Foundation and GAC

OK, after two negative blogs I'm going to say something positive.

It seems that the General Assembly Council (the GAC) and the Presbyterian Foundation have been having some problems. That's an understatement.

The Presbyterian Foundation, begun back in the late 1700's has received gifts and bequests to the denomination for centuries. Some of those gifts and bequests are simple. The income goes to support the mission of the General Assembly. Some are quite specific. I know there is one that gives money to support something in Iran and I think it is evangelism. Well right now trying to do evangelism is Iran is a very dangerous thing to do if not impossible. So the Foundation holds onto the income. As the Foundation says it has a fiduciary responsibility to the donors to make sure the income goes where it is supposed to go.

The problem is there are some that are not entirely clear. Or there are some about which the Foundation takes a very conservative legal position and the GAC thinks the Foundation is being too narrow.

This is not a new problem. But this year it kind of boiled over. There were accusations, recommendations on how to handle the problem, interpretations by the Assembly Committee on the Constitution (the ACC) and all kinds of stuff.

Fortunately the Mission and Budget Committee produced a recommendation that was acceptable to all sides.

The Committee and later the GA voted to form a committee that include some folks from the Foundation, some from the GAC and some others to make decisions when the GAC and the Foundation disagree. Good idea! I hope it works.

Pastor Bob

SPLANKNA AGAIN?

First to my homosexual friends: I love you. Those of you who fight the good fight against your desires to sin, I honor you. You are better people than I am. Those who think you behavior is given by God, I disagree with you but I love you in Christ nevertheless.

I like weird sounding words. OK, that makes me weird too, I know. For good or ill I have passed this trait on to my daughter. She likes the name of a Philadelphia suburb, Conshohocken, because it sounds strange. Go figure.

Anyway, when I was taking Greek in seminary I learned the word "splankna." It literally means guts: intestines, livers, all the yucky stuff. When used as a verb, "splanknizomai," it actually refers to compassion. It can also refer to anger. When Jesus looked at the crowd before the feeding of the 5,000 he had compassion on them splanknizomai, (okay I got the person of the verb wrong).

But that isn't the point of this story. I think splankna sounds neat. It's kind of like squish. So of course I taught it to my two younger brothers who are just as weird as I am. Worse, they were in high school and junior high at the time.

One Sunday as Mom brought the meat to the dining room one of my brothers took a look at it and said, "Oh no! Splankna again?" And then of course we were in trouble, he for what he said and me for teaching him the word.

All of which leads me to the General Assembly. I don't use the work splankna here in its verbal form like compassion. I'm too angry for that today. I use it like my brother did. I've eaten this dish before. I ate it in 1996, 1997, 2000, (or was it 2001?), and in a different form with the PUP report in 2006. I've eaten it too many times and I'm tired of it. We are going to have the battle over G-6.0106b. And on top of that the GA has done an end run around the constitution again, like it did in 2006 by interpreting the constitution to say that behavior can be scrupled and a presbytery can say it isn't essential. This, of course is to overrule the GAPJC which said that behavior cannot be scrupled, at least not about G-6.0106b. So it looks like a lose - lose situation. If the presbyteries, as they likely will, vote against the amendment to change G-6.0106b the Authoritative Interpretation theoretically will let presbyteries ordain who they want no matter what the constitution says.

What should be really interesting is whether the GAPJC rules that the new AI passed by the GA is an improper interpretation of the constitution.

Anyway, I'm tired of eating the splankna that GAs keep dishing out. The pro homosex crowd just won't let it go. I want to say you lost, shut up, sit down. Let's have some peace for a few years. But they aren't going to do that. They see this as a justice issue. They will bring it up and bring it up until they win. I hope they are prepared for the long haul because I suspect they won't win, at least about G-6.0106b, for at least 10 years. Also, no matter what they say about letting sessions and presbyteries make their own decisions I am certain that in the long run a requirement will be inserted in the Book of Order that says we all have to ordain people who do varying sexual practices. It will be in the section about diversity in congregations and again in the sections about required diversity in governing bodies. After all, it isn't just for homosexuals to be discriminated against in my congregation or presbytery is it?

But splankna is on the menu in my presbytery for January 2009. I have to eat it. Well, I could stay away but I can't do that. I'm a good presbyter, I am. So, to mix metaphors, I say as Tibault said to Mercutio in Romeo and Juliet, "I am for you," meaning I will fight the fight.

And just so those who agree with me and those who disagree with me know where I really stand, let me make it clear. The Bible says homosex behavior is wrong. It isn't just the 7 passages that make direct references. There is a Biblical theme of heterosexuality that arcs from Genesis to Revelation, ("God created the human in God's own image, in the image of God God created the human. Male and Female God created them." and at the other end of the Bible, "And I saw the new Jerusalem coming down out of heaven adorned as a bride for her bridegroom.") Just try to find a reference in the Bible that even uses a metaphor of homosexual relationships! Where does it say that God is the husband and Israel is the husband? Or Jesus is the wife and the Church is the wife? They aren't there are they?

But of course the Bible really isn't the issue is it? We have friends, they have feelings, they don't know where their feelings came from but they think they've had the feelings since birth (and maybe they have) so the feelings must be from God. It doesn't matter that the science is equivocal on the subject. And it doesn't matter that there are lots of other feelings that are wrong and sinful whether we choose the feelings or not. They are people, we love them, so their feelings must be given by God!

But isn't it possible to love people whose feelings are not given by God, feelings that are sinful?

Oh, and besides we know so much more than those ignorant people who wrote the Bible! Sure we do! We know how to make atom bombs too. The argument is that the writers of the Bible didn't know anything about sexual orientation so therefore they must be wrong. It must be God given. This argument fails on two grounds. Just because something feels like it's always been there doesn't make it right. I have lots of feelings that I've had all my life that aren't right. I've been jealous as long as I can remember. Does that make the feeling right? And second, Paul knew about sexual orientation. The ancients weren't stupid. They could see that some people wanted to have sex with the opposite sex and some people wanted to have sex with the same sex. Check the ancient literature. It's there.

So to finish this rant let me introduce another Greek word. scubala. Paul uses it in Philippians. The RSV cautiously translates it as rubbish. RUBBISH! The word means dung, only it is dung in the vulgar sense. The word means shit.

I am tired of stepping in this scubala! I am tired of being accused of being homophobic, unloving and all the other things people accuse me of because they disagree with me! (My friends who disagree with me but love me please ignore the last sentence.)

But once again we have to wade through the scubala. And if it doesn't pass this year it will come up again in 2010. Those who push so hard for this don't care if they split the church. They just want what they want.

And I will be there to fight the fight. With love I hope. It's very difficult to feel loving today. Maybe by January I will be able to forget my favorite Greek words and calmly argue from the Bible.

As for today, YOU ARE HURTING MY BELOVED PCUSA! I AM ANGRY AT YOU!

May God's will be done.

Pastor Bob

HERE WE GO AGAIN

About 10 years ago a friend of mine said he hated when General Assembly came around because he always ended up having to answer questions from outraged members. Well this year is going to be a biggy. I can't wait until my members find out what happened at GA.

Let's see, the GA voted to:

1. Reverse the Authoritative Interpretation of 1978-79 that said homosexual sexual behavior was sinful;

2. Approve an Authoritative Interpretation that overturns the GAPJC ruling to basically say that if a presbytery decides that sinful behavior is not a bar to ordination then no one can overrule the presbytery;

3. Ask presbyteries to amend the constitution to remove section G-6.0106b from the constitution which requires those being ordained to be faithful in marriage or chaste in singleness; and

4. I'm told that I got item # 4 wrong. I'll post another blog on it when I find out what the real facts are

The PCUSA and its former denominations have been fighting about homosexuality since before I was ordained in 1979. That's 33 years, friends. I'm tired of the conversation, to say nothing of the rancor, accusations of homophobia and refusal to obey the Scriptures. Sometimes I think those leaving have the right idea. I would be so glad to be in a denomination that didn't have these fights.

But. I believe in the doctrine of the covenant. God put me in the PCUSA and I am part of the covenant. The covenant has not been broken. I still can preach the true gospel. No one prevents me from doing that. In fact I believe that in most PCUSA congregations around the country the true gospel is still being preached. Some pastors may be wrong on some issues like homosexuality, (I'm right, of course), but the true gospel, the gospel of Jesus Christ who died and rose for our sins, the true gospel of Jesus the divine/human Son of the Father is preached almost everywhere.

Further, so far no one is trying to force me to do something that goes against my conscience. My suspicious side says that if the presbyteries vote to approve the amendment that deletes G-6.0106b sooner or later there will be another amendment that says I am required to ordain people who have sex outside of marriage between one man and one woman. When that day comes I will have to leave. Maybe I'll be fortunate and it will happen after I retire.

Now, a little something to tick off those who disagree with me. If this amendment passes does this mean I can ordain someone who is heterosexual and and lives with and has a sexual relationship with someone of the opposite sex? How about someone who commits adultery? Or someone who has 10 wives like those people on that ranch down in Texas? I know, those who disagree with me don't like to talk about this. The message is that we are only talking about homosexual couples who make lifelong commitments. But the truth in America and in the Christian community is that the discussion has gone beyond homosexual couples. Those who live in polygamous relationships are asking why is homosexual behavior fine but their behavior isn't? And seminary professors are saying that fidelity is for the heterosexual community, not the homosexual community, (some professor in Bangor Seminary). Yes, I'm using the slippery slope argument. But the slope is there.

So this coming January I will stand up in Philadelphia Presbytery and argue that G-6.0106b is based on the Bible. I will argue that homosexual sexual behavior is wrong according to the Bible as is heterosexual sexual behavior outside of marriage. I will not hate the people who disagree with me. As a matter of fact some of them are my best friends! And I do not hate those who have sex outside of heterosexual marriage. After all, some of my beloved relatives do this. Saying you are wrong is not hateful. It is, in fact, loving if said in a loving manner.

But tonight I grieve for my beloved PCUSA. Here we go again. I think a verse from "The Church's One Foundation says it best:

        Though with a scornful wonder
                we see her sore oppressed,
                by schisms rent asunder,
                by heresies distressed,
                yet saints their watch are keeping;
                their cry goes up, "How long?"
               And soon the night of weeping
               shall be the morn of song.

May the morn of song come soon because tonight
is a night of weeping.

Pastor Bob

P.S. The Church fought for over 150 years about the doctrine
of the Trinity which is much more important than this.  I won't live
150 years but I will fight while I live.

ONE LORD, ONE FAITH, ONE BAPTISM, ONE GOD AND FATHER OF ALL . . . BUT DIVISION

Today the Presbytery of Philadelphia voted to transfer a congregation from the presbytery, a presbytery in the Presbyterian Church USA to a presbytery in the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. At the end of our debate the moderator pointed out that while we had conducted ourselves in a respectful and caring fashion we had addressed only the polity issues, not the theological issues. This is my attempt to address those theological issues. And don’t get me wrong, I voted for the motion to transfer the congregation with its property to the EPC. Nevertheless I think I have some theological disagreements with my brothers and sisters in that congregation.

While I write this on the same day, (and the next day) that the decision was made I will not publish this until the story has been released by the presbytery (which has now been done: see press release.)

First I am proud of the folks at Oreland Presbyterian Church, the Administrative Commission that worked with them and the Presbytery of Philadelphia. They and we managed to do the very difficult and painful job of deciding how to transfer a congregation to another denomination with love and grace. The Oreland Church followed all the rules for such a process and went beyond what was required of them to seek a loving and just way of leaving. The Administrative Commission listened, loved and made good recommendations to the Presbytery. And the Presbytery, while hurting, made a good and just decision.

First, I confess that the members of the congregation the session and the pastors, of Oreland Presbyterian Church, (soon to be Oreland Evangelical Presbyterian Church), are my brothers and sisters in Christ. We share, as the title suggests, “one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all,” (and yes I did borrow that from Paul, Eph. 4:5, NIV). They are my beloved brothers and sisters in Christ.

But in the Presbyterian Church USA there are also millions who are also my brothers and sisters in Christ. In fact all those who affirm that Jesus is Lord and Savior and believe in one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and believe in the gift of grace through faith are my brothers and sisters in Christ.

So what’s the big deal? After all there are thousands of denominations and all who believe what I confessed in the previous paragraph are my brothers and sisters in Christ. What does it matter if one congregation leaves the Presbyterian Church USA for another denomination?

I’m going to talk about emotions first. While theology cannot be governed by emotions theology certainly contains emotions. If it didn’t why would we put so much energy into theology and attach such emotion when we disagree theologically? One member of the presbytery said that it felt like we were doing a clean cut and that we should feel like a tearing was taking place. I agree with him. IT HURTS! With Oreland gone I feel like my arm has been ripped off. I feel like my wife just divorced me. How can beloved brothers and sisters in Christ leave me, my presbytery, the denomination of which I am a member? I know they will say that I am not the reason. In their statements they pointed to decisions made by General Assemblies, the failure to discipline people who did not obey the Book of Order, even some actions taken that they believe border on heresy or are ethically wrong and horrible. But while they do not reject me personally it still hurts. Now my close friends will not be at presbytery meetings. Now we cannot meet together and plan how to get some overture passed by the presbytery. There is an empty place in the presbytery and in my heart.

There are two particular doctrines considered from a Reformed perspective that affect how I look at questions of ecclesiology when a congregation leaves the presbytery: the doctrines of providence and of covenant.

I remember back in seminary Jack Rogers, my favorite professor was teaching a class called “Presbyterian Ethos.” One day Jack asked us what was the central doctrine of the Reformed (Presbyterian) faith. There was a long silence and then Jack started almost jumping up and down. He said if we got nothing else out of the class we should get that Presbyterians believe in covenant.

I describe it this way. There should be one Church. If we are one in Christ we should be able to all live within the same Church, disagreeing on some things but agreeing on the essentials. The problem is we don’t all agree on what the essentials are and sometimes we disagree on the content of the essentials. My Roman Catholic brothers and sisters believe in Apostolic Succession through bishops and in the infallibility of the pope. I don’t think that any one man is the true representative of Christ on earth and he certainly isn’t infallible. Roman Catholics think these things are essential. I disagree strongly. And my Baptist brothers and sisters think that you can’t be baptized until you are old enough to make a confession of faith for yourself and then you have to be totally immersed in water. We disagree. I baptize babies and while I think total immersion is the best image of dying and rising with Christ that putting water on the baby’s or the adult’s head is sufficient. We disagree on what Baptists think are essential.

So while there should be only one Church there are lots of denominations. Our division is evidence of our sin and inability to see the totality of God's will. But I do know this: God called me and a lot of other people to be members and/or officers in the PCUSA. By the providence of God I am a minister of Word and Sacrament in the PCUSA. God put me here.

So I am part of a covenant between God, myself and this group of people called the Presbyterian Church (USA). And I believe that covenants cannot and should not be broken easily. If God has put me in the PCUSA God put me here for a reason and I have to stay here unless certain things happen that I will talk about in a minute.

The Oreland Church listed a bunch of ways the PCUSA has gone wrong. I agree with most of the things they said. We have failed to do appropriate discipline when people have said things that sound like heresy. Sometimes statements by the General Assembly have been insufficiently faithful to the Bible and the Christian tradition. Some, if the press is to be believed, have stepped out of the Christian faith, in my opinion. We don’t do adequate examinations for candidates for ordination and some of those candidates’ statements of faith border on or in some cases cross the border into heresy and still we vote to allow them to become ministers of Word and Sacrament, teaching elders, those called to proclaim the great and wonderful truth of the Gospel.

But while these things are appalling and horrible they are to be expected in the Church. After all, the Church is made up of a bunch of sinners. Not only do we all make mistakes we also all sin. Some of our sin is theological in nature some is ethical, some in unfaithfulness to God. As is said in the Westminster Confession, not only do individual Christians sin and stray from correct theology so do synods and councils, (and presbyteries and General Assemblies).

I don’t say any of this to excuse individual Presbyterians or the denomination as a whole. When sin or heresy occurs all faithful Christians must seek to lovingly correct the sinner or the heretic. But you don’t leave in the midst of trouble. We are members of one covenant body. Again, to refer to something Jack Rogers said, we’re a rag tail scruffy bunch. We aren’t perfect as individuals or as a group. But you can’t choose the members of the covenant community to which God has called you. God chose not you. It’s just like you can’t choose the members of your family. Uncle Joe is still Uncle Joe even if he gets drunk at family gatherings and makes obnoxious statements.

So I think my standards for what would drive me out of the PCUSA are different from those of my brothers and sisters at Oreland. I see the Confessions of the Church and believe that the essentials of the faith are adequately expressed in those confessions. Of course some deny those essentials. The PCUSA should lovingly discipline those who deny the essentials and one of our great failings as a denomination is that we don’t do adequate discipline. But as a denomination we still confess the one true Gospel of Jesus Christ. My standards are simple:

1. If the denomination told me that I could no longer preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ I would have to leave; and
2. If the denomination said that I had to do something that I could not in good conscience do (my conscience as bound by the Word of God: the Scriptures) I would have to leave.

I have many disagreements on important matters with my brothers and sisters in Christ in the PCUSA. But they are still my brothers and sisters. I seek to correct them and they seek to correct me. But we are part of a covenant people called together by God. I dare not leave this covenant people unless the covenant people deny the Gospel. I cannot leave unless this part of God’s Church tells me I cannot preach the risen Christ.

I think a favorite hymn of mine, The Church’s One Foundation, says it best. These are the first three verses:

  The church's one foundation
        is Jesus Christ her Lord;
               she is his new creation
               by water and the Word.
               From heaven he came and sought her
               to be his holy bride;
               with his own blood he bought her,
               and for her life he died. 

               Elect from every nation,
               yet one o'er all the earth;
               her charter of salvation,
               one Lord, one faith, one birth;
               one holy name she blesses,
               partakes one holy food,
               and to one hope she presses,
               with every grace endued. 

     Though with a scornful wonder
               we see her sore oppressed,
               by schisms rent asunder,
               by heresies distressed,
               yet saints their watch are keeping;
               their cry goes up, "How long?"
               And soon the night of weeping
       shall be the morn of song.

That is my beloved PCUSA. We are a scruffy bunch. But we are one Church. We sure aren’t perfect but all of us, even when we disagree, are trying to perfect the Church. We aren’t the whole Church but this is the part of the Church to which God has called me. I dare not leave.

I wish my brothers and sisters at Oreland had not left. But they are still by beloved brothers and sisters in Christ.

One day we will stand before Christ in glory. One day there will be no denominations but only one great Church. May God speed the day. And in the meantime I will stay in the PCUSA.

Pastor Bob

FREEDOM

One of my favorite passages in the Bible is in Deuteronomy:

¹When you have come into the land that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance to possess, and you possess it, and settle in it, ²you shall take some of the first of all the fruit of the ground, which you harvest from the land that the LORD your God is giving you, and you shall put it in a basket and go to the place that the LORD your God will choose as a dwelling for his name. ³You shall go to the priest who is in office at that time, and say to him, “Today I declare to the LORD your God that I have come into the land that the LORD swore to our ancestors to give us.” ⁴When the priest takes the basket from your hand and sets it down before the altar of the LORD your God, ⁵you shall make this response before the LORD your God: “A wandering Aramean was my ancestor; he went down into Egypt and lived there as an alien, few in number, and there he became a great nation, mighty and populous. ⁶When the Egyptians treated us harshly and afflicted us, by imposing hard labor on us, ⁷we cried to the LORD, the God of our ancestors; the LORD heard our voice and saw our affliction, our toil, and our oppression. ⁸The LORD brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, with a terrifying display of power, and with signs and wonders; ⁹and he brought us into this place and gave us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey. ¹⁰So now I bring the first of the fruit of the ground that you, O LORD, have given me.” You shall set it down before the LORD your God and bow down before the LORD your God. (Deut. 26:1-10, NRSV)

God gives freedom. The whole story of the Exodus tells us that God had made a covenant with the descendants of Abraham and Sarah. Those descendants were down in Egypt, enslaved, oppressed. God, as the passage says, led them out with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, and led them into a fruitful land. God set them free.

But it is, in a sense, a terrible thing to be part of God’s people. Freedom given from God is not freedom to do as we wish. It is freedom to be what God intends us to be. The people of Israel did not put aside their idols and false gods. They oppressed the poor among them and bribed judges. God warned them that they were to live as holy people for God had set them apart as a light unto the nations. Ultimately because they misused their freedom God took away their freedom and punished them.

But something happened in exile in Babylon. There was a renaissance of faith in God. There was a renaissance of obedience to God. The people of God began to see that outward slavery did not deny freedom. The people began to celebrate their freedom. The Sabbath meal became a meal of freedom. While God’s people might labor six days a week, on the seventh day they rested for, as it says in Deuteronomy, God commanded them to do so for God had led them out of slavery. (Deut. 5:12-15) The Sabbath was a celebration of freedom.

So was the Passover. Every year the people would gather and remember that God had set them free. No matter how awful daily life might be, God was still a God who brought liberation.

But freedom always exists within bounds. I remember hearing James McCord when he was president of Princeton Seminary preach one time that God was not only a God of liberation. God did not simply lead the people out of Egypt. God led them to the Mountain and gave them commandments. True freedom can only exist within limits. St. Augustine said, “Love God and do as you please.” The assumption behind this statement is that if we love God we will seek to please God. We please God by living as God commands us to live. To live as if freedom means there are no limits is to live in chaos. This is precisely the problem we have in America and in the PCUSA today.

People drive up the street I live on with stereos that have massive bass speakers in their cars. They turn the music up loud and the bass reverberates through the neighborhood. My house shakes and I can hear the bass notes even with the windows closed. Now I like loud music as much as the next person. But when in my house I want to hear my own music, not that of someone driving by. Fire and police sirens I understand. They are necessary. So are train whistles. But as nice as the driver with the bass booster is to share his music with me, I wish he wouldn’t. He probably claims to have the freedom to play the music as loud as he wants. What about my freedom to be at peace in my house?

And if we all thought we were free to do as we wish the roads would be a colossal mess. If we all thought that we don’t have to stop at stop signs or at red lights traffic would be so snarled that no one would ever get anywhere! (Oops, I forgot: there must be a new law I haven’t read that says that four cars can turn left on red!)

I’m going to come back to the limits on freedom. There is another freedom that is important: the freedom God gives in Jesus Christ.

Jesus came and taught the way of freedom. He lived the way of freedom. He died and rose again to set us free. And curiously the way of freedom for Jesus was the way of obedience to the Father. We are set free from the powers of sin and death because Jesus chose to obey the Father, to allow himself to be arrested, to die in our place. Jesus shows us that the way of freedom includes the way of obedience to the Father.

Martin Luther puts it this way:

A Christian is a perfectly free lord, subject to none.

A Christian is a perfectly dutiful servant, subject to all. Martin Luther, A Treatise on Christian Liberty)

As Luther points out, this sounds like a contradiction. It isn’t. God made us for freedom. Jesus died to set us free. But Jesus didn’t die so that we could do as we please, totally ignoring God. As Paul says in Romans, “What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?” (Romans 6:1-2 NIV)

I spoke previously about the covenants God makes. God always acts with grace first. Then God calls people to be the people of God, to be holy, to live for God. Our freedom then is to be dedicated to serving God.

That is freedom for the people of God. What about freedom for others? Contrary to what Christians did for more than 1500 years, we cannot impose obedience to God upon others. There are at least two kinds of freedoms in a free society. There is the freedom of the people of God, which is freedom to serve God. There is also freedom for everyone. When Christians come to legislate in a free society they cannot impose their beliefs on others as law. We must make a case that the laws we propose, (and this must be true for all), are good for all no matter what people believe. In a sense we could say that law is based on freedom. One cannot kill another because killing takes away the freedom of the other to live. One cannot pay another substandard wages because the worker deserves the freedom to live and eat. Law must be for the good of all the people. Christians cannot impose, say, attendance at Christian worship upon others.

The problem with freedom in America and in the PCUSA today is that freedom is too often no longer seen as freedom within limits so that all may be free. Freedom is seen as the right to do what I want no matter how it affects the other. As participants in a consumerist society we believe we have the right to riches beyond the imagining of the rich in the past. We forget that riches are earned and that even the possession of riches comes with commands from God, to serve God and other with riches.

The same is true in the PCUSA. We have taken on the language of rights, the watchword of the Enlightenment. People say they have the right to be ordained. No one has the right to be ordained. God calls people to particular tasks and gives people the gifts to enable them to carry out those tasks. Many tasks demand a certain amount of holy behavior. A congregation should not call a pastor who openly has a wife and a mistress. Yes, I know, there were people in the Old Testament who had concubines. In fact it was even a habit that was not ruled out among Christians in the early years. But we have come to see that God calls most men and women together to be one, to be married. One cannot be one with more than one other person. Check out the stories of those in the Old Testament who had more than one wife! Everyone man who had more than one wife or wives and concubines had troubles.

In the Church we have freedom within limits. We are free to serve God. Even if we are oppressed for our faith we are free because Christ has made us free.

Let us so live that our freedom shows that we love the Lord with all our hearts, minds and strength, and our neighbors as ourselves. That is true freedom.

Pastor Bob

GOODBYE JOHN

I have terminated my conversations with John Shuck. While we have been friends for a long time, and still are friends John has mocked members of the Presbyterian Church. He did so in three posts on his blog:

New Winos Are Too Holy for PCUSA

New Winos Are All About Jesus

Name the New Wineskins Contest!

Now I will be the first to admit that some of the folks in the New Wineskins movement have not been at all polite in the comments about the Presbyterian Church. Further, as some of them leave the denomination, the call the PCUSA apostate. I disagree with them. And frankly some of them have been terribly nasty to John. But I don’t believe in returning evil for evil. So I posted the following on John’s blog:

John

I find your mocking of the New Wineskins people totally unacceptable. I can no longer in good conscience participate in a dialogue with you.

I certainly don’t agree with the people leaving the denomination but frankly your current behavior is exactly what has caused me pain from the rigid liberals for my whole career.

I know you love and are concerned about the PCUSA. I do and am too. But the way to respond to all who disagree with you, no matter what their behavior, is by treating them as we have each other not by mocking them. Others may not respond as we have but we still have a responsibility to “. . . be (friends) among (our) colleagues in ministry, working with them, subject to the ordering of God’s Word and Spirit,” even when others do not behave in such a fashion.

If you remove the three mocking posts about the New Wineskins and apologize for mocking them I will continue in dialogue with you. Just send me an email if you have done so.

I have appreciated our conversations and continue to love you as my friend.

Bob

I make no claim to be sinless. But I do try to be courteous to all, no matter how much I may disagree with them. I believe the greatest thing the PCUSA needs is careful, courteous listening.

I say this and do this with a heavy heart. John is still my friend. I don’t approve of what people have said about him. But I expect him to extend the same courtesy to others as he has to me.

But I am going to continue my posts on the essentials of faith. Look forward to a post coming soon on Freedom.

Pastor Bob

COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE NEW FORM OF GOVERNMENT

This post is longer as the proposed Form of Government is longer. You can find the full text of the proposed Form of Government here.

Again FoG refers to the Form of Government

1. Old G-5.0103 new G-1.0302: I think the deletion of this: “No persons shall be denied membership because of race, ethnic origin, worldly condition” is a mistake. I think our racism is still with us and needs to be stated directly rather than indirectly.

2. New G-1.04: I think the removal of the category of inactive members is a missiological mistake. Granted too few congregations reach out to inactive members but it is an important ministry that should be revived rather than abandoned.

3. New G-1.0402: “Active members shall regularly, after prayerful consideration, recommit themselves to the disciplines and responsibilities of membership outlined in G-1.0303.” What would this look like liturgically? How might a session provide for such re-commission? What does this mean?

4. New G-1.0404 loses the distinction between baptized who are not members and non baptized persons. This blurs the distinction between those who may receive the Lord’s Supper and those who may not. To say, “Persons who are not members . . . are welcome and . . . may participate in and worship of this church . . .” confuses the question of whether non baptized persons may or may not receive the Lord’s Supper, even though it is stated elsewhere that they may not.

5. Old G-5.0502: “The session shall review the roll of members at least annually, and shall counsel with those who have neglected the responsibilities of membership.” What happened to this responsibility?

6. I recognize that the new FoG seeks to be a constitution and not a handbook, but losing G-6.0202 loses both Scriptural definitions of teaching elders and various categories of possible ways teaching elders may serve. It may become important to the lives of Associate Pastors and Co Pastors to have their offices listed, particularly if the later sections do not protect them.

7. Why lose the list of responsibilities of ruling elders and deacons? I use these as primary teaching tools for new officers, pointing out to them that the constitution requires certain tasks of them.

8. Old G-6.0404: If it isn’t made clear that the deacons are responsible to the session some bad stuff may happen down the road! I am sure this came into the FoG because there were conflicts over who made the final decision!

9. “Release from the Exercise of Ordained Office G-6.0600a. If a minister, elder, or deacon against whom no inquiry has been initiated pursuant to D-10.0101 and D-10.0201, against whom no charges have been filed . . .” Isn’t this an important tie to the Rules for Discipline? Later in both the old and the new sections it specifically says, “No judgment of failure on the part of the ruling elder or deacon is implied in this action.” But if there are charges against the person there may indeed be a judgment of failure! Then the action of restoring the person to the roll if requested seems to be automatic! There has to be some procedure for dealing with cases of misconduct of some kind even if the person seeks release from office. Leaving the denomination is another matter.

10. G-1.0101: “All the gifts of the gospel necessary to being the church are present to the congregation.” This sentence would be clearer if it said . . . present in the congregation.

11. Old G-7.0302c has been deleted! Does this mean a congregation may conduct business anyway it chooses to? What happened to Robert’s Rules?

12. New G-1.0501 says: “Adequate public notice of all congregational meetings shall be given at a regular service of worship” I bet this will be a problem is some session thinks adequate means “Today we are going to have a congregational meeting to dissolve the relationship between the pastor and the congregation.” The old 2 week rule had a lot of value and I bet was put in place because of a situation like the one I suggested. We Calvinists have rules like this one because we know humans, including all Christians, still sin.

13. Old G-9.0102b: “They may frame symbols of faith, bear testimony against error in doctrine and immorality in life, resolve questions of doctrine and of discipline, give counsel in matters of conscience, and decide issues properly brought before them under the provisions of the Book of Order.” Why was this removed? It seems to remove some powers from the session, the synod and the General Assembly, since all powers not named revert to the presbytery.

14. No more Committees on Representation? I don’t think we are ready to get rid of this!

15. I approve of the use of the word “council,” however it is going to take some time to learn that it does not mean presbytery, synod or GA council.

16. I think there is a curious problem with saying that other means of discernment may replace Robert’s Rules. By eliminating the section which says who may dissent or protest the new FoG necessitates turning to Robert’s Rules. Also the elimination of the right to dissent or protest a judicial decision leaves a member of the council with no possible action except judicial to disagree publicly with a judicial decision.

17. New G-3.0107: “Presbyteries may apportion requested funds to sessions within their bounds.” Does this mean that presbyteries may require sessions to pay particular amounts to the presbytery? Since we have eliminated per capita apportionments, what does apportion mean in this context?

18. Since the following sections of G-3.0107 are divided into different paragraphs, “Councils more inclusive than the session may provide examples of policies and procedures that may be gathered into advisory handbooks. These examples illumine practices required by the Constitution but left to councils for specific implementation. Such handbooks may also offer information that enhances or secures the ministry of the particular council.” And “Each council shall develop a manual of administrative operations that will specify the form and guide the work of mission in that body. A council may delegate aspects of its tasks to such entities as it deems appropriate, provided that those entities remain accountable to the council.” Does this mean that a session must have a manual of administrative operation?

19. New G-3.0109a doesn’t seem to require the review of the rolls of a congregation or a presbytery, although it does require review of the minutes. While this may not seem important, some records of a congregation may not be included in proceedings and actions such as deaths and weddings. Baptisms of member’s children might not be included either as well as the records that ordinations and installations have taken place. While these things should be in the minutes what happens if the clerk failed to record them?

20. New G-3.0204: for historical reasons records of weddings and deaths, (with place of burial) should be maintained as well for those in future generations seeking to search their genealogies.

21. New G-3.0110: a commission no longer has to keep records and provide them to the council?

22. New G-3.0301c I think where the word congregation is used the word presbytery is meant.

23. Could the first paragraph of G-3.0307 be construed to mean that the presbytery may not only set criteria for what work will be considered validated but also what a MWS must believe to be a member?

24. Ordination and Installation questions should be retained in the FoG. While they will be asked in a worship service they are, nevertheless, questions concerning a person’s qualifications for leadership.

25. Are synods really needed except for review of presbytery records and judicial proceedings? Leave in G-3.0404 and take out the rest about synods.

26. Ordination exams should be listed in the FoG. Otherwise a committee of the GAC might change the number or nature of the exams without the approval of the presbyteries.

27. It is my opinion that a person who has served in a temporary position with a congregation, particularly that which is currently called an interim pastor should not be eligible to serve as the next pastor. The interim period provides time for a congregation to go through a process of self examination and examination of its mission. If an interim pastor can serve as the next installed pastor that person may not provide the leadership needed in an interim period. Further, since an interim is hired by the session, allowing an interim pastor to be a candidate to be the next installed pastor does not give a PNC the appropriate latitude needed for its search. Also putting a presbytery in the position of deciding whether an interim pastor can be come the installed pastor may damage the relationship between the presbytery and the congregation seeking to call their interim as their next installed pastor. I strongly urge this section be changed. Frankly I think it is one of the possible deal breakers for this new FoG.

28. G-2.0701 is contrary to the agreed upon section of the G-14 passed by presbyteries in 2007. We were assured that there would always be a congregational meeting if a dissolution of relationship is considered. This too is a deal breaker.

New G-5.05b says: “Such joint witnesses shall be formed according to a plan approved by a two-thirds majority of the members of each of the congregations at duly called meetings of the congregation, and by the presbytery or comparable council or governing body of each church.” This sentence seems to suggest that both the congregation and the presbytery or comparable governing must approve the plan by a 2/3 majority. Is this the intention because it isn’t clear?