 An analysis of the PUP report "O for a thousand tongues to sing my great Redeemer's praise …" By Parker T. Williamson The Layman Online Thursday, April 27, 2006 Editor's Note: The Presbytery of Western North Carolina invited the Rev. Parker T. Williamson to give a presentation and critique on the report of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity at its stated meeting April 25 in Montreat, N.C. At that same meeting, the presbytery also voted (59-61) to reject an overture by the First Presbyterian Church of Hendersonville that would have called on the General Assembly to reject recommendations 4, 5 and 6 of the PUP report. What follows is the presentation that Williamson, editor emeritus and senior correspondent of The Layman, made to the presbytery. Mightily, lustily, with passion, a congregation in Cairo sang that hymn. The windows had been flung open – partly to expel the suffocating heat from hundreds of bodies packed into the upstairs sanctuary, partly to bear witness to a Muslim world just beyond its walls. Bearing witness to the Lord Jesus Christ in that land is no marginal matter. There's no hiding the fact that you are a Christian, for religion is indelibly marked on the identity card that every Egyptian must carry. And that name, the name of Jesus, carries a sentence. You're the last in line for medical care. Converting a Muslim to the Christian faith is punishable by death. The law will not allow your congregation to repair its sanctuary. So, a courageous pastor and his congregation silently mortar the inside walls at night. ""It's OK," he says as his people shore up the interior, "for we know that strength comes from within. It is not I who live, but Christ who lives in me." "O for a thousand tongues to sing my great Redeemer's praise!" The sound of those words, brought to Egypt by our missionaries long ago, attracted two observers in the back pew. The congregation suspected who they were during communion, when they refused the bread and the wine. Then, automatic rifles appeared from beneath their robes, and all doubt disappeared. Yet, this radiant congregation kept on singing! This gathering of Sudanese refugees whose homes had been destroyed and whose families had been murdered – this gathering of shopkeepers, teachers, mechanics and the unemployed - belted out the words in a glorious crescendo: "He breaks the power of reigning sin. He sets the prisoner free …" I heard the words of that great hymn that night, but also in another, radically different context. Several years ago, Presbyterian Church (USA) leaders decided to publish a new hymn book. A committee gathered in Louisville to find words that might express the denomination's increasingly inclusive faith. I observed that meeting as a reporter. Gender made life difficult for "Dear Lord and Father of Mankind." Militarism did in "Onward Christian Soldiers." Then they took on John Wesley's masterpiece, "O for a thousand tongues to sing my great Redeemer's praise!" The motion was made to replace those words with these: "O for a world where everyone respects each other's ways!" The motion passed. Then someone suggested that Presbyterians in the pews might take issue with the exclusion of this grand old hymn. So they decided to showcase the new words as the preferred hymn (page 386), and place "A Thousand Tongues" on page 466, labeled as "an alternative." You see the difference. By an act of reverse alchemy, the precious gold of saving faith was exchanged for the dross of pluralism. Egyptian Christians are prepared to die for the saving faith, and many have done so. But who would die for a paltry philosophy called "respecting each other's ways?" Some ways do not warrant respect. The PUP report That, dear friends, is the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity report's fatal flaw. Commissioned to do theology, the task force gave us sociology. For four years, its members gathered, mostly behind closed doors, to pool their experiences, share their joys and sorrows, rejoice in their common humanity, and become dear friends. They became such good friends that they determined nothing should undermine their unity. No principle, no conviction, no behavior, no Scripture, no faith … nothing could diminish their "respect for each others' ways." That is the message that, two-by-two, they have paraded before presbyteries all over this country before this upcoming General Assembly. "Look at us," they say. "Note how different we are, and yet what good friends we are." Jack says he would not want to belong to a church that excludes Barbara, and Barbara says the same thing about Jack. The important thing, you see, is our relationships. Now, no one finds fault in the fact that these good people became friends. In this world of common grace, each of us has forged friendships with persons of a different faith, or even no faith at all. But one does not build a theology on human experience. It is just too flat. Where does theology come from? Jesus said it clearly when identifying the source of Peter's confession: "Flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, [this did not come from consensus] but my Father who is in heaven." Do you hear the resounding "no" to a faith that is forged in mere human experience? Listen to the Word of God:
That, dear friends, is the essence of communion, our participation in the life of the holy Trinity, that eternal love of the Father for the Son, and the bonding of the Holy Spirit. "Flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, Peter, but my Father, who is in heaven." Theology is theo-logos (language about God) that must, first and foremost, be the language of God. Thus, it can come from nowhere else than the Word of God. Political alternative to the Word of God Consider the contrast, this political alternative to the Word of God, this sociology that purports to be a theology: "O for a world where everyone respects each others' ways." Can anyone who believes the Gospel accept that formula for church unity? Oh, surely – some will say – PUP said nothing like that! Ah, but it did, and unanimously so. Consider PUP's own words: "All parties should endeavor to outdo one another in honoring one another's decisions …" (Line 1069). Consider PUP's suggestion that we ditch parliamentary procedure because it "forces the choice into a binary format that divides governing bodies into two parties" (Line 616-617). Consider, "Therefore, we believe the church should seek constructive, Christ-like alternatives to the 'yes/no' forms in which questions about sexuality, ordination, and same-gender covenantal relationships have been put to the church in recent decades" (Lines 604-607). The theme is clear: Deciding between polarities like yes and no, right and wrong, truth and falsehood, good and evil, must be avoided at all costs because such decisions polarize people, create two camps, and cause some – God forbid – to feel excluded. So, let's exchange yes/no for both/and. Let's welcome all positions. Let's do what PUP member Vickie Curtis suggested during her presentation to my presbytery: "Conduct polarity management exercises," "Envision hope born of conversation," "Honor one another's views." That's a far cry from our Lord's counsel: "Let your yes be yes and your no be no." "No one can serve two masters." Joshua's challenge to Israel: "Choose you this day whom you will serve." When Israel tried to encompass Yahweh and Baal, Elijah roared: "How long will you go limping between two opinions?" Scripture requires us to choose between alternatives, one of which is false, ungodly, unbecoming of the Christian life. The whole counsel of God How in the world does PUP manage to dismiss the whole counsel of God, calling it a "binary format" that is to be avoided for the sake of unity? How in the world does PUP embrace both good and evil? It does so by looking to the world. PUP's ideology and the recommendations that flow from it are grounded not in the Word of God, but in the PUP members' own shared experience. Hear the Word of God:
PUP says, "We have not compromised our basic convictions or commitments. We still hold most of the views and perspectives we brought to the task force" (Lines 371-372). Please do not miss the ontological significance of this amazing statement. It does not really matter whether the building in which we gather today is made of stone or straw. If your "basic conviction" is that it is straw, then so be it. The fact of the matter doesn't matter because in this worldview there is no fact, only what you experience as fact. It's all about your truth, because there is no such thing as truth in itself. So, each of us can have our own convictions, provided, PUP says, that they are "sincerely held" (Lines 604). Since when has sincerity had anything to do with truth? Has history not proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that one can be sincerely wrong? A very dangerous place And were does that leave us? It leaves us in a very dangerous place, a place that threatens our mortal souls. It invites us to violate the First Commandment: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Why? Because in setting ourselves up as the ultimate arbiters of truth, we become our own gods. The thought behind "O for a world where everyone respects each other's ways" or, as PUP puts it, "honors one another's convictions," is of ancient origin. It's found in the garden of Eden, where two humans decided to "be like God," determining for themselves what is good and what is evil. It is found in the time of the judges, "when there was no king in Israel" (no authority beyond the people themselves), "and everyone did what was right in his own eyes." That's how PUP came up with its infamous Recommendation #5, a proposal that we leave a standard on the books, but give each governing body the right to determine if it is "essential for them." If they say it is not essential, then for them the standard is null and void. Please note the practical foolishness of such a proposal, the chaos that inevitably results from embracing a self-contradiction, from taking a position that both affirms and denies the validity of a truth. And this issue is not limited to the subject of sex. If this denomination says governing bodies can "scruple" section G-6.0106b in the Constitution, it follows that they can "scruple" section G-8, or G-9 or, in fact, any other constitutionally defined "standard." You don't believe that Jesus Christ is King of Kings and Lord of Lords? You believe he is only of a number of choices on the smorgasbord of world religions? You do not believe that he was raised bodily from the dead? That's okay. Declare a scruple and you're in. In PUP's big-tent polity, there's plenty of room. PUP's post-modernism makes a mockery of our Constitution, not only in practical terms, but in essential terms as well. It violates one of the Book of Order's preliminary principles:
Tantamount to amending the Constitution The PUP report's proposal is tantamount to amending the Constitution without amending the Constitution. If one wishes to do away with our ordination standards, the honest approach would be to propose an amendment to the General Assembly, try to achieve a majority vote, and then have it sent out to the 173 presbyteries for their advice and consent. In fact, that has been attempted, and the people of this denomination overwhelmingly have rejected the proposal, most recently by an almost three to one margin. The members of the task force know it is highly unlikely that those who wish to amend the Constitution by deleting G-6 can achieve their goal. So, their report suggests that the standard not be changed, but only our "interpretation" of the standard be changed. Why? Because an interpretation requires only a majority vote at the General Assembly. No referendum by the people is necessary. Such a procedure – namely, leaving the words in place but redefining their meaning – is patently dishonest. From a constitutional standpoint, it is a direct violation of Londonderry v. the Presbytery of Northern New England, in which our denomination's highest court ruled that no governing body has the authority unilaterally to amend the Constitution. Insofar as church polity is concerned, PUP's recommendation is a nightmare, but as important as the governance issue is, it is critical that we focus on a consequence deeper and more damaging. We face a matter of eternal consequence. The pluralism that is inherent in the PUP report represents a foreign faith. Adopt it, and the Presbyterian Church (USA) loses its very soul. But, some will say, how can this be? After all, look at all that good Scripture in Part One of PUP's report. Good point, for Scripture is surely there, as is PUP's affirmation of the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed. But look closely at what PUP has done here. PUP has affirmed a consensus about Scripture, and that is something far different than affirming Scripture itself. Who determines what Scripture says in this scenario? Each PUP member does. We're not dealing here with the Word of God written. We're dealing with the word of God to me. We're dealing with what I say it says. We, not Scripture, define what "is" is. Its own members' opinions Note how often throughout its report PUP refers, not to the definitive Word of God, but to its own members' opinions (all of which are deemed valid because they are "sincerely held"). "Repeatedly, we found ourselves moved and impressed by the depth and truth of statements made by our colleagues, including those whose backgrounds and experiences are very different from our own" (Lines 357-359, emphasis added). How can opposite statements both be true? They can be true only if you determine at the outset that each person defines truth by his or her own "backgrounds and experiences." In the PUP report's world, the position that one holds is not as important as is the context, the "background and experience" out of which it comes. Or again: "Our trust in other Presbyterians and our respect for differing perspectives has deepened" (Line 378-379, emphasis added). "We explored a range of opinions on issues of human sexuality" (Line 512, emphasis added). "We read and discussed a diverse collection of theological and biblical writings on these topics" (Line 514-515, emphasis added). Note the PUP report's focus on a "range of opinions, "and that it places the Biblical witness on a plane with "a diverse collection" of theological writings. Sure, Scripture can be found in the PUP report. Some of my favorite passages are there, but so is everything else. That's the sin of pluralism: Scripture is simply one part of the mix. Whatever happened to "sola Scriptura," that clarion call of the Reformation? Our theological heritage is grounded in the authority of Scripture over any other source of knowledge and/or belief. Or again: "Further, we were all able to agree that perspectives on questions of sexuality, ordination and same-gender covenantal relations are rich and complex, and our fellow task force members who hold these views are sincere, faithful and guided by scripture" (Lines 602-604, emphasis added). If, for just one moment, we step out of the PUP report's pooled opinions, perspectives and experiences – if, for example, we should turn away from ourselves and toward the Word of God – what might we find on the subject of human sexual relations? Stepping our of our opinions, and stepping into the Biblical witness, do we find Scripture to be "unclear" or "complex" or "confusing" regarding who may have sexual relations with whom? The PUP report's confusion comes from the pooled perspectives of task force members and the opinions of their chosen human authorities, not from Scripture itself. New Testament professor Robert Gagnon, of Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, has written the definitive work on the Bible and homosexual practice. His argument, exquisitely grounded in Scripture, makes an open and shut case for the fact that if one allows Scripture to speak for itself on the subject of human sexuality, one finds not one shred of equivocation. Tom Gillespie, former President of Princeton Seminary said it well: "Scripture says what it means and means what it says." So, where are we? So, where are we with this PUP report? Well, it's getting a lot of play right now. General Assembly and presbytery councils are spending tens of thousands of your mission dollars to hype it to the hilt. Personal appearances at presbytery meetings; a dedicated day with General Assembly commissioners; a multimedia extravaganza; endorsements from luminaries like seminary presidents and former General Assembly moderators … and on and on. But when the winds of this public relations campaign have finally blown through, the PUP report will disappear. Why? Because any document that jettisons Scripture, elevates mere opinion and places truth and falsehood on an equal plane cannot survive. Self-contradictions self destruct. Dear friends, I am deeply indebted to the Presbyterian Church (USA), for it was through the ministry of one of its congregations that I received the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. In one of its colleges and one of its seminaries, I was tutored in Biblical faith. A Presbyterian presbytery ordained me into the Gospel ministry, and three of its congregations have allowed me to live out my call in their midst. I have deeply loved this denomination. It is for that very reason – out of that deep love for a church that introduced me to the Savior – that I grieve over the increasing signs that apostasy overtaking us. The Presbyterian Church (USA) is ill – many of us now believe it is "terminally ill" – having been infected with a false gospel. Some of us harbored hopes that the PUP report would prescribe a cure, but any such hopes have now been cruelly dashed by the report that we are discussing today. Politics will not save the Presbyterian Church (USA). I will stake my life on the Word of God, but I will not live, and I will not die, for consensus. While I grieve for my denomination, I am not without hope, for I trust the Word of God. Remember what the Lord said:
We are nearing the final hours of this denomination. Even now, there is time for repentance. Let us return to the Gospel, that faith once and for all delivered to the saints. Let us affirm the singular saving Lordship of Jesus Christ and submit to an authority that transcends ourselves. Then, and only then, being drawn into that sacred communion of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, will we experience the peace, unity and purity of the Church. |
|
Respond to this article |
|
| Home
· Archives
· The
Layman ·
Subscribe
to The Layman ·
PLC
Publications Presbyterian Lay Committee · Online book reviews · Feedback · Links |
|