Comment (0)

(And even if God did spell out these rights, would we be willing to accept what God said to people in the Late Bronze Age? Or would we dismiss what God said to them on the grounds that times have changed?)

 

While God did not spell out an explicit list of the rights that the writer of Proverbs 29:7 had in mind, I have recently come to believe that we can identify some of those rights in Deuteronomy 23 and 24. Here are just a few:

 

1. Exod 22:25, Lev 25:35-37, and Deut 23:19-20 all forbid charging interest to a fellow Israelite who is financially destitute. These verses do not forbid commercial loans. That’s why it was OK to charge interest to non-Israelites; such loans would always be commercial loans. What God forbids is charging interest on food or necessities, making profit off of a fellow Israelite’s poverty.

 

2. In Deut 24:6, God makes it illegal to require anything vital for survival as collateral to be repossessed, particularly their means of production. Today, a car might fit this definition.

 

3. In Deut 24:10-13, God protects the privacy of the poor by forbidding the creditor to enter a house to obtain collateral. God also makes it difficult to use the coat or bed in which one sleeps for collateral (see also Exod 22:26-27).

 

4. Deut 24:14-15 – Withholding wages is another forbidden means of violating the rights of the poor. See also Lev 19:13: “The wages of a hired servant shall not remain with you all night until morning.” Deadbeat employers steal their employees’ labor this way. Deadbeat corporations steal the use of their suppliers’ money this way. Even Rushdoony the theonomist writes, “Work must be promptly paid, or it is theft and should be prosecuted as such.”

 

5. Deut 24:17, Exod 22:21, and Lev 19:33 all remind us not to oppress the alien or the orphan, depriving them of justice. The meaning of “oppression,” which is best described as “coercion” or abuse of power, will be discussed in my next blog. Israel’s experience in Egypt is cited in the Torah as a prime example of oppression. And only in Deut 24:17 is the widow’s garment explicitly forbidden as collateral.

 

6. Deut 24:19-21 – Leaving part of the harvest for the poor is also in the Holiness Code (Lev 19:9-10, 23:22). It was a way of giving the poor a chance to harvest for themselves. It required generosity on the part of the landowner, and offered productive work for those who were in need. The salvaging of unwanted food from supermarkets and restaurants to feed the poor, the salvaging of clothes and other goods by resale stores, and the salvaging of recyclables from trash, can all claim Biblical precedent in this law. But the heart of this law is the requirement that the producer of food set aside part of his potential profit so that those in need who were willing to labor for it could also earn their living.

 

Did the poor have other rights that have not been spelled out in the Hebrew Bible? We have no way of knowing for sure, and we must be careful about adding rights to this list without sufficient Scriptural warrant. But these commands are enough for starters. They give us examples of God’s passion for justice expressed in specific actions.

 

TOM HOBSON of Belleville, Ill., a PC(USA) pastor for 28 years, is currently serving at First Church in Herrin, Ill., and as an adjunct professor at Morthland College, West Frankfort, Ill.

 

 

 

[...]

Comment (0) Read More...

 

I sense the growing lack of positive representation and/or comprehension of the essential responsibilities of role on the part of ruling elders and the more aggressive assertion and expansion of role on the part of teaching elders.

 

A few years ago, COGA conducted a training session which highlighted the duties of elders and pointed to the need for elders who truly accepted and bought into their intended role and it referred to them as “angry Elders." That terminology spoke directly to a problem that was manifesting itself and has since proliferated.

 

Traditionally (definitely historically ) there existed a healthy balance of powers which in recent years has become dominated by the teaching elders simply by the fact that many ruling elders have ceded their role ( not necessarily by intention ) in the balance of thought , word and deed which should exist in a collegial, democratic relationship. Apparently bowing to what one might presume as a "sellout" or acquiescence on the part of the laity, due in the main to a lack of knowledge with respect to polity as well as a strong sense of the give and take of a meaningful, positive collegial relationship and acceptance of the intended governmental equality of their position.

 

In observing recent actions, many schismatic, within the denomination it is starkly apparent the leadership, conceptual thinking and lopsided rhetoric has been formulated, generated and implemented from a mainly clergy perspective, driven essentially by teaching elders. Certainly that is borne out as one reads the accounts of the actions of these bodies. Having witnessed a similar dynamic as an observer in General Assembly committee meetings, there is little doubt in my mind that this critical imbalance is guiding denominational movement in a dangerous direction.

 

The problem is in reality a systemic boondoggle due in the main to the very dramatic change which is taking place across the denomination with respect to membership loss and financial loss, all exacerbated by the debilitating effect of aging across the spectrum. The membership well is slowly drying up and available, capable people are in scarce supply. Sadly, the great majority have reached a stage in life where they are ready to slow down and coast, content to be passive participants.

 

So....A great many congregations are graying and grasping at straws, frankly seeking any warm body to serve in a most critical role and by default unable to effectively fuel a vital collegial balance. Elder training has in far too many instances become folly so those so selected and elected are thus susceptible to play "follow the leader" as the path of least resistance or risk of rancorous controversy.

 

As this process compounds and goes forward, the balance of power continues to shift and disintegrate and the resulting actions, once the envy of many denominations, move resolutely toward clergy domination and away from the intended Calvinist concept of Presbyterianism, and the long intended role of the ruling elder becomes sublimated and thus structurally ineffective. All of which points us in a precarious direction and away from our long-defended, once effective, Presbyterian roots.

 

So, what to do? The logical means by which to approach this dilemma is to embark on and develop a program/ methodology that can – not unlike the phenomenon that occurred within all mainline denominations following World War II and sustained the church well into the late 1900s – lead to an infusion of young, energetic leaders and families, a new generation of members who possess the vitality necessary to re-infuse our sagging fortunes, prayerfully, for another 50 years (but keep the focus on new life and not rest on our oars). Train them properly and turn them loose and the result could well herald a restoration of badly needed balance/equality in our processes... In short, the answer is new, younger members who are enthused, willing and buy into and implement our modernized polity.

 

 

Retired, longtime marketing executive and consultant, and CEO of two corporations, Jim Babcock of Bozeman, Mont., is a lifelong Presbyterian ruling elder. Ordained for 52 years, he has served as moderator of presbytery, trustee of the PC(USA) Foundation and a member of COGA. Married for 62 years, has has raised six children, and served on many charitable organization boards.

[...]

Comment (7) Read More...

As you can imagine, some folks are for it and some are against it. Some fear there may be a mass exodus, with those favoring gay marriage flocking to D.C., where it is legal, and the rest of the state flocking to Virginia, where heterosexual monogamy is officially ensconced forevermore.

What do we do to accommodate the people so upset? So Maryland is thinking about something bold and new. We are thinking about the non-geographic county governments (NGCGs). Or… well… maybe not really a government that governs, but one that people can get in and either have married gay or lesbian neighbors or not. But there are some other values at play as well. County choice is based on “Missional affinity.” The idea goes that each neighborhood would get to pick its own non-geographic county to be in. I’m not sure if we would go for the one with more lax fence regulations (I really want a bigger fence across the back yard so I don’t see the high school football field lights), or a county where my taxes would be lower. Many of us are thinking about a non-geographical county where taxes are just thought of as suggestions, “moral obligations” (hint, hint), without any possibility that a county could actually impose a tax on anybody.

We really don’t want a county at all, but if we must be in one we want one that doesn’t cost us or require any sort of compliance from us and that lets us do anything we want. My neighborhood still wants garbage pick-up, police protection and fire houses, but this non-geographic approach may plop us in with another neighborhood 50 or 60 miles from here. Our fire truck may have to drive past five other fire stations to come put out a fire in our neighborhood. Water and sewer services are a little more problematic to sort out, but we know that geography doesn’t matter. Missional affinity matters. And that can be anything we say it is.

So this bold new concept, do you think it will work? Obviously if you have reservations, you must be against progress and change. You must not care that the whole of Maryland will soon be emptied out into D.C. and Virginia!

Then we wondered, what if we keep the counties geographic so the basic services of fire, police and garbage are covered? Those don’t really differ whether you are gay-OK or not. Water and sewer can flow equally among the just and the unjust, the right and the left, the self-proclaimed orthodox (as if everyone else isn’t) and progressive (as if everyone else is regressive). After all, different people can go anywhere they want and get together around whatever “affinities” motivate them. Different groups can self-organize and self-fund whatever mission they desire together. Shoot, they can even drive across state lines. Shucks, they can even have international mission relationships! But they still come to the geographic county to get the fence permit, police services, fire services and garbage pick-up. It’s permission-giving, efficient and effective. The pain is that I give up my aspirations for a 20-foot fence. So… I pull the blinds for football games.

So now the PCUSA is thinking about non-geographic presbyteries again (NGPs). This isn’t new. We’ve rejected the idea for good reason several times already. I fear the popular use of the term “missional affinity” has more to do with the opportunity for each congregation to do what is right in its own eyes. There is, after all, only one mission: God’s mission of reconciliation and salvation. Our singular affinity had better be to that and only that. Our longstanding covenanted identity has been that we best do that connectionally across our differing discernments. A presbytery’s part in God’s mission is to provide the minimum necessary oversight so that the congregation’s active solidarity with the mission of God can be discerned and expressed in creative and diverse ways. The presbytery’s task is not to enforce some narrow, homogeneous “missional affinity,” yet this very homogeneity seems to be the motivation for the proposed non-geographic approach. Instead the presbytery appropriately provides effective, efficient, basic services (water, sewer, fire, police, garbage pick-up) so that abundant life via reconciliation and salvation can be experienced in its congregations. A water and sewer system will be needed regardless. Why do we want to reroute all that when we can pursue mission passions already within and even across county lines? I do not see the necessity of reorganization when the same objectives can better be pursued with existing structures.

 

G. Wilson Gunn Jr. is general presbyter of the National Capital Presbytery.

[...]

Comment (6) Read More...

Imagine a Super Bowl where the entire game is dictated, not by what actually happens on the field, but by the referees. Or imagine a courtroom where no attempt is made by the judge or the jury to determine the facts of the case.

 

Truth matters, immensely. Issues of truth, truth that is often in dispute, have a huge impact on our lives.

 

Truth and justice are inseparably linked. We cannot have justice, in the courtroom or anywhere else, unless we can establish what the truth is in any given situation. And we live in an age where truth is as hard to nail down as Jell-O, an age where people think that truth is whatever is “true for me,” or that truth is simply a product of whoever holds the shotgun or whoever can shout the loudest, lobby the longest or manufacture the most sympathy. Without truth, forget about justice – power is the only game in town.

 

Truth can be extremely hard to find, or at least hard to recognize when we find it. In a case like Herman Cain versus his accuser, how do we figure out who’s telling the truth? The FHA is accused of carrying $54 billion more in losses than it can withstand. The FHA says it’s not true. How do we know whom to believe? We talk about how big is the federal debt, but we’re just taking somebody’s word for it. (I haven’t personally counted the money!) We even debate the truth about the health care law, which is right there on the Internet, but it’s so big, who’s actually read it?

 

Until lately, society has been relying heavily on science to nail down truth for us. What’s scary is that now we’re hearing more and more reports of scientists faking their data. Decisions with huge price tags hang on data that is wide open to manipulation. Whatever the truth may be where science itself is in dispute, truth matters!

 

What does God say about the connection between truth and justice? In the Book of the Covenant, God says: Don’t use falsehood as a tool of economic violence (Exod 23:1-2, which refers to “a witness that does violence”). Don’t let the crowd fool you into thinking that truth and justice can be calculated by the numbers (Exod 23:2, “Do not follow a multitude to do evil”). Don’t discriminate, either in favor of or against the poor (Exod 23:3, 6). And don’t take gifts of any kind that blind you to issues of truth and justice (Exod 23:8).

 

Justice should not be based on class warfare of either kind. Because the poor could rarely if ever leverage enough clout to obtain justice in the Biblical world, it was the duty of the righteous to come to their defense. Yet the Law of Moses also warns against the opposite danger. Discrimination against the poor can end up being replaced by reverse discrimination, which is what I call equal injustice under law.

 

Truth matters, immensely! People deserve truthful information about matters that critically affect their lives, like what’s in the food they eat and the water they drink, or how’s their money being handled by Social Security or the Federal Reserve, or who exactly are these people we elect to office.

 

I believe our news media have been guilty of both malpractice and conflict of interest by obstructing the public’s right to know. The dangers of a one-party press are as bad as the dangers of one-party rule. Where’s the accountability? And what happens to truth in such a scenario? Justice depends on an informed electorate. How else are we supposed to know whom we are electing, or to know good policy from bad?

 

How do we figure out which sources of information to trust in today’s world? I watch over time to see: who gives me only half the story? Who has to backtrack the least when all the facts come out? Who ends up having to admit more of what the other side was saying all along?

 

I believe you could cut the talk radio audience by half or more, if you could show them a convincing alternative where they feel satisfied that they are getting the whole story on the news, with less surprises of “Nobody told me that – that throws a completely different light on the subject!”

 

Truth matters, immensely! It makes a huge difference in our lives, whether the issues are threats to our health, threats to our money, threats to justice for us all, threats to our environment, or threats to our nation’s survival. Truth is the only way we can establish justice, the only way we can right the wrongs in this world. And God is the only one who knows the whole story. Only God knows the score. Only God always knows whose case is just.

 

May God help us to recognize the truth that we need to know to survive in this world. May God help us to put honest truth into practice, and to ruthlessly root out lies, in order to make this a more just world.

 

TOM HOBSON of Belleville, Ill., a PC(USA) pastor for 28 years, is currently serving at First Church in Herrin, Ill and as adjunct professor at Morthland College, West Frankfort, Ill.

[...]

Comment (0) Read More...

“He will judge the world with righteousness, and the peoples with equity.” – Psalm 98:9

 

“The one who had much did not have too much, and the one who had little did not have too little.” – 2 Corinthians 8:15

 

“Equality is a mathematical term.” – R. J. Rushdoony, quoting James Gray.

 

One of the loud complaints we have heard from the Occupy movement has been about the inequality of incomes, as if this were a matter of fundamental injustice, and as if forced wealth redistribution were part of the answer to the problem. Since the God of the Bible is a God of justice, the church cannot logically avoid the issue.

 

But while it is clear that God demands justice in how we treat one another, the problem is that God has not defined justice very explicitly. That does not let us off the hook. But it should keep us humble. God has not told us exactly what a fair wage or fair price should be, or what a fair contract should look like, although God expects us to make an educated guess as we seek to practice justice in the marketplace.

 

Has God truly made us equal? That’s a different question. Psalm 98:9 states that God will judge the peoples with “equity.” The word used here is mesharim, a word related to the term yashar or “upright.” It refers to what is “level” versus what is crooked. It is the best word in the Hebrew Bible to communicate the concept of equality. The word is used 19 times (never in the Torah). Only five of those uses are in reference to God, three of them in the Psalms. Yet the word is almost always used in a context of future judgment, where the assurance is that God will judge people equally. It is not used to speak of economic equality.

 

Several years ago, Sir Jonathan Sacks, chief rabbi of the British Empire, claimed that the Hebrew word tzedeqah really means “distributive justice that goes beyond equity and compassion.” However, he never offered a shred of lexical evidence to back up his claim. Tzedeqah is too broad a word on which to base a claim that God demands economic equality.

 

Economically, we don’t need to look far to see that God has not made us equal. Is it fair that God should give J. K. Rowling the talent to write books that have sold millions of copies, talent that God has not given to the rest of us (rich or poor)? Is it fair that God has given Albert Pujols the talent to play baseball well enough to land a contract for hundreds of millions with LA? (I have been a hometown fan of Pujols since the day he began, so I have never begrudged him what he gets paid, even though he has struck out or grounded into double plays numerous times when we needed a hit. I know that a huge chunk of what he gets paid ends up back in God’s pocket.)

 

Is it fair that God gave Steve Jobs the ability to grow a company? And why does God bestow such brilliance on so many people who hate God with a passion? Let’s face it: God has not distributed wealth-producing abilities equally. God even admits it implicitly in the parable of the talents, and in Luke 12:48: “To whom much is given, of them much will be required.”

 

It was recently noted that our top 10 entertainers get paid twice as much as our top ten CEO’s. So why haven’t we heard a whimper of protest from the Occupy movement about the entertainers among that evil 1 percent? Why haven’t we heard calls to confiscate the wealth of Oprah Winfrey or Steven Spielberg? Or why not confiscate the $90 million paid to Franklin Raines while he was running Fannie Mae into the ground?

 

Granted, a lot of the consternation appears to be about the disparity where folks at the top earn 100 times or more than what production workers are paid at the bottom. I share some of that consternation. There are many times where it is questionable whether the high earner contributes proportionately to the value of the company and to the prosperity of the other employees, the existence of whose jobs may depend on whether the high earner is competently doing their job.

 

There are times where the high earner deserves what they are paid. There are other times, as in cases like Albert Pujols’, where market supply and demand play tricks with the value attached by the crowd to their labor. Instead of trying to fix the market, the Biblical God of justice seeks to call us to account for what we do with that income.

 

It is eisogesis to baptize a Marxist political agenda as a divine mandate for justice. As Rep. Paul Ryan said in a recent speech, equality of (economic) outcome is actually a form of inequality, one that is based on “political influence and bureaucratic favoritism” – which, I would add, it is crystal clear that God hates. God is no “lifter of faces” (Acts 10:34, Rom 2:11, Eph 6:9, Col 3:25). God doesn’t check your face, or your party membership card.

 

We are not equal in terms of the talent or income-producing abilities that God has given us. Neither are we equal in terms of the opportunities that God gives us. If you don’t like that, yell at God about it. The question is, How do we live with that disparity without caving in to greed, envy, hatred, or complicity in evil?

 

Instead of resenting others for abilities and opportunities that God has given unequally to others, we need to focus on our responsibility for what we do with what God entrusts to us. That includes treating others justly in what we pay for goods and services. That includes speaking up when we perceive that others are being treated unjustly. But let us be careful not to jump too quickly to point the finger until we truly understand. And let us be careful not to claim God as our authority where God has not spoken.

 

TOM HOBSON of Belleville, Ill., a PC(USA) pastor for 28 years, is currently serving at First Church in Herrin, Ill., and as an adjunct professor at Morthland College, West Frankfort, Ill.

[...]

Comment (9) Read More...

Interest in creating union congregations and presbyteries has emerged as part of efforts to create the New Reformed Body (NRB) under the Fellowship of Presbyterians. As one who served in an original union presbytery for a dozen years before they went out of existence with the formation of the PC(USA) in 1983, I am compelled to ask, “To what end and so what?” Revisiting the intent and outcome of those earlier experiences and a few preliminary observations on my part of the present efforts may provide a context for others more closely involved to answer these questions.

 

The dream and theological basis of the Union Presbytery Movement (UPM), whose life spanned the years 1970-1983, was to further “the unity of the church” in response to Jesus’ prayer in John 17, “that the church may be one.” This unity--a unity of spirit--was not to be confused with uniformity---a uniformity of theology, rite or opinion. Prior to 1970 Northern and Southern Presbyterian synods, presbyteries and congregations in Border States had cooperated for years in many aspects of their lives in spite of their differences.

 

Finally the point was reached where it made more sense to be “together” than to be “apart.” As a result of this new reality, union presbyteries and congregations were created, but not union synods. They were based on developing strong diverse gifts and inclusive relationships built on trust and mutual respect for differences but with constructive resolution of conflict as their goals.

 

Each union presbytery and congregation became “one entity living in two worlds” based primarily on what they held in common, not what was different about them. Each union presbytery and congregation was a full member of both worlds. As a tangible witness, each entity modeled its commitment to “the unity of the church” institutionalized through a single organizational structure with multiple relationships, varied only from others in detail by particular context.

 

To address common challenges facing congregations and presbyteries created by living in two worlds, representatives of the union presbyteries--and in time sets of co-operating presbyteries--voluntarily came together in problem analyzing/solving consultations to find constructive ways to live in those two worlds. These became known as the Consultation of/on Union Presbyteries (COUP). Informal consensus was the process for making informal decisions about proposed solutions to the problems identified. Resolution initiatives from these consultations found their way into the formal structures of both denominations at many levels bringing about significant change.

 

In addition to resolving the challenges of living in two worlds, the other stated goal of COUP was to help create “one new world” out of “two worlds” through the reunion of the Northern and Southern Presbyterian Church of which they were members. When that came about all presbyteries became “union presbyteries” though many in non-overlapping geographic areas did not experience the same sense of unity as those in overlapping areas.

 

The dream was that what union presbyteries had learned in their experience could shape a new witness to “the unity of the church” in the reunited church. However, reunion dissolved the creative tension of the two worlds that nurtured this dream and dissipated its energy and influence. Threats emerged leaving the dream of such a broader witness of “unity” mostly unrealized as “one new world”--PC(USA)--became a reality.

 

These threats took many corrosive forms: close majority votes, win-lose mentalities, theological anemia, residual racism, noise of cultural wars, nightmares of polarization, prejudiced silos of self-interest from which to attack the “other.” Overshadowed were learnings from the Union Presbytery Movement that threats could be overcome, reunion could work, and people and structures could be transformed by a steadfast belief that God is the redeemer of history. *

The reappearance of union congregations and presbyteries in the present discussion led me to pull up the Draft of the Polity for the NRB and look at pertinent passages (5.0201-5.203.) On the surface they look similar to or compatible with the new Form of Government (G 5.04-5.05) though with some difference in nomenclature. FOG refers to union congregations as “Joint Congregational Witness.” Do these two designations have equal standing or does one have official jurisdictional standing while the other has only cooperative missional standing?

 

What also is not clear in the wording of NRB 5.0202 is whether a congregation that wishes to remain a member of the PC(USA) but also wants to join the NRB, becomes fully a member of both denominations. Or is it construed to mean that a certain portion of the congregation is under the jurisdiction of one denomination while another portion is under the jurisdiction of the other denomination. In times of disagreement, parties in such an arrangement might then easily retreat to the “shelter” of their respective portions rather than engaging in the difficult work of reconciliation of real or imagined differences.

 

Some may be motivated to use NRB 5.0202 on union congregations in a strategy to withdraw from the PC(USA) but retain some of the benefits accrued while members. After a “denominational split” from the PC(USA) a particular congregation could then rejoin it as a union congregation, affiliated both with the PCUSA and the NRB. Critics might label such tactics as disingenuous.

 

At present it is not clear to me if this is a real consideration. If, however, the current Draft of the Polity intends to create union presbyteries in order to allow two governing structures to exist within a given union congregation as a strategy to prevent wholesale defection, retain benefits, preserve property and funds, or for conflict avoidance, then the intention of such an arrangement is very contradictory to the intent of the original union presbyteries. This would be more akin to “two entities living in one world” based primarily on what was different about them, not what they held in common. Such an outcome, combined with the time and energy expended in creating the NRB, could be seen as working counter to the “unity of the church.”

 

Given the current climate in the PC(USA), it might be difficult to make a convincing case that the driving force in creating the NRB is the same as the impetus in forming the original union presbyteries. I am not sure in proposing this current version of union congregations and presbyteries that the players have reached the point where it makes more sense to be “together” than to be “apart” as their witness to “the unity of the church.” But that is for others to judge and not for me to say.

 

“The church as an institution may falter and be divided at the hands of dysfunctional human beings, but [I fervently believe] the hands of an everlasting God [still move in our midst to] unite the church as to body of Christ. Human institutions can divide and disintegrate in watershed moments, or they can be united and transformed into the body of Christ by el Espiritu Santo [the Holy Spirit] when least expected.”** Jesus’ prayer “that the church may be one” is as compelling today as the day he uttered it. It is in this spirit I share these reflections as an outside observer to all these current proceedings.

 

William G. McAtee is executive presbyter emeritus of Transylvania Presbytery.

 

 

* for more details of the UPM and its outcome in the reunited church, see McAtee, William G. Dreams, Where Have You Gone? Clues for Unity and Hope. Louisville, Kentucky: Witherspoon Press, 2006, especially Chapters 12, 15, 16, and Epilogue.

Available: http://store.pcusa.org/Communications?search=Dreams

** Dreams, p. 380.

[...]

Comment (1) Read More...

“One who goes about as a talebearer (rakiyl, “slanderer”) reveals secrets, but one who is faithful in spirit conceals a matter.” – Proverbs 11:13

 

“Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees, that is, their hypocrisy. Nothing is covered up that will not be uncovered, and nothing secret that will not become known. Therefore whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have whispered behind closed doors will be proclaimed from the housetops.” – Luke 12:1-3

 

Remember Wikileaks? All sorts of unflattering revelations came out about the governments of America, China and other countries through the leaked communications that they published. These were the same people who didn’t want their own criminal records leaked (it’s none of our business what sex crimes they have committed), nor their medical records (it’s none of our business what STD’s they have). One would think that if total transparency is good for the state, it’s good for the enemies of the state.

 

There are all sorts of areas that we either prefer or sometimes insist be kept confidential: how much money we make, how much we owe, our medical problems, our addictions, molestation, same-sex desire. We expect privacy in our bathrooms and bedrooms.

 

“There is a time to keep silent, and a time to speak” (Eccl 3:7). Today, we might translate: there is a time for confidentiality, and a time for full disclosure.

 

But where to draw the line is not always clear. Churches, COM’s, and presbytery executives must reckon with issues about what should be kept confidential, and what should be public information.

 

The need to know is one helpful way to determine what kinds of information ought to be kept confidential. If a parishioner wishes the details of their illness or surgery to be kept confidential, no one else needs to know. The public has a right to see Obama’s college records (which remain nuclear secrets), but had no need to see the divorce records of his opponent Jack Ryan in the race for U.S. Senate in Illinois, records which were forcibly unsealed over the objections of both Ryan and his ex-wife.

 

There is a difference between holy secrets and dirty secrets. When information is tightly controlled, it is often accountability that is being avoided. Confidentiality is an absolute necessity in order for people to feel free to confess their sins and secret struggles in an atmosphere of trust. But it must not become an excuse to protect the continuation of sexual or domestic abuse. Confidentiality may help guarantee people’s willingness to express their opinions freely. But it does not give an EP the right to trash someone in a reference check without sufficient cause.

 

COMs declare much of their business to be confidential. Yet sometimes it is forgotten that a COM acts on behalf of the presbytery for the presbytery’s convenience, and that therefore the presbytery has a right to know business that it would otherwise be doing as a committee of the whole. So when candidates for a position are examined, for example, the whole presbytery deserves to know the candidate’s views, and to know why candidates were approved or not approved.

 

An evangelical pastor was recently chosen by a search committee for a position. The COM said that the pastor’s nearly 30 years’ experience was “not enough experience” for a 200-member church. The pastor was not even granted a COM interview, although there were no reasons to treat the candidate as toxic. Whatever the real reason for rejecting this particular candidate (theological prejudice? danger of schism?), concealing the truth in such a case under a cloak of “confidentiality” does not help build trust or confidence in any presbytery.

 

On the other hand, when charges of misconduct are made against a church leader, a tight lid of confidentiality is in order until the facts are determined sufficiently for formal charges to be made. Marital conflict is much easier to heal when it is not aired in public. If a person is recovering from an addiction, most of us don’t need to know unless their problem threatens our safety or threatens their job performance.

 

I have mixed feelings about our mandatory reporting laws for certain crimes. While I agree with the urgency of reporting those who are an imminent threat of harm to others, ironically, by this policy, we also guarantee that no one who secretly struggles with urges to domestic violence or attraction to children will ever call out for help to overcome their problem. I don’t know how to fix that.

In his underground seminary, Bonhoeffer rejected much of the kind of confidentiality practiced in our churches. He writes in his book, "Life Together":

 

“But to speak about a brother covertly is forbidden, even under the cloak of help and good will; for it is precisely in this guise that the spirit of hatred among brothers always creeps in when it is seeking to create mischief.” (92) “We are gentle and we are severe with one another, for we know both God’s kindness and God’s severity. Why should we be afraid of one another, since both of us have only God to fear?” (106)

 

Bonhoeffer puts his finger on the ultimate issue: we only have God to fear. In the day of which Jesus speaks when our secrets shall be broadcast from the housetops, we will no longer have any need to hide those secrets. No longer will we need to worry about what other humans think. Nor will we need to fear God, if we have placed our faith in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. That day will bring freedom for those who have suffered in silence, and will blow the cover off of those who have been hiding from a judgment they thought they could escape.

 

I certainly don’t claim to have figured this issue out. I am sure there are angles that I have overlooked. If so, I will be happy to stand corrected.

 

Tom Hobson of Belleville, Ill., a PC(USA) pastor, has degrees from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (M.Div.) and Concordia (Ph.D.) He is currently serving at First Church in Herrin, Ill.

[...]

Comment (0) Read More...

I am the half-orphaned child of parents who were considered old, even when I was a child. You know, the set of parents that everyone mistakes for grandparents. My dad was 50 years old when I was born, and my mom was 36. By the time I was in middle school, my dad’s health began to deteriorate. As I grew stronger, he grew weaker. By the time I was in high school, my dad had two heart attacks behind him, was a chain smoker, a heavy drinker, and didn’t let his heart problems slow him down.

Despite all the warnings from the doctors and my helpless mother, my dad continued to defy the odds by living with all his bad habits in tow. In a few years, however, as I was entering college, he was diagnosed with an abdominal aneurysm that placed a heavy burden on him. From the time of that diagnosis, he was a changed man. No longer did he want to get up from the chair any more, because he might burst his aneurysm, and bleed to death internally before the ambulance could get there. No longer did he want to do anything, even walk to the mailbox, due to the threat of burstation. This aneurysm gave him a fear of death that nothing before it had managed to accomplish. The effect spread like a virus through our family. No longer did we take frequent trips to the mountains, since the change in air pressure and the winding roads might cause the death of my father. We lived with the threat that each day as my mom and I left for work and school, there was a very real possibility that we may come home to find him dead in the recliner.

A couple of months ago, over a thousand people, calling themselves “The Fellowship of Presbyterians” from across the PC(USA) met in Minneapolis to propose a change in the way that we organize our churches. They met in response to a “White Paper” published in which several white, male pastors, all of large congregations, wrote to express their unhappiness at the possibility that the PC(USA) might begin to ordain homosexuals. In the white paper, they expressed a desire to somehow leave the PC(USA) without leaving the PC(USA). “While a strong confessional stance will connect these ‘in’ and ‘out’ congregations, the wall between will be permeable and allow congregations to be participants in the association and supportive of it even if not a full member” (White Paper, p. 4). In effect, they propose to create an aneurysm within the PC(USA). An aneurysm is defined as an abnormal widening or ballooning of a portion of an artery due to weakness in the wall of the blood vessel. Having had some experience living and working with an aneurysm, I humbly submit a few things that I believe and don’t believe about the future viability of this proposal.

First, I believe that neither I nor anyone else has the right or authority to aneurise the body of Christ. This is not my church, nor it is yours. Paul warned the Corinthian church, “Now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you be in agreement and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same purpose.” While we don’t know the exact nature of the argument that Chloe came and reported to Paul, this verse can still serve as a directive and a corrective for those who wish to de-unify the church over theological issues, even ones that they feel strongly about. I’m sure the good folk in Corinth felt strongly also. Further, to aneurise the church goes against the vows we have taken as pastors and elders. In particular, the vow to “promote the peace, unity and purity” of the PC(USA). Like any marriage vow that must be sustained even when we argue, this vow must be maintained even during times of disagreement.

Second, I believe that you can’t, on this side of heaven, have your cake and eat it too. This seemed like an archaic and misguided cliché as my parents drilled it into my head when I was young. With age, I come to see that they were right, and I stand firmly on those words. Those who disagree with the passage of Amendment 10a want to leave the PC(USA), but are led by elders who do not want to lose their (as if!) property (as it would be forfeited back to the presbytery), and pastors who do not want to lose their pensions. In fact, two of the five short-term goals in the White Paper clearly state, “Work with different constituencies to reverse the Property clause toward the goal of easing exit” and “Appeal to the Board of Pensions to delay their current discussion of the extension of benefits while we remain deeply divided on the issue” (White Paper, pg. 4).  Clearly, you may not have had parents as pragmatic as mine, but this is a costly lesson to be learned in process.

Third, I believe that the living church of Jesus Christ has made theological errors in the past, and I believe that she will make theological errors in the future. Take, for instance, her stance in favor of slavery. Our forefathers split the Presbyterian church into the Northern Church and the Southern Church over the issue of slavery. We have to remember that those pastors and elders felt just as strongly that they were right as those who stand on each side of the ordination issue do now. The majority of churches stood on the wrong side of the civil rights movement, denouncing King and his followers as “uppity” and promoting the “separate but equal” nonsense. Many of the churches in Germany stood in favor of Nazism, and all it stood for. Need I go on? Is the passage of Amendment 10a a theological error? I don’t know. I’m not God.

This leads me to my fourth and final belief that I ask to humbly share with you this day. I believe that God can, has, and will correct any and all errors that we, as his church, may make. God has corrected our understanding of Scripture in the area of slavery, civil rights, the ability of women to be ordained, and many other issues over time. IF the passage of Amendment 10a is an error, I trust that the Lord Jesus Christ will correct it. After all, it’s his church. IF the passage of Amendment 10a is not an error, I then trust the Lord Jesus Christ to change me, and any and all others who believe that it is an error.

The truth that I learned from my dad and his aneurysm is this: an aneurysm will never hold. They are designed to burst and kill the body. Those who are unhappy with the passage of Amendment 10a will not continue to stay happy, even with the proposed plan of leaving without really leaving. Because, the truth is, you’re not really leaving. To continue to be part of the body of Christ that is the PC(USA) will still be enough of an irritant for some to continue to complain. And, in fact, in their White Paper, they readily admit this. “New Presbyteries that still remain in a denomination which enacts change we strongly oppose may be an insurmountable problem for many. Some members of our Association will feel the need for an entity apart from the current PCUSA” (Ibid).  Many will not be satisfied until they have left completely. Until then, the fear and sense of dread that will be instilled into the body of Christ may be enough to stifle growth, and discourage relationships.

Instead, why don’t we have a real and meaningful dialogue about what it means to be a part of the body of Christ. My feet complain and argue every time my brain decides to take up jogging. My back protests every time it has an itch that my arms can’t reach to scratch. However, heretofore, my feet have never contemplated divorce, and my back is not trying to form a union with my fingers in opposition to my arm. Like the church in Corinth, can we find a way to disagree, while agreeing to remain together, at least until such time that God gives us more clear landmarks in which way we are supposed to move? In fact, there is biblical precedent for just such an action. In Jeremiah 28, the people of Israel were in a time of waiting. They were waiting to come back to their homes after being in exile in Babylon. This chapter gives us a showdown between two prophets, Jeremiah and Hananiah, who stand on two different sides of that debate. Hananiah insists that within two years, God will bring back his people from exile. Jeremiah begs to differ, encouraging the people to continue to serve Babylon. Both are quoting God, both are using language and symbols of the faith, and both stand firmly in the tradition of prophetic utterances. However, it is Jeremiah’s words of caution that can serve us in this debate. “The prophets who preceded you and me from ancient times prophesied war, famine, and pestilence against many countries and great kingdoms. As for the prophet who prophesies peace, when the word of that prophet comes true, then it will be known that the Lord has truly sent that prophet.”  In the words of Jeremiah, only time will tell which side truly has the blessings of God. In the meantime, instead of causing division, let us reunite under the umbrella of prayer and discernment, while we wait for God to clearly tell us in which direction he would like us to move, just as he has issued correctives on the previously mentioned issues. Let us not make the mistakes of our forefathers who bet the church as if it was theirs, dividing her into the Northern and Southern churches like a Sunday ham.

In fact, let us learn from that error, and vow never to do that again.

I was recently talking to a pastor colleague who went to the conference in Minneapolis. He came back excited about the future possibilities of this movement. He stated that he had several elders who were so against Amendment 10a that they were ready to vote to leave the PC(USA) today. However, he didn’t want to bring that vote before the congregation, and excitedly told me how this would make his life so much easier. He wouldn’t have to push that vote, and he could appease his upset elders. I have to admit, I almost cried. Our job as pastoral leaders is not supposed to be easy. In fact, if it is, we are not doing something right. Leading good folk on their spiritual journey should never be easy, and looking to this as a cheap “out” is relying on cheap grace. After all, sir, as the old saying goes, that is why you make the big bucks ($125,000/yr. to be exact)!!  Let us pastors take the hard stance of confirming our ordination vows, and encouraging our elders to do the same. Let us commit to unity, come what may. Let us actually trust in a sovereign and omnipotent God who controls and judges all things, especially his church. And, finally, let us “lean not on our own understanding” but put our full faith in a God whose ways are not our ways.

Amen.

 

Deidra Crosby, a 2007 graduate of Columbia Theological Seminary, is pastor of Rocky Springs Presbyterian Church in Laurens, S.C.

[...]

Comment (4) Read More...

I’ll never forget the day Dr. Tom Gillespie, then president of Princeton Theological Seminary, restored my academic pursuit and pastoral training such that I am now celebrating my 11th year in pastoral ministry.

I found myself at the end of my first semester sitting anxiously across a long, forbidding conference table off his austere office on the seminary campus. Two others were with me as the accused, and another friend of ours sat opposite us in tears. As far as I could discern, this was the end of my Princeton education and a setback in my pastoral training.

Sophomoric teasing with this tearful friend had been misinterpreted by others, other people not even present when the incident occurred. Their version of our teasing spread and the campus erupted into a furor. The rumor was far from what the four of us as friends knew personally, but it was too late for that. Students were wearing all black as signs of protest. Others were refusing to speak to us. Some students were threatening to boycott the cafeteria while others were writing to national media outlets begging for attention. All were taking advantage of our internal misunderstanding to push for greater institutional and structural changes. And there we sat in his quiet, historic office while a campus raged outside the windows.

Dr. Gillespie heard us each share our story, our offended friend included. Some of us cried, we all confessed our love for one another, and we collectively benefitted from Dr. Gillespie’s commanding, but peaceful, presence as our guide.

Then, Dr. Gillespie sat back in his chair, and in the next few moments I heard such wisdom and compassion that I will always draw on that moment as I seek to lead in ministry. He spoke truth, he spoke as a leader, and he drew on his love of the church and pastoral experience to bring reconciliation, not just to us, but the campus.

First, he said, “Boys, this isn’t the fraternity anymore. I expect better.” Wow. That landed hard, and it needed to. Our friendships had gotten too casual, too public and now a campus was at odds with one another.

Second, he said that the student protests were about bigger and more complicated matters. He was sorry we were being caught up in larger agendas. I was stunned. None of us expected the accusations others had placed on us to fall away. I appreciated that Dr. Gillespie made space for our personal growth and reconciliation separate from the institutional dynamics with which he had to contend.

Third, Dr. Gillespie said the seminary cafeteria was offered as a convenience, and if some students wanted to boycott, there was a Wawa store just a block away they were welcome to visit. Bam! Nobody was going to push this man around.

Finally, he said that he knew we were reconciled as friends, and that if we so chose, he would make that coming Friday’s service of worship an opportunity for us to share with the hopes of bringing healing to our fractured campus community. At that time we decided that we were reconciled, and a public mea culpa would not be needed. Sadly, as events unfolded over the week, all four of us agreed to share yearning for a shalom peace to return to Princeton Seminary.

That Friday was the last day of class for the fall semester. The seminary community was gathered for corporate worship concluding with the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. All four of us shared our stories of reconciliation just after the sermon and before the sacrament. Then, as he had done a few days prior, Dr. Gillespie led in a manner that epitomized his pastoral experience and theological acumen. While sharing the words of institution from behind the great communion table of Miller Chapel, he pointed out that when informed there was a traitor among them, the disciples did not point to one another, but rather asked, “Is it I, Lord? Is it I?” In such situations, Dr. Gillespie exhorted us all, we are first to acknowledge the sin within and pause before pointing out the sin of another.

That day the Holy Spirit fell in Miller Chapel thanks to Dr. Gillespie’s leadership. Three academic careers, a fourth friendship, and a campus were saved. For the life and ministry of the Reverend Doctor Thomas W. Gillespie, thanks be to God.

Case Thorp is associate pastor for mission and evangelism at First Presbyterian Church of Orlando, Fla.

Comment (0) Read More...