| MEMO to the grieving |
| Written by JACK HABERER, Outlook editor | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Monday, 27 June 2011 18:05 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As editor of a magazine that speaks to the whole church, I feel compelled to write to Presbyterian friends in particular groupings of conviction — while allowing others to eavesdrop. Last time I addressed those celebrating the adoption of Amendment 10-A. This time, I write to those grieving the amendment’s adoption. In the next edition, I will address those who stand somewhere in the middle. In a precarious world, people of faith count on religious institutions to hold tight to the truths once delivered. When such institutions’ witness wavers, we despair. The denomination’s adoption of Amendment 10-A is fueling despair and disdain among many of us. As one who poured his lifeblood into promoting and preserving the “fidelity-chastity” ordination standard, I hurt with you who hurt. I also feel compelled to say, “Time for a reality check.” A few reality checks, to be exact. Reality check #1: The PC(USA) still affirms that Jesus Christ is the only Son of God and the only source of salvation — per the policy paper “Hope in the Lord Jesus Christ” approved by nearly unanimous General Assemblies of 2002 and 2003. Both volumes of our Constitution still affirm the divine inspiration and authority of holy Scripture. And we still affirm the norm of sexual intimacy being shared in the marriage bed (see pp. 18-19). We have not eliminated the ordination standards that provide skeletal strength to our connectionalism. We have changed just one national standard, at worst taking one behavior off the sins-that-disqualify list, and adding it to the sins-we-indulge list. The latter list already includes such sins as “enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, [and] envy" about which Paul tells the Galatians, “those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God” (5:19-21). When’s the last time anyone committing those sins was disqualified from ordination? Reality check #2: We didn’t invent such confusion. The Corinthians dabbled in incest, dismissed Paul’s apostolic authority, and denied the resurrection. The Galatians traded the gospel of grace for legalism. Yes, the apostles condemned these sins, but as the letters to the seven churches of Revelation indicate, both the committing and rationalizing of sin (e.g., “practicing fornication”), continued throughout the apostolic era. Indeed, as Reformed (“total depravity”) Christians we reject the notion that ours is a sinless church led by sinless leaders. Other traditions may promote an image of a holy clergy. We know better. Reality check #3: Those N.T. churches also argued intensely how to interpret and obey their holy Scriptures (i.e., Old Testament). Clear, biblical commands regarding circumcision, Sabbath observation, keeping kosher, and avoiding the appearance of idolatry were practiced by some but jettisoned by others – some debates still unresolved after the apostles’ deaths. Other theological controversies have arisen in every subsequent era of the church. Our tendency to react with righteous indignation to today’s debates needs to be tempered accordingly. Reality check #4: It’s easy to condemn behaviors we’re not tempted to indulge in ourselves. In the present case, those tempted by same-sex desires number less than 10 percent of us, maybe as few as 2 or 3 percent. So it’s easy to condemn them while minimizing our own gossiping, materialism, laziness or gluttony. In the process, we turn Jesus’ teaching on its head, disregarding the beams in our own eyes while judging the specks in others’. Indeed, our conservative-evangelical habit of spending more time fighting the gay agenda than loving gay and lesbian persons also turns Jesus’ people-dealings on its head. Reality check #5: Let us revisit biblical teaching about the church. The God of the Bible is invested in reconciling estranged peoples — not dividing them. Ephesians extols the building of God’s dwelling out of formerly segregated Jews and Gentiles. The letters to the Corinthians and Romans command the pursuit of unity, and the Gospel and letters of John teach one essential ethic: love your brothers and sisters in Christ. To do otherwise is unbiblical. Yes, the change has brought sadness and loss. Grieving is appropriate. But let’s hold on to reality. And let’s hold on to one another. —JHH Your Responses (15)
Dean H Lewis
said:
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed|
Medanales, NM Dear Jack, With all due respect, I beg to differ with my friends Jim Monroe and Wil Sawyier in their letters in the August 22 edition. Wil writes that in the past "there was not anything that would automatically prevent anyone from ordination"; Jim writes of the "recent reach for top down control and rigid conformity". How quickly they forget! When Wil was ordained in 1949 and I by the Presbytery of Arkansas in 1953, no woman could be ordained as a minister of word and sacrament, no matter how well qualified a presbytery might find her. It seems that it took some "top down" change to make that possible. And I might add, "top down" is a bit misleading in both cases, since the policies were adopted by vote of the presbyteries, not simply by decision of the General Assembly, or, heaven forbid, its much maligned agencies. Grace and peace, Dean H. Lewis Medanales, NM |
P Johnston
said:
|
Canada With all due respect, Mr. Haberer, I do believe your reality check #1 needs a reality check of its own. Your statement "The PC(USA) still affirms that Jesus Christ is the only Son of God and the only source of salvation" depends on GA papers and constitutional policies for proof. But history shows those kinds of written standards are, to borrow a term from economics, lagging indicators of what a group actually affirms. Perhaps a story from my days at McCormick Seminary would illustrate the point. It's a story the community (while I went there, any way) remembered with some pride. Princeton Seminary was eagerly recruiting a McCormick Prof, gave him the whole tour, pointed out the prestige of moving to the central theological institution in the Presbyterian Church, and the recruiters were optimistic the McCormick prof was going to make the switch. Until the prof asked about one policy. He pointed out Princeton still required instructors to affirm the system of doctrine taught in the Westminster articles, and he didn't agree with that. Westminster was wrong on important points, and trying to teach within its constraints was too narrow and confining. The recruiters quickly answered the affirmation of Westminster was just a formality, and no one really saw it as a limitation on their research, writing, or instruction. The McCormick prof answered that, for him, saying "I believe this" was never just a formality. As the story was told at McCormick, after some soul searching by the Princeton faculty, they voted to remove the requirement to affirm Westminster as teaching the system of doctrine taught in scripture. When did Princeton stop affirming the Westminster articles? When the formal vote removing the affirmation was recorded? Or did the affirmation stop long before that, with the change in written standards merely acknowledging what was already the case? And in the months leading up to the formal change, how many Princeton advocates still said, "See, Princeton still stands squarely on the Westminster standards?" |
p.w. gregory
said:
|
lambertville, nj Brother Jack will deal with this more next week, but how is the "middle" in the church defined both from a theological and ideological perspective in 2011. If the "middle" is the somewhat mushy mass that goes to 1st Presbyterian down by the gas station, because it was the cultural or family thing to do, that block sort of died out, dropped-out, or you see them Easter and Christmas or only when a kid or grandkid needs baptized. If that is the case you do not build a church, let alone a national identity off those people. If the "middle" is white european folks, 55+, especially females, somewhat progressive on social issues, but more conservative on taxes and the role of government, yes I will grant that is the majority of the church now. But again, demography is destiny. They will age-out, become less active, and the relative birth-rates among upper middle class whites, with at least a college degree, the core PCUSA demographic, fails to keep up with replacement population when compaired to Hispanics and other newly arrived groups that skew RC or Holiness-Pentecostal in their faith background and choices. If the "Middle" are the theologically informed, keeping up with the latest drama from Louisville, and love to attend Presbytery meetings types, yes they are there in numbers, but again, tend more to progressive/liberal-social activism issues, which the PCUSA expounds on 24/7. They would hang around the church even if you put a barking-dog up in the pulpit and call it a new teaching in the church, prophetic. They are not getting any younger. In a culture and age where activits from extreme ends tends to dominate culture, media, and public discourse, we could use some god-fearing, civic minded, loves the local symphony, gives to both PBS and the local fire-rescue types. Problem is there is just not enough of them anymore. |
Tom Paine
said:
|
Metairie, LA The center will hold my friends. Despite repeated attempts, the mad rush out of the PC(USA) is not happening in the vast majority of congregations. Even with the defections, and there surely will be more, the PC(USA) will remain the largest reformed denomination in the country for some time to come. It may even find itself all over again and begin to grow if we find ways to connect to the new generations that surround us. Condemnation might feel good but it changes nothing. Compassion changes everything. |
p.w. gregory
said:
|
lambertville, nj Religious traditionalists/conservatives in the former PCUSA and now the new entity stuggle with the central fact that they are a distinct minority in the church. Their numbers impacted by loss, deaths, decline in critical mass over the years as others have looked for the exit-sign. Those left who still hold traditional view of family/marriage/human sexuality/biblical standards have clear choices; Remain, cooperate, or not, with the ruling structures. Leave, quietly, or not. Leave and go through the process of the property and title fights in the courts. Or like the failed fellowships past of the Confessing Church Movement, New Wineskins, and now whatever the new group calls itself, try have a denomination in a denomination, good luck. 250 years of American religious experience tells us three simple truths. Presbyterians, regardless of stripe or confession, are a rather cranky lot that likes to fight and likes to split when things go certain ways. People are basically autonomous and congregationalists at the core, as opposed to collectivist or denominationalist when it comes to church government. And try as we have, polity or administrative slight-of-hands cannot reconcile people or situations that do not seek or want to be reconciled, let alone agree on the what color the sky happens to be. In the end, by evolution, revolution, by subtle and at times dramatic shifts people, churches, councils, organizations end up where they need and desire to be. The old is gone, dead, the new is yet to be, but coming none the less. The center will not hold and new organizations and new understandings will take place of the tired, the old, and broke. And that would happen if the former PCUSA 1982-2011 were the PCA, OPC, EPC, RPCA, CPC, ARPC. We are the first to feel the effects of wave of post-christian modernism. That wave will take then soon enough. |
Charles Jeffery
said:
|
Burbank, CA Tom, we need to have to agreement on whether we are called to be obedient to Scripture or if it is just a guide, as the liberals state. There is not unity on that lone subject so how can their be unity. The change to state that sexual issues such as adultery and homosexual relations are not sins or no longer sins works against those of us that remain true to the Scripture. It also of confusion. For OneByOne that ministers people that have weaknesses not only with same sex attractions but also pornography and adultery, the acceptance of these sins now by the PCUSA as being good is in conflict of that message which we find in the Scripture. Finally, the liberal side disobeyed for many years. How many times have ministers from the left such as Janet Edwards and Lisa Largess been disobedient to the Book of Order? They weren't working in unity then and they weren't showing love to us. It's not going to change. The Bible tells us to not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. Their very actions have made me often question if they are actually believers. |
Clark Brillhart
said:
|
Sebastian, FL I agree with Jason Huff's comments completely. The main problem as I see it, is not that someone committed a sexual (or any) sin, it is that they deny it is a sin and intend to continue in it. Repentance is what is missing. |
Sherrie Lavelle
said:
|
Las Cruces NM Re: Reality Check #4 As you know, 10-A is not only about the 2-10% (your #s) who are tempted by same-sex desires. If that is what it was meant to be about (and I know it was), the language should have been more transparent. As passed, it is about any of us who have been tempted to set aside fidelity or chastity in our own lives. I'm guessing that is a fairly large percentage. My grief is less about who may now be ordained, and more about my church's ever-lowering standards for our lives as followers of Christ. It is as if we don't believe God gives the strength and grace to live a little differently from the world. I need people around me (and for me, that means the church) who hold themselves to higher standards and who encourage me to do the same. It is a matter of spiritual survival. |
Tom Paine
said:
|
Metairie, Louisiana @Charles: Isn't this what we Presbyterians regularly confess in the Apostles' Creed? We believe in the holy catholic church. I suspect you mean Roman Catholicism but, in the end, they are just as much a branch (albeit a much larger one) of Christ's Church as we are. In the Kingdom we will be united. Why not work toward that today? |
Linda Lee
said:
|
Mukilteo Your comments are "luke warm". On the one hand you claim to say that you fought for the "fidelity and chasty" standard, pouring your life blood out for this cause and on the other hand you show little understanding of your part in creating a reality where ordination standards for fidelity and chasty are thrown aside. You rationalize this using "progressive" views which are not acceptable to most "evangelicals". All this was done for the sake of unity. Instead of unity, peace and purity we now have just the oppisite. Five years from now you may look back and say " I can't believe that was my reality, my view of right and wrong" and be very dissapointed in where the churh has gone. When my childen do things or say things that I find offensive and wrong, I try to refrain from beratting, prodding, or lecturing them (sometimes successfully controlling my self.) Instead, I pray that God will be their conscience, confronting them with His reality and speaking to them about His direction according to Scripture. I pray that God would keep them from adverse consequences. So, Holy Spirit lead us all to see things from your point of view, not our own limited view, in this time. |
Charles Jeffery
said:
|
Burbank, CA Tom, if it is so important to have unity, shouldn't you be attending a Catholic church and promoting a return to the Catholic church? |
Tom Paine
said:
|
Metairie, LA Jack, thank you for your leadership at this time. I am confident that the center will hold and wiser heads will prevail. I wonder, if we have made such a grievous error, why folks who feel that aren't more passionate about changing Book of Order back to the way it was. It is as if one side said, "We feel this is right and we are going to keep at this till we see a change" with the other side saying, "We feel this is wrong and if it every changes, we just want to quit." God calls us together as a people. Jesus Christ is the head of His Church. And may being His people together be a higher priority to us than whether we agree or disagree all of the time. And if we feel some of our brothers and sisters are off-course (seriously by the tone of some of the letters), let us be passionate about changing their views, not divorcing ourselves from them. Jesus didn't just go hang out and engage with people who agreed with him. It was really quite the opposite. And he was passionate about them. In Christ, Tom Paine |
Mariam Touba
said:
|
New York, NY Thank you, Mr. Huff, for setting some things straight. The editor’s facile essay was indeed badly in need of a reality check. |
Jason Huff
said:
|
Macomb Township, MI Dear Mr. Haberer, I'm sorry, but your "reality check" shows just what a gigantic gulf exists between the sides of the church. Let's take a look at your points, if we may, to show the truth behind each. #1 - There's a problem with what you've said here. According to the plain meaning of the nFOG that goes into effect in a few short days, God redeems and transforms all people...so those who practice other religions will still be accepted into His kingdom. We have accepted universalism into our stead, which means that we have contradicted ourselves as to whether faith and belief actually means anything for salvation. Furthermore, you comment that there are sins we "indulge." Since when? We are called by Scripture over and over again to repent of sin, not to indulge in it! I daresay that anyone who came into a CPM meeting and said, "I'm an angry, envious person and I'm going to stay that way" isn't going to get far. #2 - We should accept sin as normal because people practiced it in the early church? Instead of condemning it like Paul did, we should embrace it? A billion people doing something wrong still makes it wrong. #3 - You say that the early church argued about "clear" commands regarding the ceremonial law. What about Acts 15? One of the very few things from the old law the NT church demanded of Gentiles was the avoidance of sexual immorality. This concept continues throughout Paul's letters at the same time that he attacks those who says the Gentiles must follow the OT ceremonial law. #4 - Most evangelicals I know would prefer not to have to deal with issues of sexuality at all -- gay, straight, or otherwise. The agenda of the GLBTQ community has been brought to the forefront over and over again. It is disingenuous to call out the evangelical community for standing by the biblical witness when it has been assailed mercilessly for nearly 30 years. I daresay that it is the GLBTQ community that has a single-issue agenda, not evangelicals. Do we all have planks we need to deal with? Certainly. But the whole "plank vs. speck" issue is precisely an argument that attempts to minimize the reality of sin in the first place! #5 - Funny that Jesus in Matthew 10 and Luke 12 says that he came not to bring peace but a sword, dividing houses against themselves. Was Jesus unbiblical? Here's the real issue: are those who are willfully, deliberately, and unrepentantly engaging in any sinful practice brothers and sisters in Christ to whom we should be unified? 1 Corinthians 5 seems to show us that there can only be unity in purity. No offense, but your comment that you "hurt with you who hurt" is facile. Your commentary, like that recently of Rev. Edwards over on The Layman's online boards, reminds me of Job's friends who were quick to smack him around after his devastating loss. If you really want people to stay in the denomination, I would strongly suggest another line of argumentation -- this one is going to push those of us who are contemplating our various options right out the door. |
David McCann
said:
|
Ada, Oklahoma Jack, though I appreciate your words and don't totally agree with all you said, but respect your view, I must admit I am troubled by your use of the phrase "reality check." It seems to imply that those who have supported and worked to keep the "fidelity and chastity" standard are not in touch with reality. I am concerned that your words will be lost on our evangelical Presbyterians as they will see your "reality check" phrase as being condescending. |
Write a Response
