Conservative Fears in the PCUSA

 This is a rather long winded response to something Alan said in response to me on one of John Shuck's comments pages.  The link to that page is above.  I had commented about Evangelical fears that ultimately we would be required to ordain sexually active homosexuals or we would not be ordained or installed. 

Alan the fear is not that one would be required to vote for a particular candidate for office.  The fear is rather that one will be refused ordination or installation if one does not agree to ordain sexually active homosexuals.

To understand what the slippery slope argument as it pertains to ordination and installation you have to take a look at the history of Fundamentalists and Evangelicals in the PCUSA and the PCUS beginning in the 1920's or more particularly how they read that history. 

In 1920 the Fundamentalists had control over the PCUSA.  At the end of 1929 they didn't even control the seminary which was their flagship: Princeton.  Why and how this happened is terribly important.  The Liberals (this was the word used at the time) didn't have the votes to change anything.  The reason their position ultimately won is because there were Fundamentalists who were not willing to split the denomination.  They valued unity over purity of doctrine.  Charles Erdman is an example of such a Fundamentalist.

This compromise was ultimately reached on the basis of what became a slogan and a way of life in the PCUSA "theology divides, mission unites."  The PCUSA did not resolve its theological differences in the 1920's.  It decided to ignore them.  Jack Rogers contends, and I agree with him, that the present conflicts in the PCUSA are a second fight that is a result of failing to find a central theology against which candidates for office can be measured.

One more important item.  The decision made on who could be ordained was based on a statement by the GA that if it wasn't in the Book of Order (this being a reference to the 5 fundamentals) then you couldn't refuse ordination to someone if he (it was he back then) on the basis of the 5 fundamentals.

Two important things happened in the 1930's.  Neo-Orthodoxy became the core doctrinal position in the PCUSA and provided a new theological center in the PCUSA.  The conflicts of the 1920's were forgotten (although not by the Fundamentalists) as Neo-Orthodoxy became ascendant.  The Fundamentalists thought that even Karl Barth was of the devil.  On the other hand those who continued to fight what had become the status quo were kicked out of the denomination.  Machen was kicked out not for any theological reason but rather because he refused to support the denominational mission agency and started his own.  Instead of theological orthodoxy the denomination made organizational orthodoxy the test for ordination.

The Fundamentalists and later the Evangelicals who remained quietly formed their own educational and mission organizations outside the denomination.  Young Life, Campus Crusade, Intervarsity and other organizations were born as evangelizing agencies and also as educational agencies.  Mission organizations were formed like World Vision.  Finally Evangelical Seminaries were formed like Fuller and Gordon Conwell.  Curiously Evangelicals were being ecumenical!  Their shared beliefs enabled them to reach out across denominational lines to form organizations based on their theology.  What the Evangelicals did was stay in place but form their own organizations parallel to the denominational agencies.  They believed they were shut out of the denominational structure and that they had no power in the denomination.  And Evangelical and Fundamentalist churches were criticized for not supporting the denominational agencies even for using non denominational curriculum.  I got jumped on back in the 1970's for supporting the use of Kerygma and Youth Club materials and methods because they weren't denominational.  Yet both organizations were developed by mainline center oriented Presbyterian seminary professors.




Then theological consensus fell apart in the 1960's.  Ironically just as the Confession of 67, a Neo-Orthodox document, was passed the Neo-Orthodox consensus fell apart with various liberation theologies, process theologies and others taking their place.

Then in the 1970's two things of great importance happened.  Evangelicals coming out of the Jesus movement started to go to seminary and became MWS's in the PCUSA (acutally the UPCUSA then).  They/we went to interdenominational seminaries and mainline seminaries as well.  As the 1980's began Evangelicals had the potential of becoming either a very large minority or maybe even a majority in the PCUSA.  But we were too young.  Our power became greatest in the late 80s and the 1990s.


The second important event was the Kenyon case.  While the Book of Order did not require anyone to ordain women as elders, deacons or MWS's the GAPJC interpreted the Book of Order to say this.  This is the great underlying fear of Evangelicals.  We are afraid that when sexually active homosexuals are allowed to be ordained within 20 years a candidate for ordination or even an already ordained MWS would be required to say s/he would ordain a sexually active homosexual or be denied ordination or a new call.  After all, it's a justice issue, isn't it?  So shouldn't everyone be required to fall in line?  If one congregation refuses to ordain sexually active homosexuals the COM might/will come down on them like a ton of bricks.  This happens in some presbyteries if a congregation doesn't have at least one woman on the session.


Then comes the 1990's.  A large minority on the GAPJC suggest that since there is no prohibition of ordaining sexually active homosexuals in the Book of Order that, despite Authoritative Interpretations, sexually active homosexuals could be ordained.  And thus was born amendment B or G-6.0106b.  The Evangelicals, remembering the 1920s (that the fundamentals could not be used to deny someone ordination because they weren't in the Book of Order) and hearing the minority of the GAPJC decided to put the prohibition in the FoG.


Now a bit of honesty.  In 1996-7 Amendment B would never have passed if it had only denied ordination to sexually active homosexuals.  The amendment was written as it currently reads to pick up votes from the center.  Curiously I think such an amendment that only denied ordination to sexually active homosexuals would have passed back in the late 1970's but it was decided then that an AI was enough.


So we combine several things. First the experience of the Fundamentalists back in the 1920's of losing even though they were the majority based on the fact that the 5 fundamentals were not in the Book of Order.  J. G. Machen got kicked out for opposing the entrenched bureaucracy.   Kenyon was denied ordination because he refused to participate in the ordination of women.  Evangelicals fear that the day will come when one cannot get ordained unless s/he believes that sex between two people of the same gender is blessed by God in a lifelong, committed relationship which ultimately be marriage.   And we don't trust those who say this won't happen because we remember Machen and Kenyon.


And that is where my comment came from.  I'm not worried that I will be forced to vote a certain way.  I vote the way I want, even when I'm the only person saying "No!"  I am concerned that the day will come when someone like me will be denied ordination in the PCUSA because of what I believe.  Or that I won't be able accept a new call because I will be told that promising to obey the Book of Order means that I agree that I will ordain sexually active homosexuals. 


After all, it happened to Kenyon.  Ordination of women became an essential not by denominational vote but by a GAPJC decision.  How do I know that a future GAPJC won't make the same decision about ordaining sexually active homosexuals?

IS IT POSSIBLE TO BE TOO SAFE? AND CIVIL RIGHTS

I was going to write a bit on civil rights and I will but first I had a very curious experience on my way into my own blog.

I've kept up to date all the Norton Internet Security stuff so imagine my surprise when I visited my own blog and was told that it is blocked by Symantec and has been submitted for consideration! Now this is the first piece I've written for a while so I haven't been here recently. But is my blog being used for nefarious purposes?

I'll have to wait and see what Symantec has to say.

ANYWAY!

I was watching the news tonight and saw stories about the big demonstrations in Washington about civil rights for homosexuals and President Obama's promises to a group of homosexual rights leaders last night. So I got to thinking . . .

The president basically seems to be saying that the economy and health care come before civil rights. I know he didn't say that directly but that seems to be the message. So I have a question. Put aside all disagreements about morality, legality and homosexuality. Let us all agree for the sake of argument that this is a case of civil rights being denied. Do the economy and healthcare come first or do civil rights?

It seems to me that, aside from cases of national emergency (like a civil war or fatal pandemic) that civil rights come first. If H1N1 becomes a real killer I think civil rights like the right of assembly can and should be curtailed if necessary. The right to life comes before the pursuit of happiness or even liberty in my book. No life means no liberty. But if life and severe illness or other national emergency are not in question, if the economy is in the tank - as it is or may be and certainly is for those without jobs - that should not curtail civil rights for anyone.

So if the president is correct, that homosexuals in the military and homosexual marriage are matters of civil rights, then shouldn't the president and congress deal with those first?

Forget whether you agree with the president (or me) for the moment. What is more important: civil rights or the economy? Civil rights or health care?

Pastor Bob

Wedding Liturgy and Christian Marriage

I sent the following to the Civil Union and Christian Marriage Committee

As I prepared to do a wedding a few weeks ago I was struck by the theology in the Statement of the Gift of Marriage and thought of your work as a committee. The Statement reads:

We gather in the presence of God to give thanks for the gift of marriage, to witness the joining together of N. and N., to surround them with our prayers, and to ask God's blessing upon them, so that they may be strengthened for their life together and nurtured in their love for God.

God created us male and female, and gave us marriage so that husband and wife may help and comfort each other, living faithfully together in plenty and in want, in joy and in sorrow, in sickness and in health, throughout all their days.

God gave us marriage for the full expression of the love between a man and a woman. In marriage a woman and a man belong to each other, and with affection and tenderness freely give themselves to each other.

God gave us marriage for the well-being of human society, for the ordering of family life, and for the birth and nurture of children.

God gave us marriage as a holy mystery in which a man and a woman are joined together, and become one, just as Christ is one with the church.

In marriage, husband and wife are called to a new way of life, created, ordered, and blessed by God. This way of life must not be entered into carelessly, or from selfish motives, but responsibly, and prayerfully.

We rejoice that marriage is given by God, blessed by our Lord Jesus Christ, and sustained by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, let marriage be held in honor by all.

Please notice the theological statements about man and woman and marriage. The Statement says that God created us male and female and relates marriage to that act of creation. The statement reflects the second creation story in Genesis. The Statement says, indirectly, that sexual expression is a gift from God to be celebrated with marriage between a man and a woman. The giving of the self to the other, the man to the woman and the woman to the man of course includes more than sexual expression.

Marriage, the statement says, is given for the ordering of human society. This includes the birth and nurture of children but also, again indirectly, speaks against the sexual disorder of society in which people live together without being married. While not a direct reference one can hear in this a passage from C-67:

The relationship between man and woman exemplifies in a basic way God’s ordering of the interpersonal life for which he created mankind. Anarchy in sexual relationships is a symptom of man’s alienation from God, his neighbor, and himself. Man’s perennial confusion about the meaning of sex has been aggravated in our day by the availability of new means for birth control and the treatment of infection, by the pressures of urbanization, by the exploitation of sexual symbols in mass communication, and by world overpopulation. The church, as the household of God, is called to lead men out of this alienation into the responsible freedom of the new life in Christ. Reconciled to God, each person has joy in and respect for his own humanity and that of other persons; a man and woman are enabled to marry, to commit themselves to a mutually shared life, and to respond to each other in sensitive and lifelong concern; parents receive the grace to care for children in love and to nurture their individuality. The church comes under the judgment of God and invites rejection by man when it fails to lead men and women into the full meaning of life together, or withholds the compassion of Christ from those caught in the moral confusion of our time.

Since 1967 this anarchy has gotten significantly worse with teenagers and young adults (and many in middle age and older) treating sexuality as only a means for pleasure and not as a commitment. Marriage, as the statement says, is intended for the ordering of family life, and I would suggest that this means with or without children.

The Statement says that marriage joins the man and the woman and they become one and points to the marriage of Christ and the Church.

Nowhere in the statement is there any suggestion that marriage can be between two people of the same sex. Nowhere does it suggest that living together, whether in a heterosexual relationship or a homosexual relationship, carries the same deep unity that God intends for a man and a woman brought together in marriage.

Of course neither the Statement on the Gift of Marriage nor the quote from C-67 is scripture. But they do pick up and point to Biblical themes. God creates humans male and female. Sexual behavior is to be expressed only within marriage. Marriage between a man and a woman points to the coming revelation of Christ’s marriage to the Church. Nowhere in Scripture or the Confessions is there any suggestion that sexual expression outside of marriage or a civil union or marriage between two persons of the same sex is acceptable to God. Instead such sexual behavior, whether long term or short, is condemned in Scripture and Confessions.

Liturgy reflects theology. The marriage liturgy says what the Church believes about marriage.

You have a very difficult task. The denomination has wrestled with the questions you study for decades. I urge you to retain the present definition of marriage as reflected in Scripture, Confessions and liturgy so that the Church may continue to stand against the sexual anarchy of our times.

Dr. Bob

Yep, Pittsburgh Seminary has promised to give me my Doctor of Ministry. That got me thinking about what people should call me. The Rev. Dr. Robert Campbell? Yeach. I still prefer Pastor Bob. After all that's what I do. Still there is another possiblity from the Muppet Show: . .

Dr. Bob!

Graduation is May 28th

Pastor Bob

Some Thoughts on Disagreement

Since we bloggers and blog commenters often disagree I thought we might need some outside instruction on how to disagree.

Or maybe I should say, And now for something completely different:



For you more serious folks out there, these were all examples of now NOT to do it.

Pastor Bob

Easter and humanity: a response to Michael Adee

Presbyweb today linked to an interesting article by Michael Adee entitled "On Being Human & Divine: Reflections & blessing at Easter." While I have disagreed with Dr. Adee in the past and don't agree with everything he says in this article I find the article food for thought and well worth reading and commenting upon. The following is an email I sent to Dr. Adee in response to the article.

Dear Michael

First in the interest of total disclosure let me say that I am one of those people that think that God does not approve of sex between people of the same sex. However I’m not going to comment on that because I think there is much in your article that is worth chewing upon. I liked much of what you said in your article and want to interact with it. Also I’m going to post this on my blog.

I read your article today with interest. I found your talk about theological tension helpful, part of what I think we all need to hold on to. I do have some comments about your dualities:

1. I will admit I don’t particularly like the word dualities or dualism as you said in one paragraph. I’m not sure paradox says it either although I like creative tension. I actually prefer dialectic as being a better word to talk about creative tension than paradox.
2. I try to hold on to the Hebrew idea that we are unitive beings, not flesh and spirit, at least that we are not created that way. If you use the terms as Paul does, flesh meaning sinful and spirit meaning obedience to God or faith I would agree with you. I think the Greek split between flesh and spirit, rejecting flesh and thus physicality as bad is a total misreading of the Bible. From you article I suspect you agree with me. God created us to in the image of God and thus our bodies, minds and spirits are all one and all reflect, or should reflect the God as God’s image.
3. I too have strong reactions against the idea that after we die we are bodiless spirits floating around. The Kingdom of God both present and future is for embodied creatures. Thus as you said, (at least in this time) we are sexual beings in relation to God and our sexuality somehow images God. How is a very interesting question.
4. God did indeed create us good. The problem is we sin. Thus our goodness is, if not broken, at the very least stained with our sinfulness. We live in a sinful world and are sinners ourselves. I suspect, given your seeking of justice, you would also agree with this.
5. I don’t know that I would put faith and reason as a duality. Following Augustine and, I think, Calvin, I would suggest that faith comes first, that is faith seeking understanding. Reason is also tinged by our sinful natures. Thus I am suspicious of Natural Theology and from other things you have written I suspect you would agree with me.
6. I am not quite sure that you are suggesting that we are human and divine as or at least in analogy to Jesus Christ being fully human and fully divine. This, as I am sure you know, is a theme in Eastern Orthodox theology that has been abandoned by the Western Church. I admit I have not examined this much at all but know it is a theme of Athanasius’ work. Are you talking out of this tradition and if so would you comment on it?
7. I really like your comments on the Jesus who interferes with everything. May he interfere with all of us the more and when we resist him may he push us and pull us until he has our attention. Or maybe in traditional Calvinist terms, may he drag us, kicking and screaming, into his ways and not our ways of being human citizens of the Kingdom!

Thank you for your article. It provides great food for thought

He is Risen!

Bob Campbell

Spiritual Violence 2

While no one commented directly on my last blog several referred to me over on John Shuck's blog. Some of the criticism is directed specifically directed to my limited definition of the word "violence." One person even quoted from an online dictionary! Seeing the definition I have to say I have indeed so limited the definition of the word that I have excluded some potential definitions.

Alan specifically invited me to come and speak at his blog. What follows, for the most part, is what I said on Alan's blog. Changes are in italics

Let's take a look at snad's list: (snad was the one who quoted from the dictionary)

Violence–noun

1. swift and intense force: the violence of a storm.

2. rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment: to die by violence.

3. an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over a government by violence.

4. a violent act or proceeding.

5. rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language: the violence of his hatred.

6. damage through distortion or unwarranted alteration: to do editorial violence to a text.

#1 I HAVE defined this one out as I use the word violence only to describe human behavior. I clearly need to change my definition to include non human violence as well.

#2 Clearly what I'm talking about

#3 This one could or not be physical violence depending on what actually happens. If the taking over of a government happens without anyone being hurt but is done by force of arms it is still violence. On the other hand if someone gets hurt it is physical violence

#4 I hear violent act and someone gets hurt. As far as I can tell from definitions online a violent proceeding is a violent act against a person or a community.

#5 Here you are correct. Violent language would not physically harm someone. Clearly I need to change my definition in relation to this definition. I take this to mean one who uses immoderate or extreme language that either insults others or goes beyond the language suited for the situation. So if I tell a bad pun and someone calls me a (several explicatives deleted) idiot that person has spoken violently. There may well be one to one correspondence between violent language and spiritual violence if one is spoken to with violent language at church because of one's sexual orientation.

A serious question: is there a difference between saying or suggesting you are not welcome here because of your sexual orientation or you are going to hell because of your sexual behavior and "I think the Bible says what you are doing is wrong?" Are all spiritual violence or not?

#6 This clearly is NOT physical violence but I am not sure it applies to what we are talking about. It seems to me that this means intentionally misquoting someone or so radically editing a text that it means something different than the author intended it to mean.

So #1 may or may not result in a physical injury and is not committed by one human against another.

#2 Does result in physical injury and is committed by one human against another.

#3 May or may not result in physical injury depending on the level of force used. It also may or may not result in a restriction of human freedoms depending on the nature of the previous government and/or the nature of the resulting government. At the very least there is the threat of physical force.

#4 I think this means that someone is physically injured. Please tell me if you think I have misunderstood.

#5 Clearly I am wrong and need to change my definition. This may also include spiritual abuse. I will post this whole response as a new blog.

#6 Also not physical violence.

(Alan asked me to respond to his husband)

Brian

I am heterosexual. I suspect you would think that I don't get the gay rights issue. If you by spiritual violence you mean you have been told or treated like you don't belong in a church or that you are less than human because you are gay I would certainly agree that Christians should not talk to or treat anyone that way. All are to be welcomed with love.

Question: is it spiritual violence to simply say I think what you are doing is wrong? If that is true, Alan, you and those who agree with you should work to make sure I am removed from my privileged position.

Like I said, this will all be posted on my blog with an introduction to explain why I'm doing it.

Pastor Bob