| That the devils might weep |
| Written by Jack Haberer, Outlook editor | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Friday, 12 August 2011 19:03 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
If, as Charles Finney claimed, the devils of hell rejoice when the Presbyterian General Assembly is in session, do they rejoice doubly when other Presbyterians gather near the site of the previous assembly? The upcoming, two-day, Minneapolis gathering called by Fellowship PC(USA) has generated about 2,000 registrations, mostly from Presbyterians disheartened by recent constitutional changes that signal to them a turn toward hell. As they gather the devils have reason to hope and much to fear. A few suggestions for the participants that, if followed, could squelch their fun. First, exercise careful judgment. The apostles tell us that judgment must “begin with the household of God” (I Peter 4:17) and that we are to exercise judgment on those inside the church (I Cor. 5:12). But how shall we judge? It is tempting to measure others via one single litmus test. The test of choice these days is the vote on amendment 10-A. Those who voted no are saints; those who votes yes are infidels. Not so fast. Genuine, Trinitarian, Christ-believing Christians differ on how the church best extends grace to and with gays and lesbians. All of us are far too complicated to be measured by a single litmus test. What’s more, if the participants judge the “others” to be guilty of the Corinthian heresy of self-indulgent hedonism they risk being guilty of the Galatian heresy of self-righteous legalism – bringing joy to Hades. If, instead, the participants extend to all their Presbyterian sisters and brothers the same kind of grace Jesus has extended them, the demons will panic. Second, separate speculation from facts. To their credit the founders of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church did set a good example in at least one critical way. When they left us to form the EPC, they didn’t go out of fear of something they thought might happen. They left only when they were required to participate in the ordination of persons they believed biblically unqualified for office. Only when they truly were “kenyonized” (an allusion to Walter Wynn Kenyon, who was denied ordination in 1974 because he said he could not participate in ordaining a certain class of candidates – in his case, women) did they separate and found the EPC. Many now speculate that they will be kenyonized on the present matter: forced to participate in the ordination of LGBTQ persons, and for that matter, required to perform same-sex weddings. If that were to happen, I’d be the first to agree that such coercion would be grounds for ecclesiastical divorce. But at present it’s only speculation. When our weaving of worst-case scenarios morphs into believing them to be foregone conclusions, we act precipitously and irresponsibly. And the devils rejoice. Third, don’t confuse institutionalism with unity. It’s true that denominations have no standing in Scripture. Many exist due to unnecessary fights through the centuries; most arose out of the Tower-of-Babel factor: migrating peoples worshiping with those who spoke the same language (e.g., German Lutheran immigrants meeting across the street from Dutch Reformed). But Scripture clearly teaches that familial relationships are to be the mark of the body of Christ. It commands us to value, sustain and promote the koinonia of the Spirit among us, protecting the tenuous ties that bind us, and healing ties broken. Splitting the PC(USA) may well threaten the institution; who gives a rip? But such a split will sever filial relationships in this part of the family of God; and as all divorcees know, amputations multiply (some unintended victims at risk among us: the invaluable mission initiatives and faithful mission co-workers serving worldwide). Fourth, remember that the “how” is as important as the “what.” The Bible says a lot about believing the right way. It says much more about behaving the right way. If the Minneapolis pilgrims will restrain their rage and guard their tongues, the devils will tremble. Finally, don’t play God. Ultimately, judgment will be carried out by the Judge of the universe. This is not the time nor place, and neither are we the ones to be dividing the weeds from the wheat. Will the devils rejoice or weep over this gathering of Presbyterians? It’s up to 2,000 Presbyterians to determine. May our better angels prevail, so the angels in heaven can throw a party. Your Responses (16)
Jim Carpenter
said:
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed|
Dallas, Texas Most presbyteries have been ordaining gay and lesbians for many years. What's the big deal? For years the Presbyterian Church excluded blacks, for years they excluded women, for years they excluded gays and lesbians. Jesus reminds us that all are children of God and exclusion of anyone is not the kingdom way. Too bad the Presbyterian Outlook continues its attacks on people to bring more division. |
Tom Eggebeen
said:
|
Los Angeles, CA Jack, thanks for this piece. I've read and re-read it, along with its comments. You're honest and forthright. Your counsel to those meeting in Minneapolis is wise, though, if some of the comments reflect a wider feeling, many in attendance have little interest in your advice and a lot more interest in what the Lay Committee has been working on for years: to establish a clearly defined "orthodoxy," by which the rest of the church can be adjudged as "unorthodox," if not "apostate," thus making it easier for the self-proclaimed orthodox to depart and form a more perfect union. As a "liberal" pastor, I have no trouble drawing the circle large - it's in the nature of the liberal perspective to be accepting of a wider diversity of interpretation. My sisters and brothers of a more "orthodox" persuasion have to draw smaller circles - that, too, is inherent in the character of the conservative mindset. I, too, hope that the folks in Minneapolis will find their way clear to take a deep breath, relax and celebrate. Yet, frankly, a part of me bleeds for the thousands of LGBTQ persons and their families and friends who've been wounded over the last 35 years by the conservative effort to exclude them from life of the church, and claiming the authority of Scripture and the warrant of tradition as their justification. While I would regret their leaving, a part of me would send them on their way with a blessing. Perhaps in separation, they might find the greener grass for which they long. |
Penn Hackney
said:
|
Pittsburgh, PA @PD Johnson: "accepting homosexuality is hardly the first such issue. Acceptance of abortion on demand and the thinly-disguised earth religion of the ReImagining conference predate homosexuality, and grow from the same deference to the spirit of the age" 1. "The first such issue?" You've got to be kidding. The concept of ordaining women is *much* earlier than issues of homosexuality or abortion or expressing publicly the female side of God. If one *can't* accept the ordination of women, one needs to be in a different denomination, and if one *can* accept the ordination of women, then one needs to explain why Scripture is so "clear" on the one point and also so "clear" on the ordination of homosexuals. 2. "Abortion on demand" is a (unfair and in fact disgusting) straw man, since nothing in Presbyterian (even PSUSA) principles or policy has suggested anything like support for "abortion on demand." It's a bad argument that clearly demonstrates an unthinking bias. 3. The "ReImagining conference" has nothing to do with any of these theological issues, unless you are using that as a code for an (unPresbyterian) point of view that wishes we could limit the permission for, and ability of, women to express their spirituality in light of their reading of the Bible. |
Penn Hackney
said:
|
Pittsburgh, PA Here's (some of) what John Calvin had to say about being a church versus not being a church: http://penn.betatesters.com/calvin.htm |
PD Johnston
said:
|
Canada Al Sandalow wrote, "Accepting homosexuality is just the first issue to escape…" With all due respect Al, accepting homosexuality is hardly the first such issue. Acceptance of abortion on demand and the thinly-disguised earth religion of the ReImagining conference predate homosexuality, and grow from the same deference to the spirit of the age. Regarding Jack Haberer's comment regarding speculations about being "kenyonized" -- delightful neologism, by the way -- perhaps an analogy from my time in South side Chicago at McCormick might apply. It was a relatively high crime area in those days, and going out for a walk always opened up the possibility of a mugging or worse. But treating that possibility as simply a speculation and waiting for the mugging to actually happen before working to protect yourself would be waiting too long. |
Rev Al Sandalow
said:
|
... I’m sorry Jack, but I think you have really misread the whole issue. I remember Dr. Thomas Gillespie, then president of Princeton Seminary, speaking at GA many years ago on the issue of homosexual ordination. One of the most important things he noted was (and this is an almost exact quote): “This is not an issue about sexuality. It’s about Biblical authority.” That’s the main issue, not simply being forced to tolerate homosexual ordination. Any body that can accept something so clearly condemned in Scripture, so uniformly opposed by the catholic church across the world and down the span of centuries…such a body no longer adheres to a Biblical hermeneutic that is any way orthodox or acceptable. Accepting homosexuality is just the first issues to escape from this theological Pandora’s Box. That’s why many of us feel the need to act. |
Matt Mitchell
said:
|
Pascagoula, MS From the tone of your article it sounds as though you are hoping for dis-unity and anger from the Fellowship group so you can say, “Hah! We knew it!” Did you read the letter from Paul Detterman informing people that if you’re angry, don’t come. This is meant to be a civil, grace-filled conversation that concerned churches have about the future of our denomination. You throwing gas on the fire does not seem to help the situation. Furthermore, why does this always come down to the same tired argument – “if the participants extend grace…” You immediately frame the conversation as though we who will be attending are grace-less people who hate those who voted from 10-A. Newsflash…I can (and do) extend grace everyday to people who are not like me, don’t vote like I do, don’t believe what I believe, etc. Because we have a fundamental disagreement about scripture and may not be able to play in the same sand-box does not mean I’m not extending grace. Quite possibly, the extension of grace comes in the form of graciously separating so we no longer have to fight. Is that what you want you hear? You won! Congratulations. Finally, is it really a family (you call them filial ties) if we never speak, never do anything together, and hold uncommon core beliefs? Are we family only because my ordination is in the PC(USA)? What if my ministry is linked more to churches that live out mission in a manner similar to me, believe scripture is true and unchanging, believe more in people than denominational structures…isn’t that my family? And does the title on the sign out front really even matter? I fear from your article that you are hoping for failure or at least to excite people to arms. If that is the case then I do believe you have brought a smile to the devil’s lips. |
Penn Hackney
said:
|
Pittsburgh, PA Thank you Mr. Haberer, for a humerous, and thoughtful, excursus on our current dilemma. The notion that one interpretation of Scripture is necessarily correct while another is necessarily incorrect not a theological thesis but merely result-oriented rhetoric. (E.g, what, precisely, is the "sexual immporality" abjured by Paul in 1 Cor. 5:11?) The rhetorical response is "ok so you tell me where to draw the line" because NO ONE in these debates insists on literal adherence to every verse in the Bible as the test for theological correctness. Once one is able to discriminate between one verse requiring strict (apparent literal) adherence and another that does not, the question becomes how to *interpret* Scripture. To claim that this question does not exist is silly. At best. Unfortunately, but all to frequently, at some point, one group's interpretation becomes too ..., um, ... different, from the other group's, and since there is no objecteive method of "proof texting" the operation of the Holy Ghost, sometimes one group will leave the other. This has been the case since the death of Paul, of course much accelerated after the Reformation. |
Roscoe M. Wolvington
said:
|
Denver, Colorado It appears to me that the church I love has returned to the rules under which the Presbytery of Chicago ordained me as a TEACHING ELDER in 1944. |
Renee Guth
said:
|
Tucson, AZ Sorry, but you've got your EPC history wrong. Having personally talked with participants in the 1981 formation of the EPC, the case that was a catalyst for their departure was not the Kenyon case of 1974 but the Rankin v. National Capital Union Presbytery in 1981. In 1981, "when in the case Rankin v. National Capital Union Presbytery the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission cited the report of the Swearingen Commission to say that a higher governing body did not have the power to direct a presbytery whom it could or could not accept into membership, except in extraordinary circumstances. In this case, the National Capital Union Presbytery voted to install Mansfield Kaseman, an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ, as the pastor of a union UCC/PC(USA) church. When examined by the Presbytery, he refused to affirm a series of statements, including a refusal to state he believed in the divinity of Christ. The Permanent Judicial Commission declared that this refusal was not sufficiently extraordinary to override the decision of the Presbytery", citing a Pres Outlook article written by Edward Koster. |
Julie Lehman
said:
|
Asheville, NC For the church to be splitting while the world is coming apart at the seams, I fear the devils are kicking their feet up to view their handiwork with pleasure...and perhaps a cigar. |
Peter Sanders
said:
|
Chicago, IL Paul was concerned with hedonism at Corinth, no doubt. However, he was MUCH more concerned with the economic inequalities which were neither caused by nor independent of the hedonism that may have been occurring there. Paul envisioned the Church as both the spiritual and political "body" of Christ, as the Greek word 'soma' implied in all Greco-Roman religions a connection between spiritual body and political body. In Christ's body, Paul believed there was no spiritual room for hedonism but there was at least as little political room for economic inequality. We must reclaim this interpretation if we are to survive as a church. |
Bobbie McGarey
said:
|
Albuquerque, NM Thank you for this article. I've read what I can about this gathering and the future plans already made for their next step. (seemingly a done deal), And I wonderd What would happen if in these small groups to be "molded" by the group leaders the Holy Spirit says no? I do think it is great that the meeting is in Minnapolis because that is where ReImagining was held and shared new visions with the world. I will be praying |
John Gilman
said:
|
Corvallis, OR Good advice, mostly. While 1 Corinthians 5:11 and other verses call us to painfully and sadly leave PCUSA, let us do so with all the due diligence, patience and kindness we can muster. Also, let us not delude ourselves about the aims of the militants on the other side. Their playbook is clear. They will lose no time consolidating their position that Scripture contains only guidelines, not actual rules. Mandates will follow, just as they did in industry and government. Speculation is really not required. |
Laura Kelsey
said:
|
Clearwater, FL It seems to me that this Devils/Angels talk only brings divisions. Why can't we just come together understanding that Christians have never completely believed the same. We each are acting with integrity and making prayerful reflective decisions and yet currently are at different places. Isn't it when we allow such things as these to divide, when evil really wins? May we hold all in the PC(USA) up in prayer and may we seek unity in the body, not unity in thought but unity in our aim and in our heart. |
Alan Trafford
said:
|
Lake Jackson, TX I think the angels turned their heads in shame when the commissioners to General Assembly decided that they knew better than Scripture. The devils laughed when a majority of the presbyteries agreed. |
Write a Response
