Anderspeak

2012-01-16T10:57:00.001-08:00

AnderspeaK can now be found at: www.anderspeak.com

2006-09-18T16:08:00.000-07:00

ANDERSPEAK HAS MOVED TO web.mac.com/noela

2006-09-18T15:34:00.000-07:00

FIVE EASY STEPS FOR TAKING EVANGELICAL CHURCHES

For EPs and Stated Clerks
For Immediate Release

1. Find Insiders. It could anyone in the church who is disgruntled; the larger the church, the easier (and more important) this is. You may even find an associate pastor willing to bad-mouth the Head of Staff, which is the fastest route to success. Because we’re liberals, take bonus points for siding with ultra-conservatives against more moderate evangelicals--no one will blame you for being liberal in that case. Besides, it doesn’t matter; all that matters is getting the property.

2. Establish Initial Cooperation. Be sure to say reassuring things like “We’re with you, Brother!” or “Hey, we know ministry is tough! We’re entirely on your side.” Remember to pray at all meetings, using traditional trinitarian language and whatever sentimentalisms fit the target congregation. Talk about “unity”--this is your foot in the door. Just because you have to be cruel doesn’t mean you can’t be sweet about it.

3. Identify (create) Conflict. A minor disagreement between two pastors, a slightly-offended female church secretary, old-time members, or 20-somethings--any of these can be your first tool. It is up to you to identify and name a conflict; then we can create an investigative committee “for the good of the people of the church.” From here on, it doesn’t matter what pastors and/or sessions say--they’re entirely irrelevant, as you’ll see.

4. Conflict “Resolution.” Drive a wedge between whatever two sides you can identify. It doesn’t matter if it’s between a 20-year-veteran pastor and a man hired out of a newspaper ad to pick up litter with a pointed stick--you put them on a level and keep them there. As long as there are two sides, then there is a need for an investigative committee, which we can morph into an Administrative Commission. Get the commission in and we’ve won! It may be helpful to call in a “consultant” to deal with the conflict. If you choose from one of the national organizations, pick from somewhere low on the totem pole, thereby increasing the chances of overlooking “family systems” and allowing us to put the crosshairs on one or more of the pastors. Someone has to take the bullet for conflict, and it won’t be the presbytery!

5. Declare a Stalemate. An Administrative Commission only needs to declare that the conflict is unresolvable. Now you can remove pastor(s) at will. You may lose up to half of the elders, but more likely than not, the congregation will fall back into conformity once their leaders are gone. Result: the denomination keeps the property, and seeks a new (and more obedient) pastoral staff to “lead” the church.

2006-07-27T14:39:00.000-07:00

NWAC NOT ABOUT BREAKING AWAY

Be clear: The New Wineskins Association of Churches is not interested in simply breaking out of the PCUSA; to the contrary, we are trying to keep churches in--specifically, evangelical congregations. NWAC is doing something the denomination used to do several decades ago: helping churches to be the Church. NWAC is not about defiance, but it is a response to irrelevance, obstructionism and in the worst cases, incompetence.

My father is 90 years old. He is incredibly healthy in mind and body, but I still worry daily about his driving. Granted, I worried about his driving in 1976, but that was for other reasons; I was 16. If I am going to be in the car with him, I want to be the one driving. Yes, he has a great driving record and 74 years of driving experience to his credit, but still, I wonder, should he be driving? If the answer is no, how do I take the wheel? If yes, then for how much longer?

These are the NWAC's questions about the PCUSA. We have no thought of jumping from a moving car, but of changing drivers, or relocating the steering wheel to what was the passengers' side, like those Drivers' Ed cars. NWAC says we need both a steering wheel and pedals mounted for those who know where the church does (and does not) need to be going.

I love my dad, and someday I will have to take the wheel and help him get where he needs to go. If I do not, he might steer the car someplace very dangerous. At that point I will need to stop him from driving, and he will not like it. He may even tell me that doing so is "hateful" or "breaking up the family." Because I love him I will do it anyway.

No one loves the PCUSA more than those who are willing to do what is patently hard for its highest good. The denomination has been weaving on the road for many years. We run over construction cones and veer away from large trees at the last second. They may call it Peace, Unity and Purity, but it is madness. It is well past time to let some others take the wheel--preferably those who know what the Church is, Who her Lord is, and where she is supposed to be driving.

And if we can't just take the wheel (i.e., infiltrate the denominational bureaucracy--and be clear, we can't) then we have to find another way to steer the car.

NWAC is for all those churches who love the PCUSA, but can't allow the old guard to steer any longer. We are strategizing for change with a captial C, which means we want a new way of doing church (thank you PUP), not another church or denomination. NWAC is for all the churches that have become too nervous to trust Louisville to steer us according to the Word of God. NWAC is for those who feel a little ashamed that we haven't acted sooner or more decisively in these matters.

NWAC is building in to the PCUSA new pedals and a new steering wheel. Enough is enough.

2006-07-17T11:19:00.000-07:00

GOING TO TULSA and AN END TO DENOMINATINOAL NARCISSISM

Good people say “we love the Presbyterian Church,” but this is a tad naive. We all know (don’t we?) that our love is reserved for the Body of Christ–the Church invisible–spread out through time and history and present (at least) in every denomination, including the PCUSA, praise God, but these expressions are disingenuous because they are about us. Presbyterian pride is a sin when it holds up the mere form–our local club–and speaks of it as though it were the whole Body of Christ.
Truth be told, we know we are in decline and flawed–both of which are okay if we are simply honest about it and admit it freely–but most don’t, and when they do they are called nasty names like “negative,” “pessimistic,” or “The Layman.” Is it either polite or helpful to ignore our flaws? Is the “prophetic voice” only allowable on the left? Whenever denominational flaws are aired, we are met with aloof dismissiveness, the same look we get when we suggest we should spend more time praying and reading the Bible.
Rather than awakening our collective consciousness to change, we sacralize our dysfunctions through sentimentalizing our weaknesses. It is like the mutt we so love, despite her three legs and bad breath. We accept our flaws with a smirk and a shrug, which is gracious enough, but let’s be clear: denominational affection is not enough; the PCUSA needs a flea bath and a thorough de-worming. Anyone who loves the denomination per se is like the goose that fell in love with the goose-shaped boat. It is unseemly for any Christian; it is denominational narcissism.
The PCUSA is in love with itself and wastes away in front of the mirror. “I love and am so proud of the PCUSA” may be our final words. Sad, too, because no one (least of all Christ) asked us to love a denomination.
The evangelical status quo calls us to “keep in there, stick with it, and get active.” This simply does not work; it has been not working for at least 20 years. “Stay/Fight/Win” is now a lose/lose proposition. The only win for the PCUSA (either side) is to change/change/change, but we may not have the emotional intelligence quotient required for self-change.
From Birmingham to San Diego to Seattle to Ft. Lauderdale, even moderate evangelicals now talk about “going to Tulsa,” which is literally about attending the New Wineskins Convocation, but is fast becoming a catch phrase for “we’re sick and tired of the PCUSA as it is, and unwilling to ‘wait-and-see’ any longer whether it will straighten out.”
The New Wineskins conference in Tulsa gives all Presbyterians a chance to break away from denominational narcissism–the infatuation with their own image. We must renew by looking solely to Christ as the one to complete our faith, rather than trusting the belabored legislations and social awareness committees of a dying behemoth.

2006-07-08T09:37:00.000-07:00

LOSS OF DENOMINATIONAL IDENTITY

PUP is legally, word-for-word conservative, as it should be.
The PUP report is legally conservative. The constitution reads well-enough, but the function of the PCUSA in relation to its constitution has been given an official, authoritative loophole in recommendation #5.

For evangelicals, this is a hole in the boat; for liberals, it is progress.

I for one don’t care to be in a boat with someone who keeps pulling the plug every time you turn your head to fish, but we now spend more time replacing the plug and bailing than we do fishing.

We could reform and reorganize–some already have and others are planning to do so–in the hopes that the next generation will build healthier denominations, or we could just continue on in our very flawed, very divided and double-minded denomination.

Denominational identity is obsolete; it is like product loyalty to your old brand of cigarettes. Being a Presbyterian, up and against being a Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran or Catholic gains us nothing in either mission or evangelism. Its former, elitist, “ivy league, upper-middle-class” appeal is long dead, which is too bad, because at least that appeal drew people into the pews.

The Presbyterian identity is gone, either lost or otherwise transformed. The “appeal” is now lost in a flurry of mixed messages, and whatever people are hearing, it just isn’t working; it hasn’t worked for 20 years. Denominationalism per se is dead, at least for the PCUSA. Most younger already Christians get it–these are same ones who have never seen a cigarette commercial. To them, Presbyterians means “deeply flawed, deeply conflicted, but with a really interesting past.” We’d have as much luck getting them to join the local Lions’ Club. The Shriners have more drawing power with those red fezzes and little go carts they braid around in local parades. Compared to the PCUSA, the Shriners are really cool.

Something big is happening to the Church–not just the PCUSA–but worldwide Christianity. An explosion of growth with an expansion of diversity of form. It includes forms unseen or disregarded since the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Gnostic Christianities that worship God as the Father of Jesus Christ who is The Light, radically-applied koinonia on the small scale in small groups and house churches, independent congregations willing to live and die in a natural institutional life-cycle–these are spreading the world of denominations (and denominationalisms) into obscurity and obsolescence. Wildly varying communities of faith organized according to their preferred interpretations (many of them bad, in our opinion), yet seeking to follow Jesus at the center, remain on the increase, not the decline, as with the old mainlines.

I suspect we will see an increasing fragmentation of “acceptable” interpretations–an explosion of micro-denominations in the small group and house church movements that will have less and less in common with each other and the rest of Christianity other than the true essentials. Why should we expect the Church to grow into unanimity? We may have had a dream that Jesus would unify His Church by combining denominations in growing consensus (and by the way, what an utter joke our ecumenical groups have been, WARC, NCC, etc.), but it seems more likely that God will unify us by spreading out our denominations so thin that they cease to exist. What remains will be a world of Christianity unified by essentials-in-practice. It doesn’t matter what we say we believe; what matters is how we serve, how we do outreach, how we worship, and how we organize ourselves. Putting it in the Book of Order doesn’t make it happen: that’s a lesson we Presbyterians know by heart.

The PCUSA can lead in this change. We have no consensus. We have no ideological unity, just a few points in common. We do the most drastic ecumenical work every year within our own walls. The PCUSA is an ecumenical body. We are all about ecumenism because we can’t agree on anything. We are two, or four, or a dozen denominational spirits under one moniker.

If the denomination doesn’t really matter (and let’s be crystal clear here: it doesn’t matter), then there is no better reason to break away than to just stick it out in spite of disagreements. By breaking away we simply risk the repeating denominational history when we ought to be busily shaping the wildly-diversified, post-denominational, wirelessly-connected Body of Christ. The history of doing church by denominations is closing quickly; we must invest aggressively in the new ways Church will be done in the next generation.

Being divided and double-minded as we are, we are off to a good start. The move is not to purify the PCUSA (which isn’t worth purification), nor to preserve its better qualities only to ossify them in new denominations (which will be equally flawed within ten years), but rather to get out of the denomination business altogether.

The PCUSA should coordinate and strategize for its own deconstruction. “But wait,” you say, “that is what we have been doing for 20 years!” No, the fault of the church is that it has been working so hard to preserve its own life, it can only lose it. Perhaps all hope is not lost; perhaps God wants us to become the first denomination to become more than a denomination: a mission-enabling, worship-enabling, study-enabling network. Do we need to break away to make that happen? No, we are on that course already, albeit too slow for some and too fast for others.

2006-06-27T12:32:00.000-07:00

JOURNAL: 217th GENERAL ASSEMBLY

http://web.mac.com/noela/iWeb/My%20Site/217th%20GA/Archive.html

2006-03-31T06:05:00.000-08:00

DR. ROGERS' GOOD RESEARCH AND FLAWED ANALOGIES

Dr. Jack Rogers, in "Jesus: The Bible, and Homosexuality," provides a wealth of research into Presbyterian scriptural use and abuse through the ages, but unfortunately pours his good research into a string of flawed analogies. While we respectfully honor his painstaking research and helpful citations, we also stand in utter amazement at how he fails to see himself and his own arguments in the very mirror he holds up to the rest of the denomination.

In Chapter 2, "A Pattern of Misusing the Bible to Justify Oppression," Rogers recalls one James Henley Thornwell--a name to be remembered by all Presbyterians concerned with homosexual rights--and the arguments he used to justify the immoral practice of slavery. Thornwell (as Rogers teaches us) sought to justify slavery through at least four principles (all quotes from pp. 21-22):

1. Ask: Does scripture directly[literally] condemn slavery? No.
2. Remember: Slavery is no new thing, it has existed for ages in the world and church.
3. Ask: Do scriptures indirectly condemn slavery? (No, argues Thornwell, and for which Rogers comments: "An evil practice of ancient Near Eastern culture, recorded in the Bible, was thus allowed to overrule the central teachings of Jesus).
4. The particulars of scripture take precedence over the general principles. "Unless something is expressly prohibited, it can be done."
5. Natural law argument: Whatever the majority of people accept as true is natural.

Thornwell's arguments to justify immorality bear a point-for-point correlation with the pro-homosexual enthusiasm!
Rogers is correct about Christians misusing scripture to justify sinful behavior, but how on earth can he miss the perfect reflection with his own--and others'--attempts to justify homosexual behavior? The chapter needs to be rethought and rewritten with the title: "A Pattern of Misusing the Bible to Justify Immoral Sexual Practices."

The progressives argue exactly as did Thornwell. In the above examples, try replacing the word "slavery" with "homosexuality" and see where we stand! Evangelicals stand with the abolitionists--those who appeal to the word and spirit of the text to denounce a culturally-accepted practice. Western culture's embrace of homosexuality is identical to the old South's embrace of slavery. The justifications are exactly the same.

Rogers further reminds us (p.33): "Abolitionists within larger denominations, following the principle 'no fellowship with slavery,' often withdrew to form new antislavery churches." and "Yet other abolitionists grew tired of the mainstream churches' failure to condemn slavery. For example, a leading New England abolitionist, William Lloyd Garrison, was deeply disappointed when his own pastor, Lyman Beecher, refused to endorse the immediate emancipation of slaves, calling the idea 'commendable, but misguided.'"

Pro-homosexuality Presbyterians like Rogers sincerely believe they merely practice compassion and mercy by the promotion of homosexual behaviors. To love the people you must love the sin, is the effect of their logic. This too is commendable, but misguided. Rogers et. al. are seeking to justify a practice that has clearly been denounced as sinful by the whole Church--worldwide, spread throughout history--in a unanimity that is nearly perfect.

All Presbyterian should hope to be remembered in these present conflicts as having learned from our Abolitionist heritage. In the matter of justifying homosexual behavior, we must stand with the Abolitionists, not Thornwell.

2006-01-16T12:28:00.000-08:00

THE OLD INFORMATION SYSTEM IS DEFUNCT

It used to be one large ice shelf–Presbyterians with their diversity of opinions and positions–and the whole shelf maintained integrity and stability through a system of organized connections we called governing bodies. These governing bodies constituted our specific information system by which the whole shelf remained stable and ideologically well-integrated. There was a left side and right side with members seeking to add weight to their respective positions, but all enjoyed the sure undergirding of a stable shelf and a reliable information system to keep them connected in spite of differences.
At some point, the ice shelf broke and split into diverse fragments--small ice floes--and the stability of each floe no longer depended upon the whole shelf, but each fragment required its own local organization to remain balanced and afloat.
Since 1983–perhaps earlier–the PCUSA has endured the same cultural fragmentation as seen in all of American life. The increasing belief in the virtue of diversity, increasing isolationism for individuals and families, the loss of volunteer and civic organizations, the dramatic shifts in ethnic populations--all attest to this increasing fragmentation that affects both culture and churches. Culture wars has become a household term, indicating that diversity has its shadow side as well. The PCUSA currently manifests these culture wars most clearly in the areas of gay rights, abortion rights, and to a lesser degree right and left party politics.
The PCUSA saw its heyday of effectiveness in the unfragmented age, when the information systems were defined by institutional models and these were operative and useful. “The Presbyterian way of doing things” always referred to “connectionalism”--our dependency upon our institutional model to solve problems and provide for effective ministries.
The information system represented by the denominational structures is of increasingly questionable value in the new world of fragmentations. The denominational structure is an insufficient information system to connect the floes. A new information system is needed. The challenge is to reconnect the fragments which have already established their own local stability, lashing together as many of the floes as possible without threatening either their effectiveness or their internal integrity. The challenge to unify the fragmented floes raises several crucial questions:
If the floes have local integrity and balance, then why bother trying to reconnect them?
If some of the floes refuse to reconnect, then do we simply let them go and let them be or do we take the floe by rights and send its members swimming?
If present information systems prove (as they have) inadequate to the task, then what new information system(s) can supercede the old, institutional model?
The PCUSA is today diverse indeed. Its churches or presbyteries are like independent ice floes seeking their own balance with only nominal connections beyond the local level. The cherished connectionalism of our past functions as neither glue nor oil–it neither unites us nor provides increasingly effective ministry in any meaningful degree. Those who continue to tout the denomination’s institutional virtues express either a sentimental loyalty based on the past or remain in denial of the very real fragmentation.

2005-12-09T05:48:00.000-08:00

FROM THE PRESBYTERIAN OUTLOOK:
Rev Jin S. Kim's bilateral prescription for the PCUSA

The following was posted on the OUTLOOK website
(http://www.pres-outlook.com/tabid/220/Article/293/Default.aspx).

The Three Rs: Revision, Reform, Reconcile
Guest Viewpoint by Jin S. Kim
10/24/05
I am thankful for the work of the Peace, Unity and Purity Task Force, for modeling a way of speaking the truth in love to one another and to the church, even if there is no clear “prescription”. Patience, forbearance, and faithful engagement are marks of the church that are easily overlooked in a results-oriented society. Affinity groups have also been tackling the presenting issues of the day for decades, especially the issue of ordination standards. However, I have come to realize that the options for renewal we have currently are not enough.
In the post-modern age, we have come to the end of Enlightenment rationalism with new paradigms for thinking emerging. As children of the Reformation, we are still too deeply rooted in Athens. The birth of Protestantism occurred, of course, when the Roman Church, very much under the influence of Thomas Aquinas (who borrowed heavily from Aristotle), was countered by Luther and Calvin, both influenced significantly by Augustine, a neo-Platonist. That the Western church is influenced by Plato/Aristotle is not any more noteworthy than that the Eastern (East Asian) church is influenced by Confucius/Lao Tzu. But in the church in America, I am convinced that our Platonic dualism has led to a national bipolar disorder.
The Western church, through the influence of Greco-Roman philosophy, law and culture has come to the point where Christians gravitate either toward a relativistic, privatistic, pluralistic faith (loosely, "liberal"), or a rigid, rationalistic, propositionalistic confessionalism (loosely, "conservative"). One group is concerned about society and justice (”life and work”) as faithful Christians should be, but has pressed for an affirmation of homosexual practice that appears to many evangelicals to be beyond the bounds of what Scripture teaches. In the words of R. R. Reno, their "bourgeois bohemian" sensibility calls for sexual freedom coupled with ruling class respectability. Like the Sadducees, those on the Left are seen as comfortable with ecclesial power but not too concerned with theological orthodoxy.
On the other hand, there is a group opposed to this move whose agenda revolves around personal morality, especially the kind that kindles the anxiety of privileged, white, middle class Christians. At their best, they build up “faith and order”. At their worst, these social conservatives are like the Pharisees who were theologically orthodox, but whom Jesus called hypocrites because they would not lift a finger for the poor and oppressed.
Beyond this, we Americans have become so hyper-individualistic that we cannot bear to be with others with whom we disagree. Despite the errors that still plague the Roman Catholic Church, it does tend to correct its errors over time, even when it takes hundreds of years to do so (like restoring Galileo, apologizing for anti-Semitism, etc.), without provoking schism each time there is a perceived error. Is our Protestant impatience with human error in the church, when God chooses to be patient, itself an error? Does our Protestant (protest) heritage coupled with modern radical individualism mean that we will continue to have schism until we become a church of one?
I love the Reformed tradition and I sincerely believe it approximates faithful Christianity closer than does most other traditions. But we ought not idolize it. The Reformed tradition produced a stream of Presbyterianism in America that condoned slavery for hundreds of years. The Dutch Reformed tradition even generated apartheid theology that the Nationalist government in South Africa eventually adopted, producing a vile and oppressive caste system. Although there are more than five million Presbyterians in Korea, they are members of some of the most fractured and contentious churches in the world, with well over 300 Presbyterian denominations.
Have we American Presbyterians not seen up close the brutality of church splits among Korean congregations in our presbytery or synod? Furthermore, the Presbyterian churches in many developing nations tend to reflect an educated, wealthy and elitist attitude compared to other denominations.
There are some elements inherent to the Reformed tradition that are deeply flawed, and none of us can see them if we align ourselves only with like-minded people (contra homogeneous unit principle). The absolute brilliance of our tradition is that it is completely natural to be "always reforming" the church, according to the Word of God. The problem is, we Presbyterians have all too often chosen the easy path of schism (and exported that worldwide) rather than the difficult path of revision, reform and reconciliation. The hard Left and the hard Right of the PC(USA) both want hegemony – the imperialist impulse is alive and well. And if one side cannot prevail, schism is the inherent (and often explicit) threat.
But if we do have a schism, and if the choice is to join the Sadducees or the Pharisees, which should we choose? This is a serious dilemma, especially for those of us who come from racial ethnic minority communities. We are daily confronted by social injustice and struggle with issues of racism, inadequate healthcare and employment, immigration issues, racial profiling, sub-standard public education, affordable housing … the list goes on. Like the white liberals, we care deeply about matters of justice, but unlike them, nowhere among the racial ethnic communities does the issue of homosexuality rise to the level of urgency as have the other issues listed. And by and large, we ethnic minorities are marked by a deeply evangelical, orthodox and spiritual faith.
So on the issue of ordination standards, we share similar orthodox convictions with our white conservative brothers and sisters. But where are they after we stand and vote with them on the ordination amendments? In the face of massive poverty, war and disease around the globe, and the disintegration of the family, rampant consumerism and hedonism in American society, I can't help thinking that the elevation of sexuality as the dominant ecclesial debate is a uniquely Western fetish.
I wonder if we are ultimately suffering from an ecclesiological crisis, more than a theological one. Is the church a big-tent circus where anything goes, especially the latest novelty act? Or is it merely a corporate/bureaucratic entity that we can tear down at will when we feel it is not "holy" enough? Who's worse—the liberals who plan to aggressively push for another punishing round of amendment debates on ordination standards that will surely cause a significant portion of the church to consider schism, or the conservatives who already are preparing for schism in the guise of a "new ecclesial wineskin," however meritorious the details of structural overhaul may be? Who, in the midst of all this, loves the church?
I don't think any one--General Assembly task force, affinity organization or racial ethnic caucus--has the answer to these questions. But I do believe we need better leadership. We need a new movement that brings together ethnic minority leaders and Euro-American leaders whose first loyalty is the church of Jesus Christ, over and against any ideological commitment. We need to hear the perspectives of the historically oppressed in this country: the African Americans and Native Americans. We need also to hear from the global Christians who have come to the U.S. since the Immigration Reform Act of 1965 (an act that has changed the face of America probably more than has any other social movement of the 1960s). Because there is much less bifurcation and political polarization of theology in racial ethnic communities, such conversations will need to be consultative, round table discussions. Instead of each ethnic group working for its own interests (including those in the white ethnic group), leaders, regardless of background, ought to gather to build up the whole church, to do the ministry of reconciliation.
“Is our God too small?” Is the diminished church of our day the result of our worshiping a diminished God? Is God not sovereign over all? Did Christ not die for all? Has God not reconciled the world to Himself in Christ? I wonder what could happen if we gathered to confess our sins before God (confession, not confessionalism) as a church—then asked God to give us a new vision rooted in God's very heart for the church and the world. I pray that the Presbyterian Church will confront these challenges anew, with the fresh perspectives of Christians who seek to be faithful even among the ruins of a denomination.

Jin S. Kim is pastor of the Church of All Nations PC(USA) in Minneapolis, Minn. He is also chair of the advisory board, Cross Cultural Alliance of Ministries.

COMMENTARY

Rev. Kim's brief but vigorous critique hits many nailheads and misses others, but his conclusion--that we all confess together--is certainly a wise course forward.

On a liberal website such as the OUTLOOK's, Kim's ethnicity provides him adequate shelter for a tone that is aggressive, virulent, and ambitious--characteristics for which any Euro-American male would be villified--but with a foot on either side of the present conflict, the power for which he appeals may well-merited.

Unless we come to Christ on our knees with no conditions, no qualifications, and no pet exceptions, we don't really confess at all. Extremists right and left will have to confess their pharisaisms, and sexual sin (again, right and left) must be confessed without special let for homosexuals.

Justice means the absolute renunciation of rights before Christ, with no one but Christ ruling. We go from there or we go nowhere.

2005-11-23T04:40:00.000-08:00

THE GAY HERESY

It is time to call it what it is.

While a blog is no place for a systematic articulation of the complete problem, it is a place to call a spade a spade.

It is time that The Church–the worldwide expression of Christ's Body–make crystal clear that the gay advocacy movement, as it has made its way into our denominations, is false teaching: heresy.

The real heresy is less about homosexuality than about the attempt to reshape the curvature of Christianity in order to accommodate the few homosexuals who want to call themselves Christian but will neither submit their homosexuality to the authority of scripture nor repent of it as sin. Its adherents fall into two main camps: homosexual Christians who refuse to acknowledge homosexual behavior as sin, and heterosexual Christians who advocate for the reclassification of homosexuality as normalcy.

The first kind are no different from any other sinners. They are in denial of their sin and would rather not give it up, but support and endors any campaign–political or cultural–that will enable them in their sinful behavior. Like alcoholics, they may have a genetic predisposition to their drives and an lower threshold of self-control, but the Church must not and will not merely condone their denial. Homosexuality calls for the healing power of Christ. The Church calls for the healing and redemption of homosexuality, not its blessing.

Gay heretics of the second kind are those who empower the campaigns. These are more numerous and the greater danger. Under the banner of compassion, care, and advocacy for the oppressed and mistreated, this second kind turns a blind eye to the clear word and spirit of Scripture. They abstract the virtue of compassion to such a point as to deny all worthy discipline. By accepting compromised definitions of humanity–specifically, that homosexuality and heterosexuality are to be equally regarded–they set truth and falsehood on a level. This is a campaign to cheapen the cost of discipleship, disregard the Church, and accommodate the sins of a very few. This would be less of a problem were they to simply reform according to their progressive ideas and create new denominations, but the heresy is compounded in that they demand that the whole denominations–even Christianity in whole–conform to their will. This is far worse than homosexual practice per se, for it attacks the Body of Christ and dares to call the orthodox faith "hateful," "unloving," or "bigoted."

These heretics play with millstone necklaces, for they would mislead Christ's "little ones"–-new Christians or would-be Christians of homosexual orientation, or even heterosexual Christians seeking to know God's will.

It is time for The Church in all her denominational expressions to name this what it has become: The Gay Heresy.

2005-10-08T05:45:00.000-07:00

HERESY AND SCHISM

It was Dr. James I. McCord, former president of Princeton Theological Seminary who said: "If you must make a choice between heresy and schism, always choose heresy. For as a heretic, you are only guilty of a wrong opinion. As a schismatic, you have torn and divided the body of Christ. Chose heresy every time." History will likely attribute this quote not to Dr. McCord but to the Episcopal bishop of Virginia, the Rt. Rev. Peter J. Lee, who wielded the phrase (unattributed) at the famous convocation which appointed the homosexual Robinson to bishopric office. With all respect, we must take issue with a couple of McCord's terms.

We absolutely quake in our boots at the thought of "tearing and dividing" the Body of Christ, but the question here is: Who are the real schismatics? Are traditional neo-orthodox theologians the ones steering denominations away from the 2000-year-old, world-wide consensus regarding the appropriate interpretation and application of scripture (especially as seen in the current imbroglio over sexual ethics?) No, it is the progressives that do this while all-but-demanding that the traditionalists accompany them down the sewer, crying "Unity! Unity!" all the way.

The progressives have long-abandoned the defense of the faith for a new set of coherencies to hold people together. They have exchanged God's glory for human harmony as the central core value of their religion. This is simple heresy, simple idolatry--if our center is anything other than the Word incarnate, crucified, risen and written--then we may as well be gnostics.

Granted, at the time of McCord's utterance (at least 30 years ago) there was clear evidence of hundreds of years of protestant fragmentation, and persnickety fundamentalists found ways to divide the smallest denominations into two or three more. Pharisaism has always possessed parts of the Church, but that term cannot be applied when those who simply adhere to the core values and canon of orthodox or neo-orthodox Christianity.

What would Dr. McCord have said about the Church of Scotland's divisions from the Church of England, The Church of England's division from the Catholic Church, or Calvin and Luther's strict admonitions against the Catholics--were these "schisms"? If so, how can he--or those who agree with him--in good conscience remain in a denomination that is itself the fruit of schism? Isn't that the perpetuation of schism? Would it be okay to create schism from a schismatic group in order to reunite with the Body of Christ? Of course it would. McCord would have said so himself.

It is likely McCord turned in his grave when Lee misappropriated his quote. McCord was solidly reformed, and no more a member of the revisionist/ecstatic/progressive theological tradition than Pope Ratzinger.

It is no longer a matter of different "opinion" that separates us; it is a matter of different unifying principles. Different Lords, different Gods--we are split already, only unified by property and polity. For some, these have become gods as well.

We no longer worship the same Christ. We can not remain together. If it is true that we must "chose heresy every time," then schism is the necessary heresy we must now choose.

2005-09-23T09:27:00.000-07:00

DR WHEELER'S PENTECOST A FAR CRY FROM ACTS 2

A rheumy-eyed Task-force quartet presents a monologue without the opportunity for serious questions and/or rebuttal. Their "unquestionable" conclusion is that the two churches--blissfully manacled together by property and polity--ought to remain together as a sign of "love" while the ship continues to sink.

Well fine, let's go down together. Let's drown in an embrace of mutual forbearance and affection. We can do that, and that is certainly one possible witness we could show the world, but wouldn't be a greater sign of love to take off the manacles and simply hold hands? Or wouldn't it be a greater sign of love for those of "lower" sexual standards to raise them for the good of the whole Church?

Not all who cry "Lord, Lord" at the name of Jesus are part of the Church. As Presbyterians affirm "Jesus is Lord" we should not be teary-eyed with glee over one agreement amidst worlds of theological clatter, but rather we should be shaking in our boots in fear and trembling. That element of faith seems to have escaped the Task Force's careful deliberations.

That this orgy of self-congratulation over a unanimous vote of 20 people is even compared to Pentecost borders on blasphemy. If Dr. Wheeler has come no closer to Pentecost than this, as she says, then our expectations for theological leadership must look elsewhere.

A time for discernment indeed. But what do you do when your nose is pressed into the gray, wrinkled skin of the elephant and the conclusion remains "we must be careful to discern what is in front of us." Hardly worth celebrating.

The Task Force's report should be received with polite thanks to its dedicated and well-worn members. We will all reaffirm that Jesus is Lord as we continue to disagree about what that means. "No further action to be taken" is one and the same with receiving the report.

We can do better than this.

2005-09-21T10:16:00.000-07:00

LOVE OF PCUSA OR LOVE OF CHRIST?

Again and again we hear how much Presbyterians, across the lines of debate, love the Presbyterian Church. How much does it matter?

We all wince a little at Roman Catholic friends who are so “Catholic” that they seem incapable of proclaiming their Christianity as well. It would be an ugly shame if Presbyterians grew so fond of their presbyterianism that their Christianity were to become ill-defined, or worse, unimportant.

Let us be clear: we are Christians first. To be a Presbyterian is never to be a proud one, for our pride is all damnable, but to take pains to glorify God in Christ at every step. There seems too much self-congratulation in many of our discussions, as though our form of government were our only common ground or the only thing to be celebrated across the spectrum of opinion. If we can agree on the theological prologue of the Task Force report, this is clearly not so.

When we hear people proclaiming their pride in being Presbyterian, can we gently guide and redirect that “pride” toward the praise and glory of God? If we do not have this in common, we may be a lost cause already.

In heaven there are no Presbyterians as such, though we know there are Christians. Hell, of course, may require some carefully organized distribution of powers. Let us hope that none are drawn there for that reason.

2005-09-19T10:18:00.000-07:00

PRESBYTERIAN TASK FORCE REPORT FAILS IN ITS ADDRESS OF HOMOSEXUALITY

The Peace, Unity and Purity Task Force report said many nice things about Christianity. Bravo. Nonetheless, it needs to be rejected for what it fails to say about homosexual marriage and/or ordinations.

When did we turn the corner to thinking that human desires are self-legitimizing? One implicit proclamation of the PUP report is that homosexual desire must be honored, or at least it must be honored if experienced by a baptized, confessing Presbyterian. But why is homosexual desire to be respected?

One reason is that American culture believes so strongly in protecting individual rights, which is good. But that virtue becomes tyrannical when it eclipses concern for the general health of the society as a whole. The protection of boundless individual rights, combined with the all-touted but ill-defined freedom to "pursue happiness" has resulted in a culture that loves itself and its own pleasures more than the duty to any higher good. This has rubbed off on too many Presbyterians. It was Alexander Fraser Tyler who said "a democracy. . . can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury." This is also true of intellectual property. As long as true doctrine and the right interpretation of scripture remain subject to the votes of church governing bodies, truth is expendable; it is Monopoly money, valuable only as long as you play the game.

This is an unprecedented position for Christians. In fact, it is not Christian at all; it is anti-Christian and is not to be tolerated, accepted, or otherwise welcomed. Those that call themselves Christians yet hold nothing to be absolutely true deny the confessional nature of faith and the One to whom that faith is directed.

In place of truth we have elevated love of self and desire. "Whatever I want to do" has become the god, and any obstacle to that will is backward, repressive, bigoted or hateful. This idolatry has infiltrated the Church--specifically through liberal protestantism, including the PCUSA--and has come to a head in the debate over gay marriage and/or ordination. Defense of idolatry has found its home in "conscience" arguments. Yes, we must show mutual forbearance and differ in good conscience. But what is good conscience? Any conscience that does not square with scripture is not good conscience, it is bad conscience--neither to be respected nor defended by the denomination.

Hidden (or not-so-hidden) within the PUP force rhetoric are several unargued, unquestioned-but-questionable, foregone assumptions:

1. There is no need or hope for healing via reparative therapy.

2. The church must come alongside the host culture in its wholesale abandonment of biblical morality regarding sex.

3. There is no alternative to welcoming Christian homosexuals into ordained, church offices.

4. Homosexual couples who at least resemble married couples are more acceptable than promiscuous homosexuals.

One at a time:
1. Reparative therapy is dismissed as irrelevant. In private sessions, the PUP force likely agreed that the cure is worse than the disease. Comparisons to bloodletting or forced exorcisms (hmm. . . .) likely dismissed any more serious research. The facts about reparative therapy portray something very like successful AA programs, which seem the most appropriate analogy for the kind of healing ministries churches ought to have been providing from day one. None are even considered by the report, which is a grave failure.

2. Liberals love to don the self-proclaimed "prophetic voice" mantel only so long as doing so does not bring them into sharp contrast with other liberals. The true prophetic voice of the Church is most clearly revealed when it refuses the temptation of "people pleasing" by giving in to the whims of the sinful host culture. If the idea is that "we must come alongside culture in order to continue evangelizing it," then it is clearly time to define where, if anywhere, a point-of-no-return is located. A reasonable expectation of this report is that it would present one or two reasonable boundaries–lines beyond which our integrity would be fatally sacrificed. The fear is that many Presbyterians believe no such lines exist. For them, integrity was clearly lost some time ago. The rest of us must not follow them any further.

3. The PCUSA still has choices. We can still say no; we are not beyond that choice. The report fails to make that option clear.

4. This may be the most embarrassing gaff of the whole report. The positive caricature of homosexual couples--gays in the image of the ideal, American couple--reveals a bias for normalcy. Adding the terms "monogamous," "committed," and "presbyterian" to homosexuality is supposed to make us say "well. . .alright then." But it's an ugly lie. If the gay thing is okay, then why do they need to look like Christian heterosexuals? This is window-dressing: bourgeois, skin-deep, drag-in-reverse. It is gay phony. If they believe that gay life is something to be celebrated in all its diversity, then why tart it up for the straights except to help it pass? This is simple wolvery in sheep's clothing. A farce, a fake, a dandied up con. We are idiots if we fall for it. In fact, it could be argued that in expecting homosexuals to be "monogamous" or "committed," we would be forcing them out of their true nature, out of their orientation into the confinement of a bigoted church's idea of normal. . . wait, this is sounding familiar.

The Task Force report should be rejected, or accepted with no action to be taken as a result. Thank the members for their hard work, and congratulate them for not going postal on each other, otherwise, let the denomination call it what it is: namely, yet another belabored study group that speaks only for itself. Just like GA.

2005-08-30T06:18:00.000-07:00

WHY OUR INSISTENCE UPON UNITY REMAINS AN UGLY HYPOCRISY

Those driving a wedge between the PCUSA and the worldwide Body of Christ, and those who break bread with them, will soon enough be celebrated as champions of peace, unity and purity. GA 2006 will certainly see to that. But it will be a sham, an ugly hypocrisy of self-congratulations over having done little more than reiterate the Presbyterian status quo.
The quest for unity is not about holding the dissenting ideologies of the PCUSA into a single party; it is about keeping the PCUSA in sync with the rest of the Body of Christ. It speaks far more to our ecumenical agenda than our inner, political ones.
Unless you believe the PUCSA is the whole expression of Christ’s body, and nothing of the Church exists beyond it, the vow to uphold and protect the peace, unity and purity of the Church applies to the whole Body of Christ, not just the PCUSA,.
There is a great difference between the task of forging theological consensus within our own house, under our own constitution, and seeking the oneness of the whole Body of Christ. Yes, we are right to seek theological consensus--the PUPforce represents one expression of that hope--but let’s call it what it is: just trying to get our own house in order. Until we do, it is difficult to talk about seeking consensus with Christians of other denominations.
The task force’s first recommendation is that we “stay together.” What they call the “unity of the body of Christ” remains a rather fierce loyalty to a worldly institution which is itself a departure from other Body of Christ institutions.
Presbyterians, like all Protestants, are schismatic in origin and character, but that should only be in terms of our institutional organization and government. We should all agree that the PCUSA is not the whole Body of Christ, nor should we claim that we are the only true expression of the Church. We once broke away from the Roman Catholic Church, and have historically distinguished ourselves up and against other denominations via our polity, our definition of mission, and our interpretation of scripture. We remain “in schism” from Catholics, Orthodoxes, Baptists, Methodists and all the rest due to our defining standards: our Confessions and Book of Order.
When did we last reaffirm our shunning of Catholics, Methodists, Lutherans, or even Mormons in print? We haven’t drafted or documented our distaste for their interpretations. We may groan with embarrasssment at other pastors with enormous air time, but have we made a denominational position of telling the world that we think they are idiots? No, nor should we, for these are still our brothers and sisters in Christ with whom we share a narrow path and an eternal destiny. But even this hope of ultimate unity is not well-expressed in our confessions.
If the Task Force were serious about unity and oneness, they would have recommended that churches and individuals which persist--by action and expressed intention--to violate the word and spirit of scripture and our constitution (esp. G6.0106b) be reprimanded for constantly threatening the unity of the Church. The progressives, more than any other factor, continue to force a unbiblical program into GA and presbytery agenda at every opportunity.
Those who push for gay marriage and/or ordination remain the true threat to Unity, for it is they who are attempting to steer the PCUSA out of fellowship with the whole Body of Christ. Why in God’s name should we seek to be one with them? Why should we pat ourselves on the back for ignoring their truly divisive agenda?
Better to seek oneness with the whole world of Christianity--the overwhelming majority of which stands alongside us in receiving our sexuality as informed and guided by scripture, and not one that is self-defined, self-authenticating, self-legitimizing, and ultimately, self-destructive.

2005-07-08T08:33:00.000-07:00

THE UCC'S MOST RIDICULOUS SLOGAN

The UCC's campaign slogan "God is still speaking" has been adopted from time to time by Presbyterian gay rights adherents, notably the Covenant Network. The suggestion is that God may yet say something positive about homosexuality, if only we can all be sensitive enough to hear it after setting aside what has already been said in scripture. "God is still speaking" implies that God may change his mind about homosexuality, which reveals the secret longing of all liberalism: better that God should change his mind than we ours. Even behind this is the scarier reality: namely, that liberals may really believe that God says nothing other than what we put into his mouth. Certainly their theology reflects this--that God means only what we say he means once we project our wants into his word through our personal interpretations of scripture. For biblical Christianity, this is the desolating sacrililege--that scripture has no real meaning in and of itself but merely serves as a convenient palimpsest for the community's theology-du-jour. As for the rest of us, we may agree--yes, God is still speaking--but he is saying the same thing he has always said and always will say, absolutely regardless of human preferences.

It is time for the UCC (and Presbyterian liberals) to be less enthusiastic about what God might say and instead hear what God has been saying all along. God may be still speaking, but what difference does it make if they are still not listening?

2005-05-11T16:06:00.000-07:00

RE: CONFLICT AT HOLLYWOOD PRES AND PACIFIC PRESBYTERY

Viewing from a safe distance, I do not have the inside scoop, but it is obvious that the COM wants to hold coats while the pastors take rocks to the head. Why the complainers feel they have the right or the authority to pass judgment on the pastors reveals all charges of "arrogance" "narcissism" and "belittlement" to be little more than convenient projections. They want to be check-points for decisions for which their input is not really needed, so they cry "belittlement." Because their will is not done, they are "un-listened-to" and because pastors have grown used to their control histrionics, they're called "arrogant"--which means they're tired of trying to be controlled. The factioneers are out of power, so they react with condemnation of those that lead. Presbyterian government is founded on principles of majority rule, which means that if you are voted down, you have to get used to it. Instead, they have turned their sour grapes into whines of oppression--a sound many COMs live for. Do these factioneers really think the members of the COM will be of a higher professional caliber than the elders and pastors of HPC? They seem to think that the church is their own possession and that pastors are to be respected and followed only so long as their vision is considered agreeable.

The COM of Pacific Presbytery has a great opportunity before it: namely, to discipline the factioneers and reaffirm the calling of Pastors Meenan, Manock, et. al. More often than not, presbytery investigating committees fumble when it comes to real leadership, defaulting to holding coats and waiting for legitimately called and installed pastors to absorb the bullets.

May God spare HPC the fate of so many other healthy churches which, on the path to health, had to leave a denomination and its idolatries-of-ownership in order to serve the Kingdom of God. Let's pray the presbytery comes around to better judgment.

2005-04-12T10:46:00.000-07:00

OFF THE RAILS
When a Denomination becomes a Sect

Dr. Dale Bruner shares a compelling picture of the Church in her march through history. Like a large, heavily-burdened traveller making her way in time, she is beset by mosquitoes, biting flies, rain and stumbling blocks. From time to time, out of her body, emerge progressive idealists who try to pull her forward in one direction or another. Their names are Docetism, Arianism, Supralapsarianism, and the like.
These new offshoots do their best to yank the Church down their own path, but in time are sloughed off, like shoots from a spider plant that never hit soil. So they wither and are forgotten as the Church continues forward.
Dr. Bruner uses this image to illustrate his personal affection for the Church herself--for the Body at the center of all the furious activity, moving through time and history modified ultimately by the Holy Spirit, oblivious to fad theologies and human controls. “THAT’S the Church I want to be in!” says Bruner. This is indeed the Church we all love, serve and of which we mean to be a part. This is the Church whose peace, unity and purity we are vow-bound to uphold. This is the Church of which it is a sin to split or divide.
But what if an entire denomination, weaker than the whole Body, should be taken off into a kind of sect, cutting itself off and away from the wholeness of world Christendom in service to a new ideal? The PCUSA, which appears to be as staunch and orthodox as the day is long, is breaking itself away from Christianity by its special adherence to new, progressive, sexual ethics. What do Presbyterians do when the PCUSA becomes a sectarian movement?

The Presbyterian Coalition, PFR, The Presbyterian Forum, New Wineskins and other groups have been roundly criticized for frank discussions of what is called “gracious separation.” Critics say “In a choice between heresy and division, choose heresy.” We have become so cautious with our potential Pharisaisms that we have calmly allowed the PCUSA to be steered away from common orthodoxy. We have become a divisive sect and think we are just being good Presbyterians. The above named groups all hold in common the desire to reunite the PCUSA with the whole Body of Christ from which we sprang and to which we must return if we are to go on calling ourselves The Church Reformed. The progressives love to refer to themselves as Reformers, but if they were alive today, so would Marcion, Manes, and Cardinal Richelieu.
To break from a sect is not sectarianism: it is reform. If the PCUSA continues on its course of sexual revisionism, redefining sin to accommodate the sexual preferences of a few favored groups, then any church wanting to call herself Reformed must break away from the PCUSA and re-ally herself with the whole Body of Christ. As for the popular cultural enthusiasm regarding libertine sexuality, it too shall pass and wither, living on only as another embarrassing chapter in our corporate history.
The choice before the PCUSA is this: shall we be one with the Body of Christ or shall we cut ourselves off into a sect. Let us be crystal clear: the progressives are the sectarians here, attempting to pull the PCUSA forward onto a path which the Mother Church will never walk, never step foot.
If the whole PCUSA may be steered back toward the whole Church, praise God, and let that be our fullest effort. But if it can not be returned, then it is not worth staying in. While reformers rejoin the whole church, we may see fingers pointing at us from the sectarians crying “divisive! divisive!” We will of course continue working for their redemption and reinclusion in the whole Church. They know the price: humility, repentance, confession--a price at present they seem too proud to pay.

2005-03-29T10:12:00.000-08:00

A PRAYER OF CONFESSION/REPENTANCE FOR THE PCUSA

PCUSA Prayer of Confession & Repentance

Lord God, You and You alone are good and true.
You are constant and reliable in Your love for us, even as we tend to wander from our devotion to You and Your will.
We praise You above all else; You are the pearl of great price for which we would give everything we have, want, or expect to become or be. You are The Lord, and we submit to Your glory.
We confess that we have fallen short of what You want both from us and for us. We have taken pride in our own controls rather than trust and accept Your lordship. Forgive us.
Forgive us for setting our perceived needs ahead of the good of Your glory. For setting up missions and causes to the place of Your throne. For regarding the good ends that we can imagine as Your own. Forgive us.
For rallying others to action--even virtuous action--while neglecting Your praise and glory, we repent.
For taking Your grace and ever-constant love for granted, we are ashamed. Even as we trust that in Jesus Christ You have overcome the division of sin, our actions and good intentions yet merit only judgment. Lord, we are thankful; may that gratitude so increase that we never take Your mercies for granted.
In taking Your goodness for granted (You are The Lord; You did not have to be loving, gracious or merciful), we have reimagined You as easy, soft and overindulgent of our sin. Forgive us for reimagining You as anything other than You have already revealed through Your Word, our Lord Jesus Christ.
Forgive us for reimagining truth and goodness as to serve our own wants and preferences: for debasing Your delight in marriage through easy divorces, for stealing its significance or sanctity and attempting to apply it where it does not belong.
For reimagining a justice that only applies to our political opponents and not to ourselves, forgive us.
For imagining that life is ours to define–to give and to take at will–Lord forgive us and lead us.
For imagining that what is important to us is important to You, Lord forgive us.
For missed opportunities to proclaim Your good news in the name of Jesus, Lord forgive us.
For ignoring the poor and the oppressed on our doorstep, or reimagining their needs to fit our own conveniences, forgive us.
For thinking of all You have given us as our own, forgive us.
Forgive us for all our reimaginings, which are our idolatries. Reform our hearts, minds, and actions into conformity with Your will, which is what we want more than anything else.
You are Lord to us and Lord of all. Shape our lives and destinies that we may increase our participation in the praise and glorification of Your name, living in humble union with one another as we serve Your will.
In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

2004-11-05T13:13:00.000-08:00

JACK STOTT'S HEADLESS HERMENEUTIC

CHICAGO – Dr. Jack Stotts, the retired president of McCormick Theological Seminary in Austin, Texas, told a Covenant Network audience Friday that the issue of the ordination of practicing homosexuals in the Presbyterian Church (USA) needs to focus on relationships and not the moral teaching of the Bible.

Dr. Stott suggests we should focus on "relationships, not the law." This is a bit like saying to an alcoholic "focus on alcohol, not on temperence." The reality is that homosexual relationships are always same-sex relationships that have gone wrong. The law--even the spirit of the law--sets standards by which relationships are to be governed and evaluated. Stott infers that if we would all just forget the moral code, then we'd all get along just fine.

Dr. Stott seems to think that if we focus on relationships instead of sexual ethics, we will abandon the law in order to please a few new friends. It may be true: if I drink a few beers with a few drug dealers, I'm likely to come away thinking they're not such bad guys, but if I reduce, redefine or otherwise reject the clear teachings of church and the scriptures in order to be a nice guy, I defame the witness and good judgment of centuries of faithful Christians.

What earthly good do we do the Kingdom of God by lowering our moral standards in the name of being nicer guys?

The added suggestion that eros is little more than mere filia is like saying that taking LSD is no different than drinking coffee--it is a crass reduction utterly ignorant of history and human culture. Such a turn of thought is easily rejected by conscientious Christians, as it should be, and bears further witnesses to liberalism's trend of placing truth and falsehood on a level.

Stott, like most of the Covenant Networkers, speaks as though he's lost his head. Instead, his adherence to some vague, inarticulate sense that "we need to be nicer to gays" has eclipsed the better judgment of the overwhelming majority of the Body of Christ.

2004-10-28T09:31:00.000-07:00

LETTER TO ARETZ SHEVA--RE: PRESBYTERIAN STATEMENTS CONCERNING ISRAEL
Response to http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=4348

Only apologies are merited. Please be clear: the General Assembly of the PCUSA speaks ONLY for itself, NOT for the millions of presbyterians at home and in the local pews. The overwhelming majority of Presbyterians are embarrassed and ashamed at the present delegation and are working faithfully at reform at every level. Most of us stand beside Israel and would willingly defend her as we do the USA.
Scriptures proclaim G-d's special relationship with Israel, and most Presbyterians would willingly affirm that G-d's promises are berith-olam--convenants in perpetuity--for which Jews of the world merit not only our deepest respect but a brotherly affection, albeit theologically once-removed. Presbyterians have always viewed their own election as an adoption into G-d's favor. To speak out against Israel is to disgrace G-d's generosity.
Please remember that our beaureaucratic leaders speak only for themselves--and pray that G-d gives us wisdom in our next steps.
Unlike our temporary Moderator, I am presently ashamed to be Presbyterian, but am committed to making changes that will glorify the G-d of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph, etc.

2004-10-05T10:48:00.000-07:00

RALPH CARTER--FALSE PROPHET OF THE YEAR AWARD FROM MORE LIGHT PRESBYTERIANS

Ralph Carter affirms evangelicals' worst suspicions: namely, that lgbt presbyterians are driven not by the gospel of Christ but by the consuming need to justify their lifestyle. Quote:

“I stay in the Presbyterian Church because it is one of the best places for doing lgbt advocacy. Think about it. One of the biggest barriers to the life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by queer people can be found among so-called people of faith. And, what better place to work on them than in churches and synagogues?

Clearly, queerness is their true center. For Carter and other gay advocates, the church is a means to an end. This is a substitute proclamation--an ersatz gospel--standing in the place of Presbyterian discipleship. Note well that Carter is a false prophet if there ever was one and the More Light Network the veritable font of false prophecy.

The good news is that all of this effort at self-justification indicates an active conscience. Advocacy is in fact nothing but the attempt to generate a morality that keeps the conscience easy. Should all of society and even the church offer gays the seal of approval, will they be at peace? Will they finally feel justified? No, for justification is not a cultural construction--nor is conscience--but both come from God whose word on these matters is already well known and well articulated.

If More Light Presbyterians think that all their political pushing will finally silence God, they have nothing but disappointment ahead. God loves them too much to give up on them; He will not leave them content with half-truths and cherished falsehoods. Neither should the PCUSA.

Carter and all lgbts and More Lighters need to repent of their arrogance--of their idolatry of setting up wayward sexual lifestyles as little gospels to be gladly evangelized. They are a blight on our love feasts until they do, and any Presbyterians interested in peace, unity and purity will certainly join in calling for their correction. To do nothing--to be silent and apparently peaceable--is now gay advocacy as well.

2004-08-30T13:41:00.000-07:00

A RESPONSE TO "MR. A" WHO MAINTAINS THAT SINFUL PEOPLE KNOW "BETTER THAN GOD"

Mr A clearly echoes the sentiments of many evangelicals in saying that it is easy for people to "decide to know better than God" and in doing so veer dangerously into sin's darker extremisms. He his right to condemn sexual perversions such as pedophilia and incest, and right to stand against those who would say that such things are fine and dandy. But the attempt to remove homosexuality from that list of perversions, supported only with an ill-defined notion of "mutual, affirming, equal. . .love" has not been made. Pedophiles think themselves gentle, tender, sensitive and loving. Bigamists (who have plenty of scriptural support) may find themselves kind and fair in the midst of their bigamy, and adulterers certainly rationalize their behaviors as somehow good or helpful in the midst of adultery--all sin finds relative virtue within its own self-serving context. Honor among thieves, loyalty or devotion among Nazis, affection or eros between two people of the same sex--all reveal the appalling blindness spread wide by one's own needs and desires. So a few questions for Mr. A or those of his camp:

1. At what point do you allow the larger community of faith to "see for you" in the midst of you homosexuality? Gays and gay advocates are famous for straining out gnats and swallowing camels when it comes to the texts addressing homosexuality. Why is our point of view invalidated?
2. Why have brotherhood or friendship--appropriate loves between same sexes--been abandoned for eros?
3. Why is it such a stunning offense for the Church to suggest (as it always has) that eros take a lesser role or be sacrificed altogether? Priests of all orientations have always done this.
4. Why is it even a problem for a Christian of homosexual orientation (COHO) to say: "My sexuality is far less important than my service to Christ and his Church--I willingly set homosexual behavior aside as a love offering to God and my brother and sisters in the Body of Christ."?

In following Christ, we all set aside things we like--we deny ourselves materialism, adultery (even of the heart), violence, revenge, self-pity, etc.--and the Church's timeless position has been that COHOs seeking ordination should exercise the spiritual gift of self-control. All who do are welcome indeed. Those who refuse are the very ones trying to "decide to know better than God" whom Mr. A excoriates.

We are defined by Christ, not our sexual preferences. So are our "loves."

2004-08-30T09:35:00.000-07:00

COVENANT NETWORK LOGIC AT FULL FLOWER

see http://www.covenantnetwork.org/sermon&papers/vandyke.htm

Many thanks to Rev. VanDyke for making the logic of the Covenant Network crystal clear to us all. It goes something like this:
1. Sometimes, things need to change
2. Those that lead appear a bit unconventional, but follow deeply held beliefs. Whether or not these beliefs are true or false is irrelevant; what matters is that individuals hold them strongly.
3. This bold character is attractive and great, as in the case of Rosa Parks.
4. Therefore, in order for us to appear great, we must abandon 2000 years of worldwide consensus on sexual ethics, together with all biblically-defined boundaries.
5. Furthermore, since Jesus had compassion on sinners, we should approve, empower and bless those who love and serve sin, or else we are not very compassionate and Christlike.

Can we submit the sermon to incoming freshman logic courses around the country and see what kind of responses we get? How about submitting it to high school students scoring under 1000 on their SATs? The time has come for the PCUSA to institute a logic requirement prior to ordination--one to be taken every four years (like a drivers' license) so we may know when pastors have veered somewhat off the rails or gone completely gaga.

2004-08-06T14:39:00.000-07:00

RESPONSE TO THE THEOLOGICAL TASK FORCES'S "SIX" CATEGORIES FOR RESPONSES TO HOMOSEXUALITY AND ITS COMMENTARIES BY PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL SEMINRY PROFESSOR DR. WILLIAM STACY JOHNSON
(reprinted from the Layman online)

A couple of points in response to William Stacy Johnson:

Categorical prohibition
Johnson omits that Jesus was chaste, celibate, sexually non-acting-out. Is this not a good code for the church to preserve?

"Worst of all," he said, "if being heterosexual defines what is normative, it is hard to avoid the question that homosexual people are not normal humans, but subhuman." Not being normal makes you "abnormal" or "deviant (anti-normal)" – not "subhuman." Johnson's spin is inaccurate and even a bit crass.

Five percent? Seminary professors, maybe.

It's a justice issue
Why must we either "invite" or "exclude" those of homosexual orientation? Why is it we use the word "exclude" in saying we have certain expectations of leadership? Do we "exclude" people who reject the confessions? The word is a political lever and needs to be dumped.

The problem with the justice gang is that they completely confuse orientation and behavior. For them, to claim an orientation automatically legitimizes the behavior, which is nonsense.

All moral agency exists in the space between orientation and behavior.

We should invite people of homosexual orientation into the church, even as we do those of alcoholic orientation, violent orientation, adulterous orientation, materialist orientation – all without approval or blessing for the sinful behaviors such orientations entail.

It's a pastoral-care issue
Sad. This was the position of most pastors – left and right – before the gay advocates began pushing pro-gay polity in a coordinated movement.

Celebrationists (Welcome and affirming)
Animals do not dress up like other species and mate out of season. Inappropriate analogy.

Consecrationists
The problem here is the automatic placement of heterosexuality and homosexuality on a level. To assume that gay and straight sexuality are essentially the same both begs the question and discards at least 2000 years of worldwide consensus. Consecrationists assume that "sexuality" is a blank slate upon which we are free to invent as we please. This is the heart of all idolatry. Call them what they are: sexual revisionists with pious faces.

2004-08-04T06:29:00.000-07:00

THE PRESBYLEFT IS SINKING, NOT RISING

Presbyterian liberals operate under the assumption that in the coming years the majority will grow increasingly pro-gay in its sentiments, though the opposite remains the case. The Presbyterian struggle with sexuality issues--through decades of prayer, study and discussion--has led us to become only more resolute in our opposition to the notion that gay sexuality is irrelevant to the discernment of spiritual gifts for ministry. The majority consensus against the ordination of gays has gained--not lost--momentum and there is neither sign nor suggestion of any such about-face occurring in the foreseeable future.

Perhaps the greater irony is in those left of center who remain blind to the deepening convictions of evangelicals--of those whom they have provoked into these unfortunate discussions. The endeavor to capture the hearts and minds of Presbyterians for a pro-gay sentimentality have only strengthened the resistance. It has been an altogether failed campaign to generate a morality which keeps the consciences of a very few troubled Presbyterians at ease.

They waved the flags of compassion at people who were already compassionate. They pointed accusing fingers and wielded words like "homophobia," "exclusive," "heterosexist" and (God help them) "bigotry," at those who already know the meaning of love. They tried to so muddle the definitions of sexuality under the premise of "keeping body and soul together" that they only clarified the need for Presbyterians to mount a well-organized resistance. And now, after several years of ignoring biblical theology in favor of relentless political revisionism, which has not worked, will we hear them claim any measure of victory?

The battering ram that gay advocates have used to force their way into the Church has been blocked by the clear majority of Presbyterians, this time by a larger majority than ever. What, then, is the message we are hearing? "Don't you worry--we are going to fix it up again and we'll be back next year for another go!"?

Like the French who lost the battle at Agincourt, the Presbyleft comes to the table well-dandied in political inventions, but lose the day to those who stand only on prayer, discussion, and the study of scripture. Irony upon irony: they have only amplified the resistance they now bemoan! The Coalition, The Layman, The Confessing Church Movement--would any one of these groups be as strong and effective as they are without the Left? No--evangelicals would be as uninterested and bored with denominational issues as they used to be, and altogether consumed with gospel issues at the congregational level.

Perhaps we simply owe the Presbyleft a word of thanks. Thank you for helping us organize around what we--and most Christians--have always believed, always affirmed, and always wanted to share with the world. We have remembered that our sexual desires are not central to our identity. We have been reminded that we must indeed present our bodies as "living sacrifices" rather than simply indulge their appetites. We have awakened from the comfortable apathies of an affluent culture, and we are relaunched to set forth the gospel in the terms of scripture rather than the extra-lite/user-friendly versions designed to accommodate our fallen preferences. Thank you for helping us all become more gospel-focused Presbyterians.

God would that you would disarm yourselves of your political battering ram and celebrate with us all at the one table of Christ which we have shared since long before these present issues were aired.

2004-07-01T17:18:00.002-07:00

THE PRO-PALESTINIAN PCUSA

More than anything, Presbyterians seem eager to demonstrate our lack of sentimentalism over the Old Testament. Rather than let our hearts lead us to an advocacy of God's Chosen, we overcompensate – proving to the world that we don't take the Scriptures too literally.

Most Christians seem willing to err on the side of God's chosen race, so why are Presbyterians so determined to controvert such an error? Simple: They want to demonstrate a greater loyalty to the principles of peace and justice.

Unfortunately, Presbyterians have never been able to define these words with enough theological depth to satisfy their political ideals, so terms like "peace" and "justice" are quickly hijacked and politically redefined. Soon enough, peace and justice come to mean little more than standard socialism. It doesn't matter that Israel is Israel – chosen nation or chosen race – all that matters is our political idealism as we define class struggles.

The language of class struggle IS the gospel for the left. Its good news is exhausted in political definitions. There is no "higher power" other than the kind of political solidarity that overthrows present powers. Justice, for them, is simply a blind advocacy for the weaker power – despite all other considerations. The leftist cannot conceive of a world where God empowers a specific people – or particular individuals – for the good of all. Romans 13 amounts to political ignorance, and the Old Testament narrative of deliverance has no more spiritual value than as a pep rally to incite the Third World peoples into revolution.

As with most issues, Presbyterians will divide opinions over Israeli politics. Most of us will continue to hold our noses as one-sided legislation oozes up from G.A. committees, expecting us to play "prophetic roles" in dealing with Jews exclusive of legitimate gospel proclamations.

2004-07-01T09:37:00.000-07:00

PRESBYTERIANS PUSH SOMETHING LIKE A QUOTA FOR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

The Presbyterian compulsion to be sensitive reaches neurotic, Seinfeldian extremes with the suggestion to "monitor" affirmative action measures. Like a Monty Python skit gone haywire, what begins as a good-hearted attempt to right past injustices flies off into centerless chaos. Who gets to speak for whom? Who is whom? Did anyone ask whether the Inuits represented themselves on the committee to establish their compensation program? Has anyone remembered to apologize to the Armenians for 1917?

This new mea culpa frenzy may be little more than the new false humility. "Let's make sure we really care about minority rights and concerns" comes off more like self-deprecating liberalism than a positive future for our Presbyterian mission. Whenever we try to do the work of God, we'll muck it up for sure.

A better policy is simply to call all people--all races--to greater conformity to the likeness of Christ. Leave everything else in God's hands. Nothing else matters.

2004-06-08T14:55:00.000-07:00

PRESBYTERIAN EXPATRIATES DO NOT LEAVE THE PCUSA FOR "NOTHING"

Kirkpatrick and others have claimed for many years that those leaving the PCUSA are not lost to other denominations but to "nothing." This is dubious; there's no such thing as nothing. Isn't it more likely that people leave the PCUSA for churches we are loathe to recognize as churches: independent, non-denominational congregations?

Supposing some do leave the PCUSA for "nothing," doesn't this mean that we have become the bottom rung for those who journey with Christ through denominationalism? Wouldn't it be better to know that something--anything else--actually drew them away? To be left for nothing says that Presbyterianism offers them little more than the final straw of their walk of faith.

Either way, we're doing something terribly wrong.

Except for those who leave by way of the grave, Presbyterian expatriates are doing something else with their Sunday mornings and we should know exactly what it is. If not Baptist or Willow Creekish congregations, then what? There is no nothing. They're golfing, or visiting the museum, or drinking coffee at the big bookstores--in any case, they've chosen something over the mission of the PCUSA. If there is a worthwhile field for a new Task force, isn't this it? Let's find out where the Presbyterian expatriates really go.

What such a study will find is that most Presbyterians leave the PCUSA for churches with a simpler theology, polity, and much higher moral standards. We will find that people's faith and discipleship only improves with their departure, and all thoughts of returning to the PCUSA become laughable. Once we find out where people are really going, we will begin to ask the right questions. Nothing indeed.

2004-06-08T14:48:00.000-07:00

RESHAPING THE VISION OF HOW WE ARE "CONNECTED"

John Wimberly clearly and convincingly argues that when the formerly coordinated benevolences of Presbyterian mission have fragmented into congregation-based projects, the nature of our connectionalism defaults to issues of polity, theology or local interests. Connectionalism used to mean pooling resources to accomplish mission, but now we get together and wonder what it is we have in common. The worship spectrum (from high to very low) intersects with an equally broad socio-political spectrum. Many pastors who wouldn't cross the street for a PCUSA mission conference or discussion of OGHS giving may nonetheless invest great energy in cooperating to pass or defeat a hot piece of legislation. Connections form over shared theological or social perspectives across denominational lines, making a shared Presbyterian identity — even within the same presbytery — functionless and meaningless. Activists openly defy polity or withhold per capita with no real consequences.
Is Wimberly understating the reality? Are we post-connectional or, as many church-growth experts are saying, post-denominational? If we have to wonder at the nature of our connectedness and our mission vision has become functionally Balkanized, then we are bound only by our shared past and a fading allegiance to its particular polity statements.

Noel K. Anderson, Bakersfield, Calif.

2004-05-17T09:58:00.000-07:00

ON THE ATROCITIES OF A FEW WAYWARD SOLDIERS

On the first night of the youth mission trip they were told: "You are not just yourselves; you are ambassadors for Christ and for First Presbyterian. What you do affects us all. Your behaviors make up our witness. If you are rude or nasty, people will not hear anything we want to say about Jesus."

On the way home, imagine the surprise of other drivers who, after reading the words First Presbyterian Church proudly emblazoned on the side of the van allowed their eyes to lift to the passenger windows above and saw there--what? The pious, enlightened faces of American teenagers after a week of building homes in Mexican colonias? Extraordinarily-mature-for-their-age Christians singing praise songs and playing Bible quiz? Magic-markered signs reading "We love you," "God loves you," or "Honk if you love cheese?" No, these poor travelers beheld another side of these young ambassadors for Christ--the other end of their good character, you might say--somewhere between 6 and 9 young derrieres flattened against the glass in a gestures popularly known as "pressed ham." The night before, their faces were wet with tears of sincerity, their hearts bursting in prayer and praise, and their advisors finally at peace that all the torments entailed by the pride-swallowing siege of youth ministry were finally paying off. After only 3 hours sleep and 2 hours on the road, our witness fell from the heavenlies to the hellish: here they were, giggling and grimacing, wagging their heads and blowing raspberries like their lives depended on it.

For Christians, the point of good behavior is not that we earn salvation or divine brownie points, but that we earn the right to be heard and gain credibility for our witness to Christ. While America no longer regards itself as a Christian nation, it is nonetheless seen as one by Muslim nations. As Christians, we care nothing for the proclamation of liberty and democracy compared with the proclamation of God's Kingdom as initiated by Christ, but our testimony has been compromised by the bad behavior of a few, perhaps secular, soldiers acting outside of orders. As a result, not only do they look bad, but the soiled reputation travels all the way up. The military, Rumsfeld, Bush, Republicans, Democrats, Americans--all are shamed. Worst of all is the damage done to the Islamic perception of Christianity. A Christian nation--in their eyes--has perpetrated, empowered and financed forms of humiliation worse than death. Most Muslims believe that death is worse than dishonor, which is why they would sooner separate a head from its shoulders than parade a man around in a dress. Death is not the greatest evil--we all die--but the debasement of the image of God is most reprehensible.

We Christians did not do it; we would not, would we? Either way, it's time to pull the van to the side of the freeway and have a serious conversation.

2004-05-05T06:59:00.000-07:00

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF EAST AFRICA DENOUNCES PCUSA FOR ITS PRO-GAY ENTHUSIASMS. LETTER TO THE PRESBYTERIAN OUTLOOK:

It seems the American predilection to protect individual liberties has overlooked our interconnectedness with the body of Christ in other cultures. That the PCEA feels led to issue such a strong ultimatum indicates that our PCUSA sensitivities are most definitely less than global. How we relate to the whole body of Christ must be taken into account and moved up the list of our priorities as we continue to shape our polity and mission objectives. When our progressive stances run the risk of altogether alienating sister churches, it is high time to take inventory and reset our basic priorities. Pursuing the issues that cause sister churches to stumble will only alienate us more completely from the very countries and cultures we mean to ecumenically befriend. We need to hear the PCEA loud and clear and to respond with an awareness of their needs which have so long been lost in the blindspots of western, sexual libertinism.

2004-05-04T17:08:00.000-07:00

TWO LINES FROM FRANZ KAFKA:
Leopards break into the temple, knock over all the statues and drink all the ceremonial wine;
This happens again and again until it becomes part of the ceremony.

The politics of erosion has eclipsed rational discourse the means of reform in the PCUSA. What once was a dignified debate--carefully articulated arguments meant to inform and persuade--has now given way to a shouting contest and closed ears. What used to be a veritable dialogue between Church and Society has become a battle of Church vs. Church, with too many of the clergy representing society more than church.

It is the mechanism of simple erosion--not patience--that governs the strategies of both the More Lighters and the Covenant Network. It doesn't matter what these groups say or do just so long as they don't resist the change. All they have to do is stand, watch, and cheer-on the leopards. In time, the ground may wear away, and when it does they will celebrate erosion as a victory for their group, perhaps even for the gospel, which may be the final emetic for evangelicals.

The law of Entropy says that as the universe unwinds, it loses energy and ordered systems give way to disordered ones. Social entropy is the driving force of the Left, not reform. They are the "High Entropy Party," for their desired changes fall to them both by default and the failure of nerve in those who seek to reasonably ascertain how the scriptures lead us to live. If they do nothing but let entropy take its course, they win. They win, but the church loses.

Presbyterians who used to say "Let go and let God" may today mean "Let go and let Entropy." Evangelicals wearied with the yearly task of trying to make sense to our brothers and sisters on the Left have no ear. Apparently the Left stopped listening to reason long ago, which is why they have never given the Church a single rationale for gay ordination. They may be beyond persuading as well. Nothing can be justified to those who will not think or talk reasonably. Their "scripture" is little more than a palimpsest of projected preferences, so we would do as well quoting to them out of Annie Dillard or Kahlil Gibran. Not that they would listen then.

Perhaps dusk has descended on the age of reason altogether. Making sense doesn't make sense anymore. No matter how loudly or reasonably evangelicals cry out against the sacrilege of leopards, there seem to be plenty who have abandoned the temple as a holy place.

Meanwhile, God-hungry non-Christians look at the Church and shake their heads: "Who in their right mind would join an organization like that?" Our once-bold witness has eroded into a set of "positions" better articulated by left-of-center policy papers, leaving the crucial challenges and the high calling of the gospel to other, growing, denominations. Look around; they are the ones still outraged by desecration. They believe what they read in the Bible. They, not we, are feeding the God-starved. They, not we, refuse to sacrilize the cherished idols of sexual preference. They, not we, are growing in number and depth. They, not we, are likely to have a healthy, functional house of worship at the turn of the next century.

Our church will fight for its mere survival as long as the bulk of Presbyterians watch from the sidelines echoing the vox-pop-du-jour. Real reform demands we capture a common vision for the great difference the Church can make in and to our host culture. That difference must be something more--something far better--than mere advocacy for wayward sexual preferences riding the fast track to hell.

We must prove Kafka wrong.

2004-04-27T15:06:00.001-07:00

THE PCUSA MUST SPLIT--THOSE WHO CRY FOR UNITY ARE MOSTLY HYPOCRITES

It's time to divide. We are ideologically incompatible yet presbyterian convention demands we congratulate ourselves for not splitting. Unity is championed at any cost. But isn't the argument for unity about 500 years late? If we really believed in unity, we would be one with the Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Roman Catholics, and yes, even the Baptists.

Those who cry foul at talk of gracious separation are hypocrites unless they cry foul over the fact that we do not share communion with Baptists or Catholics. But we don't hear that. We do not believe in unity or else we would already have rejoined the ranks--at least within the broadest strokes of American protestantism. Our cries for unity lost credibility long ago, like a lifeboat at the bottom of the ocean crying "bail! bail!"

It's time our best minds get to the hard work of gracious separation in earnest, turning a deaf ear to those who cry "divisive!" while steering the church most divisively into the ditch of leftist political interests. And let's be clear: it's not really about sex or politics, but the place and mission of the church in relationship to a changing host culture. One side wants to hold to scripture and neo-orthodox interpretations; the other wants the host culture to set the bar in most matters. Let us admit that the host culture has changed enough in the past 50 years to make separation necessary, helpful, and presently unavoidable.

The Holy Spirit has grown the Church through institutional separations for 2000 years. We must acknowledge that our oneness--if there is oneness at all--is in Christ at His table, and that oneness is in no way compromised by a diversification of our institutional interests. The two new Presbyterian denominations will be unified with one another just as they are now with the PCA, the EPC, the Lutherans, Methodists, etc.

Those who wish to continue crying for unity may do so across other aisles--to the liberal Episcopalians, to the liberal Lutherans, etc. Could this, in the big picture, be the Spirit's way of healing many of the historical separations that we inherited--all of them equally damnable (if any are damnable)? The cause of unity is not lost either way; there is much unifying that could be done.

In the meantime, let us recognize the call to unity for what it is--a convenient slogan, a timely jingo, a pep-talk rallying cry--to soften the reformed/reforming conscience. It is an ideological sedative applied broadly to keep the PCUSA's largest and healthiest churches feeding the bloated and ineffectual bureaucracy that is its functional head.

Like Siamese twins joined at the head, our mutual fulness of life may be better served by a precarious and risky operation of separation. Keeping us together may shorten both our lifespan and quality of mission. Better to think of it as a single-cell animal whose nucleus has already split. At such a point, division is only natural.

It is time to divide and to render the naysayers--indeed, the entire sentiment of unity as expressed by an already-divided denomination--as utterly irrelevant, even as we pray for the ultimate unity of the table of Christ which only He can effect. Any other kind of unity is just so much Emperor's clothing--the palest idol of those who have forgotten the real thing.

2004-04-27T08:57:00.000-07:00

ON JOINING A CHURCH VS. CONVERTING TO CHRISTIANITY

One of my old professors, James Loder, used to say: “People cannot be socialized into the Gospel; a transformation is required.” It’s bad news for most churches, because we tend to believe that if one of our neighbors shows up for a pancake breakfast he might be mysteriously compelled to belief. While that may happen from time to time (and praise God when it does), it is the clear exception, the long shot. Coming to authentic faith is like being pulled through a knothole in an unwieldy board. No easy trip.

Coming to Christ cannot be anything like signing up for the Book of the Month Club or joining the local Rotary. It can’t be like these things because it is not something that can be done lightly, or even by our own volition. Those who come to faith do so firstly because they are called and drawn, not because it was deemed a wise choice. There is a vast difference between joining a church and joining the Church. The former can be like joining a gym; the latter must be like joining the Marines. During wartime.

What Professor Loder tells us is that the Gospel is something utterly unlike a community organization, chiefly because it requires total commitment and a heart-wrenching, soul-enveloping change, after which everything else in our lives takes on a new and diminutive status. Going from “normal” life to a life of faith is like heart surgery and brain surgery combined. Perhaps the knothole image is a bit light. Remember, Jesus spoke of a needle’s eye, and that was for a camel!

Transformation is more than a personal decision; it requires something above and beyond the self acting upon the self to change it forever. This is why we don’t speak easily of our making “decisions for Christ.” Strictly speaking, we don’t choose--we are chosen. We don’t find God; God has found us, and though our response to being found may look like coming forward at the end of a service to say a sinner’s prayer, we are nonetheless responding to God’s call more than we are initiating faith.

Transformation means that we are remade and reborn, our hearts of stone removed and replaced by hearts of flesh. We are “new creatures”, as Paul says, which cannot happen without a radical abandonment of our former ways. Any kind of church membership that implies you can become a Christian and still have all the old things. . .lies.

You can keep your old life if you just join a church, same as joining the PTA or the YMCA, but if you want to be part of The Church--the Body of Christ--it will cost you everything you have, everything you are, and everything you ever hoped to become. That is the needle’s eye, and it is why most camels don’t so much as stop for a second look at needles.Here at First Pres, we are--and must always remain--more concerned with the transformation into new faith than merely in church membership. Our evangelical task is not “getting new church members,” but assisting in the transforming, life-changing work of Christ. Our neighbors need us on both sides of that knothole, and our greatest joy is helping them through, even if we get ourselves resqueezed a few times over the years.

Let’s leave mere socializing to the social clubs. We’re in this for the long haul and there are lots of camels out there hoping for rescue. Let’s be sure to play for keeps.

2004-03-23T15:07:00.000-08:00

WELCOME TO ANDERSPEAK

It's about truth and love, and telling the truth in love.
Not the sloppy, boundless indulgence of the confused,
but Truth as revealed by God, carefully and painstakingly
interpreted--under every obedience to the Holy Spirit, in humility,
fear and loathing--with open, loving hearts and minds.

We must make rational sense if we are going to have a discussion.
We must have big hearts if we are going to walk in the path of Jesus.

Big heartedness does not necessarily mean sloppy reasoning.
Acute thought and reasoning do not preclude warmth and loving intentions.

All the talk is in order that we may act together with common conviction.

Some convictions are incompatible with others. In order to act together, one
or the other must be willing to yield.

The grounds for yielding cannot be sentimental or simply demanded.
The grounds for yielding must be founded on biblical principles and argued
logically and reasonably. Both sides must attempt to win the other toward
the truer position.

There is always a truer position. Truth and falsehood can never be placed on level ground.

Humility alone allows us to yield when the other has presented an argument that is:
1. True to the biblical witness
2. Well-reasoned and articulated
3. Winsome--even compelling.

No one is expected to yield to due the following:
1. Social pressures
2. Bad histories (personal or corporate)
3. Race, gender, etc., etc.,
4. Lost or conceded points in earlier arguments.

Humility demands of all of us:
1. Gentleness in success
2. Graciousness in defeat
3. Willingness to adjust our thinking the consequences of new assumptions.
4. Reluctance to revisit failed assumptions except with new support or information

All are welcome to post here as long as they observe the guidelines for decorum:
1. Spirited rhetoric will not resort to name-calling or personal belittlement.
2. No profanity or obscene imagery--either explicit or suggestive--will be printed.
3. Respect for all--no matter how inelegant or even ignorant--will be held to a high standard.

The Editor encourages all bloggers to think twice before hitting the send button in all cases.

Questions will be addressed to:
ANDERSPEAK
nanderson@firstpresbakersfield.org