The Place of Scripture in Our Debates

First, I want to wish a happy and blessed Year of our Lord Two Thousand and Eleven as the clock winds down on 2010.  None of us knows what is to come except God, but that's good enough for me.

I saw this blog on the Huffington Post website:

Why Gays and Lesbians Should Never Argue Scripture, by Candace Chellew-Hodge, pastor of the Jubilee! Circle United Church of Christ in Columbia, South Carolina.

Rev. Chellew-Hodge argues that there is no point in bringing the Scriptures into the discussion of ordination standards.  She cites three reasons:

"...First, it's pointless and nobody wins. Those who are anti-gay have their authorities and scriptural interpretations and so do pro-gay people. No one wins a "they said, they said" argument because no one will believe the scholars from either side no matter what argument anyone makes.

"Secondly, arguing over scripture just hardens the opinions of both sides. Neither side is willing to give an inch. This is not a true dialogue, it's simply a contest of who can argue the longest, and usually the loudest. No one is convinced, and everyone leaves further entrenched in their own ideas, and usually angry. No education happens, and little, if any, compassion ever happens.

"Thirdly, the arguers on either side never share the same starting point on scripture. Those who are anti-gay are more likely to see the Bible as the infallible "Word of God" -- which means the words literally dripped from the lips of God through the pens of the scribes and onto the page. Each jot and tittle is God-breathed and never to be contradicted....Those who argue from the pro-gay side are generally those who see the Bible as inspired by God, but not the literal, infallible words of God. This means they are more open to different interpretations and approaches to scripture. Those who see the Bible as "God's literal word" only know one way to read any passage, and it's usually to back up their current beliefs about God, homosexuality or any other issue.


"The most important reason, however, that gays and lesbians should never, ever argue about scripture is because the Bible has nothing much to say about homosexuality.... In short, we cannot extract modern ideas from an ancient book. The writers of the Bible no more understood homosexuality than they understood that a spherical Earth orbited the sun...Why on earth would we take it as an authority on sexual orientation?"  [End of quote]

I think she's right about a few things.  We do argue past one another as we use Scripture.  I've seen this time and time again in our debates.  And it is because we start in different places and never really engage one another.  Over time our opinions have hardened, as she points out.  But I take exception to her oversimplification of conservative/evangelical hermeneutics.  Chellew-Hodge describes herself as a recovering Southern Baptist and that no doubt colors her perspective.  Not all who believe that the Bible is infallible, however, are Fundamentalists.  There are many nuances in Scripture which call for further study and deeper understanding.  The conservative/evangelical hermeneutic, however, strives to harmonize rather than to deconstruct the Bible.

For what it's worth, here's my analysis of how we got to where we are today.  During the Enlightenment intellectuals openly questioned and even ridiculed Christianity.  The faith had many defenders who stood firm for the faith delivered once for all to the saints (Jude 3), but they too were objects of derision.  Friedrich Schleiermacher tried a different approach when he wrote On Religion: Speeches to its Cultured Despisers.  At the risk of oversimplifying a thesis that unfolds over some three hundred pages, Schleiermacher gave away the store to the critics.  He conceded virtually all of their arguments and admitted that Christianity cannot stand up to modern scrutiny.  Yet he asserted that it is nonetheless true, on a deeper level, as we realize our dependence upon God.  Schleiermacher laid the groundwork for wide acceptance of Higher Criticism and its "assured results."  If the accounts in the Bible are unbelievable, then we must face the possibility that Scripture is likewise mistaken when it comes to faith and morals.  From here it's a short leap to the conclusion that homosexual practice per se is not sinful and thus not a barrier to ordination.  This is more than many of us can accept, so we do battle.

I think I've pontificated enough today.  I look forward to your responses.

In Christ,
Marty

More on nFOG

As Christmas Day approaches our attention turns away from all of our controversies (at least I hope none of us spoils this beautiful time and misses out on the profound mystery of love in flesh appearing).  But in case you want something to read during the last week of the year, here are some more articles.

First, the Presbyterian Outlook ran a couple of pro/con articles about nFOG:

nFOG Pro: A polity “reboot” by Daniel S. Williams, co-moderator of the Form of Government Task Force

Knowing, and voting “no” , by Bob Davis, pastor of the Chula Vista (CA) Presbyterian Church and a frequent commentator on polity issues.

Williams argues that nFOG takes us back to our Presbyterian roots by stripping away all the accretions that have turned it from a constitution into a manual of operations.  Davis asserts that nFOG won't fix what's wrong with our polity, and will create massive uncertainty in the years to come.

Some critics of nFOG have expressed concern about its very first sentence:  “The good news of the Gospel is that the triune God – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – creates, redeems, sustains, rules, and transforms all things and all people.”  Is this an official statement that the PC(USA) endorses universal salvation?


James C. Goodloe IV, Executive Director of the Foundation for Reformed Theology, says yes in his article An nFOG analysis. He writes, "I have for many years promoted the idea that we need a new, or at least radically revised and simplified, Form of Government. But I cannot even get past the opening paragraph of this proposal."

Daniel Williams responds in Proposed Form of Government: Universalist creed?  He says no, that the Scriptures and the Book of Confessions interpret the Book of Order, not vice versa.

Well, I think that's enough for now!  Merry Christmas, and in the words of Tiny Tim, "God bless us, every one!"

Another Alternative

Ed Koster, Stated Clerk of Detroit Presbytery, has written "A Presbyterian Centrist's Manifesto."  In twenty-three pages Ed summarizes the last thirty-some years of the debate over ordination standards.  He points out the strengths and weaknesses of all sides.  It makes for some fascinating reading. Here's the link:


https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.churchandworld.com/PCUSA/2010/News/1129-EdKoster-Manifesto.pdf.


SPOILER ALERT!!!!!!!!  If you are planning on reading the whole document you may not want to read any further.  The essence of what Koster is proposing comes in just one paragraph on the last page:


I believe our position on ordination is wrong; I have held that belief since 1978. As a stated clerk I am dedicated to doing what I can to ensure that our standards are enforced, but I do so holding my nose and with great anguish at the damage done to this Church I love by the current arguments and strategies to resolve the issue. I therefore do not propose an amendment to the Constitution that says non-celibate gays and lesbians may not be ordained. I propose instead that we amend G-6.0106b in such a way as to make an affirmative declaration that it is possible. I suggest that G-6.0106b could be amended in a way that might look something like this:

Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness. A person who has stood before the church with a partner of the same sex and pledged exclusivity, permanence, and the dedication of the union to the worship and service of God satisfies this provision. Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament.

I believe this addition incorporates the values and traditions we embrace and want to preserve. And I believe it preserves our connectional values rather than encourages fragmentation by local option.

[End of quote]

Ed has proposed a both/and answer to a question that heretofore has been posed as either/or.  I have to say that I'm skeptical that this is the magic bullet that will solve all of our problems.  We would have to consider the issue of same-sex marriage and change our definition of that institution before what Ed proposes could be considered.  And I question whether the center of the church is unified enough to force such a solution on the extremes, or that the center would even find this acceptable.  But Ed offers us a perspective we haven't seen, and it's worthy of consideration.

What do you think?

A Modest Proposal from Miami Valley

Back in May, Miami Valley Presbytery (Dayton and environs), overtured the General Assembly with a proposal entitled "Witnessing to Christ’s Church: Our Continuing Controversy over Ordination Standards." The document is a call for mutual forbearance and a seven-year "fast" on voting on sexuality and ordination standards. The GA declined to adopt it and instead sent Amendment 10-A to the presbyteries. Since the Assembly, Miami Valley has reaffirmed the statement and commends it to the entire church. Here is the link to download a copy:

http://www.miamipresbytery.org/pdf/council/Witnessing-to-Christ-Church.pdf

Here is the statement itself, minus the rationale:

Witnessing to Christ’s Church:

Our Continuing Controversy over Ordination Standards

Introduction

On May 14, 2010, the Presbytery of the Miami Valley overwhelmingly approved an overture to the General Assembly (which became known as 06-20, Fast and Forbearance). The overture called for a seven year fast from legislative efforts during a period of active waiting with respect to our continuing ordination standards controversy.

Despite the overture’s defeat at General Assembly, our presbytery’s action underscored our desire to seek a better way, and by doing so, offered us the opportunity to witness to the whole church by voluntarily living into the proposals of the overture.

Fast and Forbearance

I therefore, a prisoner in the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all.

Ephesians 4:1-5, NRSV

Guided by scripture, we:

•   Humbly acknowledge that division within the church obscures our witness to Jesus Christ.

•   Humbly acknowledge that, regarding the controversy over ordination standards, the Lord has not     blessed the church with a unity of conscience, that the church is likely to have a large minority on this issue for the foreseeable future (no matter which side is in majority), and that the church’s wrangling has unintentionally drawn us away from behavior readily identifiable as Christ-minded.

•   Urge all members and officers to undertake a seven-year fast, abstaining from all legislative efforts to resolve the ordination standards controversy, AND to wait actively upon the Lord by pursuing untried strategies to resolve the controversy, especially strategies of humility, gentleness, patience and forbearance.

•   Urging all officers (deacons, elders, and ministers of the Word and sacrament) to study Ephesians 4 and to apply it with specific voluntary efforts which draw us nearer to behavior readily identifiable as Christ-like.

•   Urging all officers in the majority (those in favor of G-6.0106b and opposing gay ordination) to approach Presbyterians in the minority with efforts to encourage healing, respect, trust, and transformation.

•   Urging all officers in the minority (those opposed to G-6.0106b and favoring gay ordination) to approach Presbyterians in the majority with efforts to encourage healing, respect, trust, and transformation.

We seek an even-handed, compassionate way to those on each side of the controversy, asking neither to sacrifice their conscientious convictions and asking each to extend forbearance voluntarily to the other. In this way we hope the church may rise to the Apostle’s call to “make every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."

[end of quote]

When I first read this, it blew me away!  I think our sisters and brothers on the other side of the state might be on to something here.  I urge you to download and read the whole document, including the rationale.  What would happen if we didn't vote but instead listened to God and to each other?

Please respond and let me know what you think.

Third World Wisdom (Belhar Confession)

The argument for adopting the Belhar Confession that I find most compelling is that it would be the first confessional statement from outside of Europe and North America.  As we watch Christianity shrivel on the other side of the Atlantic and perceive that we're not so far behind on this side, it's heartening to watch the growth of the church in Africa, Asia and South America.  The Anglican Church of Nigeria has perhaps ten times the weekly attendance of its mother, the Church of England.  Presbyterians in Korea far outnumber us here in America.  It's past the time that we should recognize the vitality of our sisters and brothers whom our missionaries evangelized and let them speak to us.

Yesterday I read Tom Hobson's blog on the Presbyterian Outlook website, entitled  My perspective on Belhar. He pointed to the Uniting Presbyterian Church of Southern Africa (a fellow member of the World Communion of Reformed Churches) and their Confession of Faith, saying "[It] is worthy to replace our entire Book of Confessions as a comprehensive statement of what we currently believe."  This document is 42 pages long, with Scriptural endnotes making up half.  It's well worth your time to read it.

While looking at their website I came across the UPCSA's Statement on Marriage. I know that the General Assembly did not send us any proposals to change the definition of marriage, but we can't separate this issue from that of ordination.  I found this statement to be eminently Biblical and grace-filled.  It's less than three pages long, so I'll copy and paste it here for you:

Uniting Presbyterian Church in Southern Africa Statement on Marriage

(Adopted by the Executive Commission in 2005 and confirmed by the General Assembly in 2006)

The Executive Commission affirms that Christian marriage is defined within the Uniting Presbyterian Church in Southern Africa as an ordained covenant that exists between one man and one woman under God for life, and holds this definition to be consistent with the authoritative rule of Scripture as well as the tradition of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.

The Executive Commission instructs all marriage officers affiliated with the UPCSA to remain faithful to the church’s definition of marriage, and to exercise pastoral compassion and sensitivity in their

dealings with all who approach the church for assistance with marriage.

The Executive Commission exhorts all members of the church to uphold the sanctity of Christian marriage, and to acknowledge its role as the proper context for the expression of sexual intimacy

between a man and a woman.

Motivation

In view of the current initiative in our nation to re-define marriage through the law courts to include same-sex couples, it is imperative that our church give a clear and unequivocal signal as to the Christian definition of marriage, both for the guidance of its own members, and also that it may contribute effectively to the debate within wider society.

It should be noted that this matter, although clearly related, is also distinct from the debate surrounding sexuality and homosexuality. It concerns specifically the Christian understanding of marriage in the light of Scripture as our “final rule of faith and life”, as well as of our inherited tradition arising out of the church’s hermeneutic through the ages.

Both of these bear a unified resounding witness:

·  Marriage arises out of the order of creation, and is defined in the creation accounts of Genesis as that which exists between a man and a woman.

·  The prophetic tradition strongly reinforces this concept of marriage, and extends it to a metaphorical depiction of God and Israel (cf. Hosea, Malachi, Isaiah, Jeremiah).

·  Jesus confirms God’s creation of man and woman as the foundation of marriage and upholds marriage as that institution by which a “man shall leave his father and his mother and be made one with his wife, and the two shall become one flesh” (Matthew 19:4 ff.; Mark 10:1 ff.). This is central to the Christian view of marriage, encompassing both the physical and the spiritual realities of the marriage act as that which incorporates one man and one woman.

·  Both Paul (Ephesians) and John (Revelation) allude to the church as the bride of Christ, reflecting the metaphorical line of the prophets.

·  The New Testament consistently exhorts that marriage as a relationship of sexual faithfulness between a man and a woman be held in honour and that it be undefiled (cf. Hebrews 13:4; 1 Corinthians 7: 1-5)

·  Whilst not exclusively so, marriage is linked to the procreation and nurture of children in several Biblical passages (Cf. Genesis 1:28, 4:1; Ephesians 6:1; Colossians 3:20-21).

·  This definition has held sway in the church through the ages, as is evidenced in the writings of the Church Fathers (Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Alexandria, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Jerome et.al.) and in marriage service orders of different denominations and eras (cf. the Sarum Liturgy, the Latin Rite, the

1549 Prayer Book right through to our own- remarkably consistent). 

The conclusion inescapably to be drawn from this witness is that, according to the Christian understanding, marriage is:

·  Ordained by God;

·  Covenantal in nature;

·  An exclusive relationship involving one man and one woman.

The Church has been remarkably consistent in this definition, across the denominations and across the ages, in spite of other serious differences and disputes. This should inform us. It is fallacious to say that our current time is unique and different to all the contexts that have gone before us. Homosexuality has been a reality in all of them, condoned in some of them, but this has never led the Church to review its definition of marriage.

We would do well to acknowledge that it is not only the same sex agenda that threatens the institution of marriage in our society. Adultery and co-habitation are far more pervasive if not as dramatic. These too require the attention of the church in its representation of grace and truth.

The intention of this motion is to uphold the Christian definition of marriage, not to provide a basis within the church for the exclusion and/or persecution of those who may pursue certain sexual practices, gay or otherwise. These practices must be addressed through the One who is “full of grace and truth”.

It should be noted that our government has given the assurance that, notwithstanding any change to the definition of marriage on the part of the state, marriage officers will not be compelled to act against their consciences or the principles of their religious bodies. Alarmist reactions to this issue should thus be

avoided. Nevertheless our church’s stance must be firm, clear and unequivocal, both for the guidance of its officials and members, and also that it may stand alongside fellow churches in faithfully representing to our lawmakers the Christian view, and that which we believe God requires of us as a nation.

[End of quote]

What are your thoughts?

In Christ,

Marty

nFOG and Trust

The biggest obstacle to passing nFOG, and the one that concerns me the most, is the trust at all levels of the Presbyterian Church (USA).  There just isn't much trust anywhere.  And when people don't trust each other they are perpetually suspicious of the motives and goals behind any proposal.  This isn't anything new.  The "Mitzpah Blessing" (The Lord watch between me and thee, when we are absent one from another- Genesis 31:49) is not a warm and fuzzy wish of good will, but an expression of mutual suspicion between Jacob and Laban.  

The Book of Order, 2009-2011 edition, is 1-1/4 inch thick and 9 inches tall and 6 inches wide in paperback.  I have on my bookshelf The Confessional Statement and The Book of Government and Worship of the United Presbyterian Church of North America from 1926.  It includes a brief statement of faith, all the rules and guidance for governance, worship and discipline, and even some rules of order.  In hardback, it measures a mere half-inch thick and is 6 inches by 4 inches.  While our Book of Order (after the first four chapters) makes for good bedside material when insomnia strikes, the Old UP book is actually a good read.  Even with its brevity it communicates a vital faith and a sense of connection with the larger Body of Christ.

How did our Book of Order get so big?  The simple answer is that we don't trust each other.  At the reunion between the Northern and Southern Churches in 1983, we had a pared-down Book of Order, lean and mean and ready to go.  In the past 27 years we've amended it over 300 times.  Much of it was jockeying between the North and South over keeping the practices each favored.  For instance, in the Northern stream the presbytery of care both examined and ordained candidates.  In the South the presbytery of call did both.  It took a few years of doing the Hokey Pokey with competing overtures before the compromise of the presbytery of call examining and the presbytery of care ordaining finally settled the matter.  When disagreements arise it seems that our first instinct to amend our Constitution. 

Do we trust each other?  No, it's obvious that we don't, and that's why some say that we dare not adopt nFOG.  How else can we keep those with whom we disagree in check?  I have to acknowledge that risk, as there are unintended consequences with everything.  That does make me a little nervous.  But I believe that we can't go on the way we've been going in recent years, and I'm willing to take a chance on nFOG.  Every congregation, every presbytery, every synod is unique, with its own missional call.  Our current Book of Order has become a one-size-fits-all straightjacket which prevents us from determining what works best in our own context.  We do need guidance, and yes, we do need a few shalls.  But we also need to figure out how to carry out our ministries in mutual accountability.  The proposed New Form of Government is not perfect, but with the revisions made in the last two years, and with the further changes made by General Assembly, I think it will serve us well.

What are your thoughts?  Please post your responses, and let's interact with one another.

In Christ,

Marty

My study guide for the amendments is online now

The study guide I've prepared for the amendments we'll be considering is now on the Muskingum Valley Presbytery website:

http://www.mvpjourneyingwithjesus.org/article270477c4044084.htm

I've provided links to articles and resources from across the spectrum, and I'll use this blog to share other articles and resources as they appear.  And in the next day or two I'll start writing my own reflections on the amendments, and I invite you to share your comments.  I hope we can get a lively (yet civil) discussion going!