a human face, Scott Anderson. But at risk is our entire constitutional system of governance. This is ultimately a debate about whether or not we are going to continue to be Presbyterian in the way we’ve always thought of that. The PCUSA, through many rounds of successive voting on the matter, has determined the qualifications for its ministers. This candidate does not qualify and yet, his ordination has been approved by a presbytery acting on behalf of the entire denomination.

I find it ironic that the “peace, unity and purity” of the church is often appealed to in this particular conversation. This horribly disrupts the peace of the body, threatens its functional unity and makes any discussion of purity laughable.

Yes, complaints can be filed, the action of the JKP can be challenged in the church courts and the GAPJC’s resolve can be tested again. In the meantime, an entire generation of Presbyterians is being distracted once again from the core calling of Christ to go and make disciples, teaching people to obey his commands and demonstrating the Kingdom of God to a world literally dying of thirst for the Living Water.

Look, either the constitution that we’ve all agreed to actually has some authority, or it is does not. And if it does not hold on this point, it does not hold. If JKP’s action in relationship to Scott Anderson and San Francisco presbytery in relationship to Lisa Larges, and Twin Cities presbytery action in relationship to Paul Capetz, are allowed to stand, I expect other candidates to openly scruple things like the assertion of trust clause in Chapter 8, the Confession of 1967 from the Book of Confessions, and on and on. Which of these is essential and which is not? Find a presbytery that agrees with you and you’re good to go! Local option run amuck.

In getting what “you” want you just may find that you get more than you bargained for: The death of any sense of connectionalism in the part of the body known as the PCUSA.

 

 

 

Isaiah 45:18-19 says, “For this is what the LORD says – He who created the heavens, He is God; He who fashioned and made the earth, He founded it; He did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited – He says: ‘I am the LORD, and there is no other. I have not spoken in secret, from somewhere in a land of darkness; I have not said to Jacob’s descendants, ‘Seek me in vain.’ I, the LORD, speak the truth; I declare what is right.’”

   

 

We worship a God of revelation – One who reveals the truth. One who speaks openly, not in secret. God does not do His business behind closed doors, but in the light for all to see.

You might think of it as transparency. Civil governments call them “sunshine laws.” Presbyterians call it “open meetings” policy. The point is, we do things in the light, in the public eye, proving ourselves to be above reproach by opening our deliberations to reporting by the press and scrutiny by our fellow believers.

 

But threats of closed doors and business done in secret loom.

 

We all know that John Knox Presbytery is considering re-instating the ordination of Scott Anderson to validated ministry with the Wisconsin Council of Churches on Saturday, Feb. 20. Anderson’s “departure” from G-6.0106b is well documented. His sexual practices are not secret, he has been quite public and open about his life.

 

So, why, when The Layman informed the executive presbyter of John Knox that it is our intent to have a reporter present for the meeting were we told essentially not to bother because that part of the meeting was likely to be closed?

 

Robert’s Rules says, “an executive session is simply any meeting or part of a meeting where the proceedings are to be secret.”¹ So, a presbytery certainly has the privilege of voting to enter executive session, but why would it? If what its members are doing is on the up-and-up, if what they’re doing is within the bounds of our Presbyterian constitution, if what they’re doing isn’t shadowy or dark, why close the door? What might be said that they would not want others to hear? What might be done that if held up to the light would be found specious?

 

Closing the doors only breeds suspicion. What have you got planned that you’re ashamed for others to witness? What’s going to happen in the dark that you don’t want revealed by the light? If you shut out the public, all that remains is imagination (which can run wild).

 

II Corinthians 4:1-2 says, “Therefore, since through God’s mercy we have this ministry, we do not lose heart. Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the Word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.”

 

So, my fellow presbyters, work to defeat any attempt to close your presbytery meetings. Specifically, members of John Knox Presbytery, live into your own bylaws², which state that you “are a people whose story is formed through God’s action in Jesus Christ;” including your “style of interaction with one another; willingness to discuss issues; (and) manner of making decisions.” Indeed, as you say, “God’s love story is a never ending story.” One that continues to “undergo subtle and radical changes in plot and in the characters.” We want to keep up with that storyline and in order to do so, your witness must remain “open to the public.”

 

 

 

Footnotes:

[1] Robert’s Rules of Order, Article VIII, Section 43, paragraph 6.

 

[2] http://www.jknox.org/ManualTableofContents.htm

 

 

On one side of the four-sided aluminum cap atop the Washington Monument in Washington, D.C. are inscribed two words: Laus Deo. Like the permanent smile carved into the face of a stingray that spends its life on the ocean floor, no one but God ever sees them. Tens of thousands of visitors pose for pictures oblivious to the words that stand overhead. It makes you wonder just how much is going on “over our heads,” out of our range of perception, beyond the reality that we see? Laus Deo.

Perched invisibly to humanity atop the monument there they stand, 555 above the ground. These two words cast their declaration of faith over the 69 square miles that comprise the District of Columbia, capital of these United States. In bold relief silently declaring that whether we like it or not, we are in fact, a nation under God. Laus Deo!

Laus Deo! Why place these two words at the highest point over what is arguably the most powerful city in the world? Why place them so far out of sight that they would risk also being out of mind? What do they even mean? These two words, four syllables, seven letters? Laus Deo, “Praise be to God!”

Construction of the Washington monument began in 1848 when James Polk was President. When the cornerstone of the Washington Monument was laid on July 4, 1848 deposited within it were many items, including the Holy Bible presented by the Bible Society. The capstone was finally set in place on Dec. 7, 1884, the monument was dedicated on Feb. 21, 1885, and opened to the public on Oct. 9, 1888. Forty years. Laus Deo.

Within the monument itself are 898 steps and 50 landings. As one climbs the steps and pauses at the landings the memorial stones share a message. On the 12th Landing is a prayer offered by the City of Baltimore; on the 20th is a memorial presented by some Chinese Christians; on the 24th a presentation made by Sunday School children from New York and Philadelphia quoting Proverbs 10:7, Luke 18:16 and Proverbs 22:6. Laus Deo.

Once you get to the top you can take in the beautiful panoramic view of the city with its division into four major segments. From that vantage point, you can easily appreciate the original plan of the designer, Pierre Charles l'Enfant who envisioned the city in the shape of a perfect cross imposed upon the landscape. The White House stands to the north, the Jefferson Memorial to the south, the Capitol to the east, and the Lincoln Memorial to the west. Laus Deo.

On this President’s Day it seems reasonable to listen to the echo of one of the prayers for the nation by her first President, George Washington: "Almighty God; We make our earnest prayer that Thou wilt keep the United States in Thy holy protection; that Tho you wilt incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government; and entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another and for their fellow citizens of the United States at large. And finally that Thou wilt most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility and pacific temper of mind which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without a humble imitation of whose example in these things we can never hope to be a happy nation. Grant our supplication, we beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen." Laus Deo!

On this President’s Day, let us pray with the president for the nation and let us pray for our president that he be a man after God’s under heart, a man of God’s word, a man led by God’s Spirit, a man under God’s authority, a man within God’s will, a man who follows God as he leads this people into the future filled with hope God has planned. Laus Deo.

A Presbyterian Church (USA) congregation in Los Angeles has a worship service designed for people and their pets. Well, not just any pets. Specifically, dogs. (Cats are expressly prohibited, which seems specieist to me.) This “Canine-ite” worship experience begs the question (all puns intended), “what is worship really all about?” Glorifying God or accommodating every personal proclivity?

 

 

 

The actual Canaanites are the people of 11 nations who descend from Noah’s

 son, Ham (Genesis 9:25-27; 10:15-19; Deuteronomy 7:1; I Chronicles 1:13-16). They are described in the Bible as wicked, cursed, and it is the land of the Canaanites that is “given” by God to His chosen people.

 

 

There is only one Canaanite referred to in the New Testament, interestingly, it is also the only place where Jesus refers to canines. (Matthew 15:21-28) Notably, the Canaanite woman is described by Jesus as possessing “great faith,” something He only found in one other person, a Roman centurion (Matthew 8:5-11).

 

 

Maybe these L.A. pooches are dogs of great faith. They are, admittedly, still dogs and apparently when one of the “canine-ite” attendees goes to howling, the congregation responds by singing “Amazing Grace.”

 

So, what’s the motivation to include pets in worship? “The idea behind the service, Eggebeen said, was to make it more comfortable for people to attend the church ...” Ahhh. Now we’re getting somewhere. Is worship about my gratification or God’s glorification?

 

In the PCUSA Directory for Worship, Presbyterians acknowledge that worship is rightly directed to and centered upon God. Not the participants’ comfort zones. If we value anything, it is worship that is done “decently and in order.”

 

Did you notice anything about the “arrangement of space” in the photo that appears with the article? Sitting on the floor isn’t a problem, but sitting with our backs to the chancel is. The pastor is right that there is a great deal of latitude when it comes to what goes on in the context of Presbyterian worship, however, the Directory for Worship is clear on some points.

 

W-1.4001 reminds us that “The arrangement of space should visibly express the integral relation between Word and Sacrament and their centrality in Christian worship. Christ and the Biblical command to do all things in an orderly way. While Christian worship need not follow prescribed forms, careless or disorderly worship is both an offense to God and a stumbling block to the people. Those responsible for worship are to be guided by the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture, the historic experience of the Church universal, the Reformed tradition, The Book of Confessions, the needs and particular circumstances of the worshiping community, as well as the provisions of the Form of Government and this directory. (W-3.1001; W-3.1002).”

 

Tithes and offerings also enter the picture as the people’s gifts are placed in the collection plate and they receive a dog biscuit in exchange. Just pause and consider that transaction. Presbyterians pass the plate on two occasions in worship: each week for the collection of the offering and periodically for the distribution of the Lord’s Supper. Anyone else see a problem with the conflagration of the imagery here? I know, you think I’m taking this too far. I would ask you, “how far is just far enough but not too far?”

 

The Humane Society and PETA are missing an opportunity here. I can almost see the headlines now, “Harry of Williamson house shut out of worship.” After all, Harry’s parents attend a Presbyterian church that does not welcome non-human congregants. Specieists!

 

As an exemplar, let me introduce Harry, hound of the Williamson clan and full member of the family. Why should Harry, who goes everywhere else with the Williamsons, not get to go to church? Why should Harry be abandoned for an hour to sit all alone in the heat of the summer sun or the chill of winter, in the church parking lot, shut out of services at FPC? Isn’t Harry one of God’s creatures? Certainly. Isn’t Harry a part of the family? Absolutely. Won’t Harry be redeemed with all creation at man’s redemption? Uh (pause, gulp, as I garner the courage to say this out loud), no. Contrary to popular belief and humanistic desire, all dogs do not go to heaven. Certainly not Harry, and there may be some question regarding the fate of his owners.

 

Now, to be clear, I certainly believe that if God were going to redeem specific creatures, the argument for dogs would be easy to make. Clearly cats are beyond the scope of those that would ever be considered “elect.” Dogs much more fully reflect the nature of God than other animals. They are “man’s best friend,” they love their people unconditionally, are quick to forgive and fiercely protective. Like us, dogs struggle to be obedient to their masters and sometimes fail to respond when called home. If we were to include animals in worship, dogs seem the best choice if for no other reason than they so obviously reflect (even in how Adam named them d-o-g mirroring G-o-d) the nature of God.

 

I anticipate that this blog will “unleash” quite a response!

 

This is a conversation about relationships: The relationship of congregations to specific denominations, the mobility of congregations between denominations, and the relationship of denominations to one another.

 

First Presbyterian Church of Anytown, U.S.A. will be our exemplar. FPC has always been a Presbyterian church. At its formation it was affiliated with denomination “X,” which subsequently became denomination “Y” and then in 1983 became a part of the “Reunion” denomination known as the Presbyterian Church (USA). First Presbyterian Church really didn’t change, but its denominational moniker did. FPC saw no reason at the time to exercise the right to “not participate” in reunion and also saw no reason to protect itself against the assertion of a denominational trust over its assets.

 

FPC hasn’t changed much since then, but the denomination with which it is affiliated never seems to get beyond bickering over things that the members of FPC see as Biblically crystal clear. As a result, over the past 27 years, FPC has grown increasingly alienated from the denomination. It no longer uses denominational Christian education materials. Its pastor was educated in a theologically Reformed, but not officially PCUSA seminary. Its people believe in the broad Christian theology articulated in the Apostle’s Creed, the small percentage of them that grew up Presbyterian remember some of the Westminster standards, but very few have any familiarity with the library of material contained in the Book of Confessions.

 

The people of FPC are largely pro-Israel, pro-life, pro-traditional marriage and pro-Jesus. They are kind, generous, thoughtful people whose faith is fairly personal and whose social politics are fairly conservative. They are more interested in their local community than in the national church and they are more concerned with winning their neighbors to faith in Jesus Christ than in participating in another round of debates about things on which they believe the Bible is uncompromisingly clear. 

 

Think I’m overstating things? Ninety-seven congregations just like that grew so weary of their relationship with the PCUSA that they initiated the very painful process of re-aligning with the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC). Fifty-five of those congregations were dismissed from PCUSA presbyteries into a geographic presbytery of the EPC. Another 42 congregations are making their transition into the EPC through the New Wineskins non-geographic presbytery.

 

Ninety-seven congregations are a lot to lose, and a lot to absorb. The loss of large congregations like Fair Oaks in Sacramento (Calif.), First Baton Rouge (La.), Signal Mountain (Tenn.), Memorial Park (Pittsburgh, Pa.), and Covenant (West Lafayette, Indiana) has resulted in significant adjustments on both sides. For presbyteries like San Joaquin, dismissals to the EPC may result in the presbytery’s demise. Admittedly, there is stress on both sides of the bridge and there is tension between.

When this migration began in earnest three years ago, the EPC had 180 congregations. Imagine absorbing nearly 100 new congregations into a denomination of that size. Examinations related to adherence to The Westminster Confession of Faith have to be administered to teaching and ruling elders. Issues of property and polity have to be settled. The people of the EPC have to trust that those arriving from the PCUSA aren’t just a liberal Trojan horse and the immigrant Presbyterians have to learn to live in a new reality. The EPC itself is now struggling through the process of living into its own affirmation that gender is a non-essential and what to do in those presbyteries where praxis does not line up with their espoused theology.

  

Feeling the sting of being “left behind,” and looking elsewhere for someone to blame, some in the PCUSA have alleged that the EPC is actively recruiting congregations or, as one person put it, “they’re obviously poaching our sheep.” Peace River Presbytery was so sure that the EPC had recruited one of its congregations that it asked the 218^th GA of the PCUSA (2008) to investigate its concern that the EPC is “actively pursuing a strategy to persuade Presbyterian Church (USA) churches to disaffiliate with the Presbyterian Church (USA) and be dismissed to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church.”

 

In response to that allegation, the GA Formed an investigative committee chaired by the Rev. Krystin Granberg (New York City Presbytery), who is also a member of the General Assembly Committee on Ecumenical Relations (GACER). Joining her are the Revs. Terry Epling (Giddings-Lovejoy Presbytery), Joy Kaufmann (Huntingdon Presbytery), Eugene Turner (Cayuga-Syracuse Presbytery) and Jeffrey Vamos (New Brunswick Presbytery). The Rev. Robina Winbush, associate stated clerk and director of the Department of Agency and Ecumenical Relations for the Office of the General Assembly, is serving as staff to the group.

 

The task force began its work by conducting interviews with representatives from all parties involved in congregations that had made, or were in the process of making, the transition from the PCUSA to the EPC in nine presbyteries. Presbytery staff, congregational leadership, and members who were both supportive and non-supportive of the decision made by the congregation to re-align were interviewed in Eastminster, Northern Alabama, Peace River, Pittsburgh, Redstone, Sacramento, South Louisiana, Wabash Valley and Western North Carolina. It is not clear if other PCUSA presbyteries that have dismissed congregations to the EPC since the 2008 GA have been included in the investigative process.

 

The process employed by the Joint Commission of the EPC and the New Wineskins Association of Churches to accommodate PCUSA congregations desiring to re-align actually assures that no conversations are ever initiated from the EPC to those in the PCUSA. And when a congregation makes contact with the EPC, the process followed is designed to ensure that the congregation isn’t just trying to “get out” of the PCUSA but is fully informed and has a real desire to “be in” the EPC.

 

After more than 18 months since its formation and only six months prior to the GA to which it is scheduled to report, the investigating committee finally had a meeting with representatives from the EPC in mid-January. The outcomes of that meeting are not being made public.

 

The committee will report its findings and recommendations to the General Assembly Committee on Ecumenical Relations, which will in turn report its recommendations to the 219^th General Assembly in July. Only after the commissioners to the General Assembly have the opportunity to hear and take action, will the future of the relationship between the PCUSA and the EPC be clarified.

 

Beyond the EPC, PCUSA congregations are also actively re-aligning with other denominations including the Presbyterian Church in America and the Evangelical Covenant Church. It is not known whether investigations by the Ecumenical Relations Committee of the PCUSA General Assembly are underway regarding those dismissals.

 

 

President Barack Obama began his State of the Union address Wednesday night with these words, “Our constitution declares that from time to time, the President shall give to congress information about the state of our union.  For 220 years, our leaders have fulfilled this duty.  They have done so during periods of prosperity and tranquility.  And they have done so in the midst of war and depression; at moments of great strife and great struggle.”

 

It got me thinking, what is the state of our union as Presbyterians in the PCUSA? Could it be said that the state of our union is “strong?” What adjective might you use? Precarious? Hopeful? On the verge of … a bright future or imminent peril? There is some empirical data to look at (link here to 10-year trend info), but there is also the far less exact barometer of how people are “feeling” about things.

 

Just as all politics are local, people in the church tend to think that things are going well when things in their local congregation are going well. The reverse is also true. So, when people look around on Sunday morning and see empty pews, when the news from the session is “we need more money,” when the message from the pulpit is based on the newspaper headlines and not the Word of God from the Bible … people “feel” as if their church is on some pretty shifty sand.

 

Ask yourself, is our private practice of the faith, our social witness to the faith, and our proclamation of the faith declaring to the world what only the Church can declare? That there is a God, the Creator of all things, who has revealed Himself in the context of human history and in the person of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom was born into human reality in order that our relationship to Him might be restored through His blood shed on the cross. We needed Jesus to do what He did because from the very beginning we have failed universally and personally to trust God, desiring instead to be our own god, the lord of our own lives. That’s called sin. Sin not only breaks God’s heart, it severs the relationship between humanity and God. Restoration of that relationship is possible; it is provided for; it is freely offered. It comes by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone (who you can learn all about through the Bible). Jesus is the only hope for our individual salvation and Jesus is the hope of the world, because with humanity’s redemption comes also the redemption of all creation, which suffers the consequences of our sinfulness.

 

Who else can say that? Who will say it? Only the Church of Jesus Christ. Whatever else we might busy ourselves doing, if we fail to do this one thing, we fail. 

 

The President addressed the state of national union by referring to issues of the economy, education, health-care, and the deployment of U.S. armed forces around the world. And then he addressed the key issue: the state of mistrust.

 

Likewise, we can address the state of denomination from several directions:

 

• Consistently declining trends in numbers of members, numbers of congregations, market share, per capita contributions, and PCUSA enrollment in denominational seminaries.

• Governance? Property? Dissatisfaction? Confusion? Mistrust? Fatigue? Fear?

• Espoused theology vs. theology in practice?

• Standards of ethical behavior for ordained leadership?

• Our social witness policies, practices and preferences?

 

But as is true in the nation at large, the state of mistrust in our denomination is eroding our common life and threatens to undo us.

 

Organizational or institutional trust is not something that can be mandated, it must be cultivated. It begins with a seed of truth planted into the hearts and minds of people. It is fertilized over time by trustworthiness, by the upholding of mutually agreed upon standards, by the keeping of promises, by a spirit of openness and fair-play.  Once trampled upon, tender roots of trust require special attention and genuine care. That does not happen by the work of national task forces that tell people to live peaceably with one another, or that reign down processes by which unity based on humanistic tenets can be achieved when ultimate unity (in Christ) has been routed.

 

What is the state of our union?  Ultimately, my answer to the question is “read John 17.” But my one word analysis in terms of our denominational union is: “tenuous.”

 

What’s yours?

 

 

The Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy report on HIV/AIDS is being written in response to two overtures to the 218th General Assembly (2008).  With the 219th General Assembly meeting just 163 days away, time is running short to complete their work. As of today, there's a majority report and a minority report. ACSWP protocols prohibit sharing what's included in those drafts or what's different about them.

According to Kesia Ellison, who participated in the meeting via telephone from Harvard University, said that the majority report "focuses on the dynamics of power and how those dynamics influence the HIV/AIDS pandemic and people living with HIV/AIDS." The minority report, while still addressing those issues, orders the content of the report so as to elevate the concerns of marginalized people.

Ellison reminded the members of ACSWP that "HIV not only infects, it also affects people worldwide." She continued, "HIV itself is not the problem, it’s a virus. Society’s ills are the problem. There are structural things that need to be comprehensively addressed. Multi-faceted approaches that address power and resource allocation is essential.”

Joy Raatz, HIV initiative facilitator, added some context for the international part of the conversation. "The issue of HIV/AIDS is holistic, particularly in places like Africa," she said. "They may have ARV’s, but if they don’t have clean water or if they don’t have food, the issue becomes much more complex. Competing resources is a reality. Theology is very important – they see death daily. The theology we use needs to be pastoral, supportive and meet people at their place of need.”

Ann Hayman, another writer on the project and spokesperson for the minority report, is a 28-year veteran of ministry with street prostitutes in Los Angeles. "This is the fifth social witness policy I have worked on," she said. "This is a critical issue. We want the world to be a better place because Presbyterians are here and because we care."

Bob Schminkey, co-moderator of the Presbyterian Aids Network, was asked for his comments. He replied, "The PAN leadership team that’s currently meeting consists of local pastors, professionals in the field of HIV/AIDS, former mission workers, health professionals and advocates on the issue.We wonder how this document is going to be used. We wonder if there are better ways that many of these things that could be said. It’s not a resource that’s accessible to the local church. Might there be ways to improve it."

Schminkey continued, "We don’t believe the recommendations flow out of the body of the report. Recommendation No. 1 raises an issue that need not be raised in the first line. Maybe we could use sexual responsibility language or simply start with something else. Do we want to address issues of universal health care in line 20? We like what it says, but we don’t like what it says to the church."

Readers may now be wondering what the first recommendation says. That is information protected by the ACSWP protocol. We all will have to wait for the final version of the report.

Schminkey raised other concerns, "What is an 'AIDS competent church' and how does a church become that? This report needs to be readable and relevant and helps us build a new community. This report doesn’t help us respond. We’ve been working for years to advance the subject and we’d like to see that happen. We do care what happens with the report and we look forward to building an AIDS competent denomination."

GA staffer to ACSWP and the person who staffed the HIV/AIDS task force, Belinda Curry, responded that "the first recommendation was an attempt to re-affirm earlier GA actions. We try to build from there into areas that would stretch us further. Making this accessible to the church isn’t really our charge. ACSWP is policy level, then it’s the responsibility of the program level to think through implementation."

To which Bob Schminkey replied, "a dichotomy seems to be created between policy and programs. Are you doing social policy in a vacuum?"
 
ACSWP's defense is that they got money to do a study, not a study guide. They write policy, not programs. 

Schminkey was unrelenting, "This report does not affect the local congregation. It doesn’t have a heart. It does not lead us deeper into ministry and relationship. A study guide is a study guide, opportunities and examples of ministry are lacking here."
 
ACSWP then acted on a motion to refer the two documents and the substance of the conversation to a working group that will seek to perfect the document for the committee's action on Sunday morning.

What then will recommendation No. 1 say?

Conservative journalist and commentator Brit Hume says that a true conversion is something that is obvious to others.

Can people tell from the outward living of your life that you are truly converted?

 

Even identifying the realty of “true conversion” suggests that there are “false” conversions and brings the concept of “conversion” to the floor for debate.

The very word “conversion” implies the need to be converted or changed from one way of thinking or living to another. That implies there are some ways of thinking and some ways of living that are “better” than others. Egad! That is not very post-modern.

The concept of conversion is certainly Biblical. People hear the good news of the Gospel, they believe in Jesus and receive forgiveness and redemption in His name. As an outward sign of that inward transformation, they are baptized. Outward evidence of God’s inward work becomes evident through the expression of the gifts of the Spirit, cultivation and production of the fruit of the Spirit, and lives that have “taken off” the old ways and “put on” the new way of life in Christ.

One easy example to which we can point is the conversion of the apostle Paul, formerly Saul of Tarsus, on the road to Damascus (Acts 9). Saul persecuted the Church. Saul was confronted with the Gospel. Saul believed. His life was radically changed. His thoughts changed. His plans changed. His deeds changed. His friends changed. Inside and out, his life was converted. He was a fully devoted follower of Jesus Christ – 100 percent given over in every way to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

People were not immediately convinced of the sincerity of his conversion. Even Ananias, to whom the Lord spoke in a vision about Saul’s conversion, was not easily persuaded. But Paul had changed. He had been given the Father’s eyes, the very mind of Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit, but it took awhile for the world to see Saul differently. Over time, the outward evidence of his life bore witness with his words that he was indeed a follower of Jesus Christ.

Nominal Christians, people who are “Christians” in name only, are leading lives that bear little resemblance to the life of Jesus. They know that they’re not Muslim and they’re not Jewish and they’re not Hindu and they’re not Buddhist, so they must be Christian, right? Wrong. You’re not a Christian by default. You’re actually a pagan by default. You become a Christian through conversion: Your worldview conformed to the Bible as your mind is transformed by God’s Word; your life conformed to Christ as your will is submitted to the will of the Father; your actions transformed by the Holy Spirit who continues to work within you – a lifelong process called sanctification.

So, let’s take a moment to examine our own lives. If we were charged in a court of law with being a Christian, would there be enough public witness to convict us?

RELATED POSTS: Brit Hume and the public nature of our faith; Christianity and Buddhism; How is proselytizing a bad thing?

Martin Luther King, Jr. – Parker Williamson remembers him fondly. Parker was a seminary student at Union in Richmond when King issued the call for folks to come to join his march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama . Williamson and another seminary classmate boarded a train and headed south.
 
In his own words, Williamson shares, “King stood on the back of a truck with a bullhorn in his hands. He had absolute control of the crowd. His words were firm. Recalling ‘Bloody Sunday,’ when dogs and police carrying billy clubs attacked those who marched across the bridge in Selma , King spoke in no uncertain terms that the Montgomery marchers must be non-violent. If attacked, we were to fall on our knees and call on the name of Jesus. That was King’s instruction, and everyone followed it.”
 
(To read the full speech "Our God is marching on," click here) 
 
Williamson continues, “It took four days to march from Selma to Montgomery . The crowd swelled along the way. Common conveniences were uncommon. Potra-johns were affixed to flatbed trucks that traveled with us along the highway. Many marchers slept on the side of the road. Others slept in church buildings. Food was offered to us by those who gathered along the route. Whites had closed many of the grocery stores, restaurants and shops. But we often experienced grace, provided by those in whose stead we marched. On one occasion, I remember a black hand jutting toward me from the roadside crowd, holding a piece of a sandwich. I was deeply moved by that offering. These people could not risk joining us, but they sustained us.”
 
“As we approached Montgomery , the tide of public opinion began to turn. King had been informed at the start that we would not be allowed any further than the Capitol steps. Those steps were blocked by a well-armored line of state police in riot gear. But along the way, Governor Collins from Florida joined King at the front of the march. He had negotiated with Governor Wallace to allow King to enter the state house and speak on behalf of the people. A podium was set up in front of the building. We sang ‘We shall overcome’ until we couldn’t sing anymore.”
 
“Five months later, we didn’t have to sing it anymore. Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965.”
 
When asked, “What was it all about?” Williamson responded, “African Americans had to bear arms for this country, but they could not vote for those who sent them into battle. When some who protested that injustice were bloodied on the Edmund Pettus Bridge, I knew I had to go to Alabama. We went there to do for our brothers and sisters what they could not do for themselves. It was just the right thing to do.”

Conservative news commentator and journalist Brit Hume has been accused of proselytizing.  

 

What is proselytizing?

 

Why is it considered “bad” from a post-modern worldview?

 

Here’s the scenario:

 

I have something you don’t have. That which I have is a great blessing to my life.  If I continued to be compelled by a worldly me-centered selfishness, I would not be compelled to share what I have with you. However, that which I have has actually changed the way I think and the way I live. I am no longer consumed with me-centered thoughts nor an obsessive desire for “more.” I am now compelled by love to share what I have with you, who lacks such blessing. I do not force the gift upon you, but offer it freely, just as it was freely offered to me.

 

Please explain to me, how is this a bad thing?

 

Think of it this way:

 

You and I are in the same boat. Our boat is sinking, fast. We have no means of saving ourselves. Death is certain. Help has arrived from the outside. A savior! I can see him. I have a hold of the lifeboat. There is room for you. My self-preserving, self-promoting, self-centered instinct is to take the out that is offered to me and leave you behind. But being saved compels me to want to share the good news of the offer of salvation with you. I cannot make you want to be saved. I cannot force you to take the life that is offered freely out of grace. You may certainly choose to reject the offer, but I am irresistibly compelled to offer it to you.

 

How is this a bad thing?

 

“Proselytizing” is defined as the process of seeking to recruit or convert someone to your faith, party or cause. If we believe something deeply, we are likely proselytizing all the time. People who are “advocates” of anything are technically proselytizing. The entire point of the advocacy committees of our denomination, the Washington and U.N. offices, and every advocacy group you can think of are working to proselytize people. The problem is that we have come to think of proselytizing as a pejorative term. The truth is it is fairly synonymous with evangelism.

As fully devoted followers of Jesus Christ we are commissioned to make other disciples. That’s proselytizing. We are commanded to share the good news of God’s grace available through Jesus Christ with others. That’s proselytizing.

 

Are there more and less winsome ways to go about it? Certainly. But the reality is that we cannot escape the calling to which we have been called. The good news demands to be told. It is, in fact, like a fire burning within those who believe. We cannot keep it to ourselves! Not because we think of ourselves more highly than those who do not yet know, but because God has given us His love for them – a love that desires that they know and receive His grace in Jesus Christ that they might live!

 

Tell me again: How is that a bad thing?

 

RELATED POSTS: Brit Hume and the public nature of our faith; Christianity and Buddhism; Truly converted?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Brit Hume says that Christianity offers something that Buddhism does not.

Would you know how to articulate the things that are offered by Christ that are not offered by Buddha? Do you know the basic differences between Christianity and Buddhism?

Christianity is based on the self-revelation of the Trinitarian God who creates, redeems and sustains all things. Buddhism is based on a self-actualized life of enlightenment wherein an individual acknowledges that life is primarily suffering and tries to live as ethically as possible to reduce that suffering.

The Judeo-Christian tradition sees the source of that suffering as human sin and the solution as forgiveness from God. Christians believe that redemption comes only through Jesus Christ. Buddhists do not believe in the existence of a personal, revealed, active God. So, they have no belief in the concept of “sin” as offending such a Being. Therefore, in Buddhism, there is no hope that help might be offered from the “outside” to forgive or redeem.

According to the Buddhist law of karma, Tiger Woods is going to have to “redeem” himself. He is going to have to pay for whatever wrongs he's committed. There is no means in Buddhism for the proverbial slate to be wiped clean as Buddhism does not provide a mechanism for the forgiveness of sins nor the redemption of life by the benevolence of a loving, personal God.

For Buddhists, the only hope is to be found inside the self.  What Brit Hume offered was the possibility of forgiveness and a new life that comes from outside the self as a gift from a loving, gracious and merciful God.

Part of the challenge we face as Christians addressing this subject is that many of us have muddled thinking on the subject of sin. We do not have a decidedly “biblical” view but something much more syncretistic.  Many Americans have cobbled together a religion of their own making that has some “Christian” components like Christmas and heaven and the Golden Rule, but many non-Christian pieces come from Eastern religions as well.

As fully devoted followers of Jesus Christ we have to be exclusively with Jesus. Not Jesus plus Buddha, or Jesus plus New Age crystals, or Jesus plus astrology, or Jesus plus humanism, or Jesus plus anything. Just Jesus, no additives, fillers, preservatives, or foreign gods. As always, the examination of faith begins with our own.

For more on the subject, I recommend reading the Jan. 10 New York Times op-ed piece by Ross Douthat.

RELATED POSTS: Brit Hume and the public nature of our faith; How is proselytizing a bad thing?; Truly converted?

 

A week ago, Fox News senior political analyst and publically committed follower of Jesus Christ, Brit Hume, made comments that have ignited a very healthy public debate in the secular media. If you have not seen it, please watch Brit Hume on Bill O’Reilly:

 

 

Hume’s comments have unmasked some deficiencies in many Christians' ability to articulate the things of the faith.

Hume says that Christianity offers something that Buddhism does not.

            Would you know how to articulate the things that are offered by Christ that are not offered by Buddha?

            Do you know the basic differences between Christianity and Buddhism?

Hume has been accused of proselytizing.

            What is proselytizing?

            Why is it considered “bad” from a post-modern worldview?

Hume makes comments about “redemption” and “forgiveness.”

            What do those terms mean?

            What do both redemption and forgiveness presuppose?

            How is Jesus qualified to offer redemption and forgiveness in ways others cannot?

Hume says that a true conversion is something that is obvious to others.

            Can people tell from the outward living of your life that you are truly converted?

            Do you know the difference between “nominal” Christianity and the kind of “followership” that Jesus demands of fully-devoted disciples?

Hume says that when you speak the name of Jesus Christ, all hell breaks loose.

 

            What does that statement mean to you?

            How have you experienced the “hell breaking” nature of public testimony?

Upcoming posts will address subjects listed above as a means of interacting with the subject matter and more importantly, becoming more fully equipped to contend for the faith and engage in the public discourse already well underway.  

For some background on the matter, you are encouraged to read Politics Daily's "Fox, Tiger and Christianity: A Defense of Brit Hume". 

 

RELATED POSTS: Christianity and Buddhism; How is proselytizing a bad thing?; Truly converted?

The line started with shepherds and wise men. Where's the line forming to see Jesus this Christmas?