Google+
Need of you, need of me
Written by Jack Haberer, Outlook editor   
Monday, 14 May 2012 21:06


The next edition of the Outlook will launch a four-volume series of articles that will provide in-depth analysis of the major issues coming to the 220th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

Before focusing on those controversial issues of the day, this edition turns our attention to the most important issue of this and all days: the people Jesus loves.

Consider one person you know who fits into that group: a grandparent — your own — or an aunt, uncle or older neighbor.

Do you care about her? Does he matter to you? Or have you written her or him off, or by the same token, written yourself off? Have you said, either out loud or by passive-aggressive silence, “I have no need of you,” and/or, “You have no need of me”?

This issue of the magazine highlights the present or upcoming life-stage of the grandmas or granddads. They — specifically, those in their retirement years — represent fully half of the members of the PC(USA). Do they matter to you?

What troubles me so much these days is the frequency with which I hear colleagues and friends saying to one another, either out loud or by passive-aggressive silence, “I have no need of you,” and/or “You have no need of me.”

Those words are being expressed most explicitly by those who, having entered “a season of discernment,” are contemplating or have already decided to separate from the rest of us.

It’s also declared implicitly but just as loudly by those who — convinced of the need for the church to redefine family structures — demand that the rest endorse their proposals without delay and add, at least implicitly, “like it or leave.”

The spring 2012 edition of Insights, the faculty journal of Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary, takes up the subject of church division, naming it as a “bad spirit” that “has risen among us.” It speaks penitently in the words of President Ted Wardlaw, “If ‘a bad spirit has risen among us,’ that spirit dwells within me, too.”

Tom Currie, dean of the Charlotte campus of Union Presbyterian Seminary, concurs by echoing the response of G.K. Chesterton when asked in a symposium “What’s wrong with the world?” His response: “‘I am.’”

Currie adds, “Our sinfulness perverts not by making us vicious little sinners but by blinding us to the consequences of our own ‘principled’ action.”

The antidote? “The church,” which Currie points out is really hard to love. “It is so easily despised, especially for its manifold shortcomings, its weak and timid witness, its halting and vacillating call to discipleship, its own failure to live out what it professes. … But,” he counters, “the mystery of the church is that Jesus Christ loves the church.”

Of course, it’s not just the PC(USA) that the Savior loves. None of us is so foolish as to equate the capital-C Church with this particular segment of it. Jesus has united himself to the whole company of redeemed, the catholic community of the elect, the worldwide family of the faith — in all of its expressions.

But one important aspect of that company/community/family is that its members care for one another. As Currie puts it, “the church in its life and witness is the joyfully embodied affirmation that at the heart of reality we are not alone; that we belong to one who has claimed us and called us into a co-humanity, a fellowship, a life together that in its deepest sense is a communion.”

That grandmother or grandfather in your life understands the need to know that kind of communion. Some are finding it in a faith-based retirement community, where commonalities are treasured and differences make for interesting topics of conversation. However, most residents in those communities, understanding their own vulnerabilities a bit better than we young-uns, know better than to say to their debate opponents, “I have no need of you” or “You have no need of me.” Perhaps grandma or granddad still could teach us a thing or two.

JHH

Last Updated on Monday, 14 May 2012 21:08
 

Comments  

 
#4 James Babcock 2012-05-25 13:42
Jack..As parents of six children and grandparents of 12 plus several " adopted " new agers along the way we have learned as the 21st century has dawned upon us that we do indeed need them and in turn we sense that they need us. Sadly that acquired wisdom has not transferred itself to many elements within the church yet in truth all segments with the body do truly need each other.

It is disheartening to read and hear some of the calloused theological rhetoric or perhaps legardemain that currently flies around the issues facing the church today yet the truth and fact still remain we need them and they need us. That lesson may be a hard pill to swallow but as time plays out the reality of that will prayerfully thaw the presently biased hearts and they will come to accept that as christians that need is ever present and far exceeds present day : metooism "....Jim Babcock
Quote
 
 
#3 P.W. Gregory 2012-05-16 13:16
The foundational element of unity is trust. Unity cannot manufactured or made out of cloth by either administrative fiat or some process. Nor is the trust essential to unity to be built by a structure of lowest common denominators, which the PCUSA has more or less become. The last real opportunity to retain the denomination in its current structure and form was likely the PUP event of 2005-6. Once the progressive elements in the church saw it as a means to achieve their ends in the matters of sexuality practice and faith, the process to fracture or realignment was more or less in place, water under the bridge at this point.

What remains at this point is how do we accommodate the process churches and people are on, the paths they have taken and will continue down with the least amount of stress, harm, insults, and anxiety to the body politic.
As in life, faith, and human relationships trust starts with goals, objectives and ends where the process is transparent to all and small step together leads to larger steps down the road, building on each other. Which brings me to GA and Pittsburgh. Is trying to change the very nature of family at least in the polity, imposing the tyrant of the majority, "if you do not like it, hit the road", upon a minority, Board of Pension policy which violates many of the implied trusts of those who give, helpful to the trust process, helpful to the church at large. I tend to doubt it but fully expect the most radical agendas to be adopted. If the case I will afford GA the same level of interest and care I afford any secular political conventions this summer. Not much.
Quote
 
 
#2 Michael Nelms 2012-05-16 08:42
While I do not subscribe to the simplistic meta-interpretation of John 17, and while I self-identify as being part of the "Center" and a supporter of Jack, The Outlook, et al, I do agree with in essence with Jim Caraher's response. I find it unconvincing for any Protestant group to preach unity at all costs.
Quote
 
 
#1 Jim Caraher 2012-05-16 00:21
This piece is typical of many PC(USA) Presbyterians' overwrought characterizatio ns of the current re-structurings - "writing each other off," I have no need of you," "you have no need of me." In a similar vein, other commentators are bemoaning the nascent realignments among the PC(USA), EPC and ECO as schismatic and a breach of Christian unity. All of these sentiments are overly histrionic and not a particularly valid or helpful perspective on the current moment.

Of course it's true that Jesus prayed that all of his followers would be one. But what Jesus meant by that was that all of us should be in unity on what the MISSION is: (1) to know Christ; (2) to make him known in all the earth; (3) to serve the poor; (4) to challenge sin and injustice in the systems and structures of society in Jesus' name. But once we're all in unity on the mission, God fully expects and even desires that we employ a wide range of different strategies, theologies, messages, styles of ministry, etc. to accomplish our common mission. So when a PC(USA) church leaves the PC(USA) to join the EPC or ECO, that is not schismatic or a breach of Christian unity. That church has simply concluded that it can better accomplish the common mission of all the Presbyterian groups somewhere other than the PC(USA).

These realignments will well serve all Presbyterians and the larger cause of Christ. The PC(USA) is non-viable as currently constituted for two reasons which should be obvious to everyone: (1) the denomination is so devoid of theological and moral consensus that too much time is spent bickering with each other; (2) when the PC(USA) does attempt to address the larger culture, its message is so contradictory and garbled as to be incoherent. As one of the renewal groups observed a while back, "We have become a hindrance to each other." So PC(USA) Presbyterians need to stop with the inaccurate, pejorative characterizatio n of these realignments as "writing each other off" and welcome them as adjustments which are necessary for any prospect of greater fruitfulness in the future.
Quote
 

Add comment


Security code
Refresh