Hebrew and Greek and Exegesis, Oh My!

Over the past few years we have been moving from a regulatory Form of Government to a Form of Government (FOG) that is called “missional.” The suggestion has been that a new FOG would be based on trust.

This year a whole rewrite of the FOG went to the GA and was turned back to a committee for rewriting. The committee was told to listen to the presbyteries as it rewrote the Form of Government.

But we had a foretaste of the FOG based on trust. An amendment to the constitution went to presbyteries a couple of years ago. It was a complete rewrite of chapter 14, the chapter on ordination. It was intended to make the chapter less regulatory and to allow more freedom to the local presbytery. Now as the committee that oversees the writing and reading of ordination exams for candidates for the office of Minister of Word and Sacrament sets new policy based on the new chapter 14 we see the results of trust and they are bitter.

Both the former chapter 14 and the current chapter 14 say the following about the responsibility of the Committee on Preparation for Ministry (COPM) about the candidate’s ability to use Hebrew and Greek:

Old G-14.0310b(3) and new G-14.0450c:

(the candidate shall)

c. presentation of a transcript from a theological institution accredited by the Association of Theological Schools acceptable to the presbytery, the transcript showing satisfactory grades, and presentation of a plan to complete the theological degree including Hebrew and Greek and exegesis of the Old and New Testaments using Hebrew and Greek texts;

So the COPM has the responsibility to make sure that a candidate is able to use Hebrew and Greek to do exegesis. The question today is whether the COPM can depend on the Ordination Exams to show that a candidate can do exegesis in the original languages. That has been a method used by the COPM. Satisfactory grades on the Open Book Bible Exegesis Exam measured the candidate’s ability to use the original languages to do exegesis.

Alas the FOG no longer states what the Open Book Bible Exegesis Exam will measure and how it will measure. Chapter 14 used to say this:

G-14.0311d(1) Open Book Bible Exegesis. This examination shall asses the candidate’s ability to find and state the meaning of an assigned passage of Scripture, demonstrating a working knowledge of the original language of the text and ability to understand its historical situation.

The candidate shall have access to any or all of the following:

Hebrew and Greek texts, translations, commentaries and other exegetical tools, including those which presuppose knowledge of the Biblical languages. Using these he or she shall be asked to state the meaning of the passage, show how he or she arrived at this interpretation, and suggest how this passage might be used in the contemporary life of the church.

The current chapter 14 of the FOG says the following about ordination exams:

G 14.0430 Examinations

G-14.0431 Inquirers or candidates are encouraged to take the Bible Content Examination in their first year of seminary. The other four examinations may be taken by inquirers or candidates after completion of two full years of theological education. These four examinations shall only be taken upon approval by the committee on preparation for ministry of the inquirer’s or candidate’s presbytery. The areas of examinations are:

a Bible Content.

b. Open Book Bible Exegesis.

c. Theological Competence.

d. Worship and Sacraments.

e. Church Polity.

G.14.0432 The examinations required in the five specified areas shall be graded by representatives of the presbyteries under the supervision of the Presbyteries’ Cooperative Committee on Examinations for Candidates as provided in G-11.0103m. Descriptions of the examinations, the subjects, the schedule, and the procedures for their administration shall be prepared by the Presbyteries’ Cooperative Committee and approved by the General Assembly.

Notice that the examinations are no longer described but merely listed. Also notice that G-14.0432 says that the committee shall propose descriptions of the exams, the subjects, the schedule and the procedures for their administration. These must be approved by the General Assembly.

Now evidently the Presbyteries’ Cooperative Committee on Examinations for Candidates has proposed a new description of the Open Book Bible Exegesis exam. The Committee published the following on the GA news site. Tthe new description reads as follows:

• The Biblical Exegesis examination will continue to offer questions which allow inquirers/ candidates to demonstrate proficiency in Greek and Hebrew. However, the demonstration of this working knowledge of the biblical languages will no longer be requirement in order to complete the exam successfully.

When the exams are graded, the readers will comment on the language facility which is demonstrated in the paper. Such comments will be offered as guidance for Committees on Preparation for Ministry. It will be the responsibility of the CPM, upon review of seminary transcripts and the exegetical work and sermon presented by the candidate, to determine if the candidate’s ability to use Greek and Hebrew is sufficient to serve as a helpful tool for the understanding and interpretation of the Scriptures as required the Constitution of the PCUSA. (Book of Order G-14.0450).

• Inquirers/candidates will be asked to offer a faithful interpretation, rather than the principal meaning of the text. In many cases, a passage of Scripture may offer several meanings or possibilities for interpretations rather than “one” correct meaning.

See http://www.pcusa.org/exams/exegesisinfo.htm for the full article by the Committee. I urge all who read this letter to read the full article.

The 2008 Committee on the Review of General Assembly Permanent Committees approved the following concerning the Open Book Bible Exegesis Exam:

(2) Open Book Bible Exegesis. This examination shall assess the candidate’s ability to interpret an assigned passage of Scripture by demonstrating attention to the original language of the text, an understanding of the text’s historical context, and an ability to relate the text effectively to the contemporary life of the church in the world.

“The candidate shall have access to Hebrew and Greek texts, translations, commentaries, and other exegetical tools.

This committee also approved the following amendment to the FOG:

Amend Recommendation 1, first paragraph of “(2) Open Book Bible Exegesis” as follows: [Text to be deleted is shown with a strike-through; text to be added or inserted is shown with an underline.]

“(2) Open Book Bible Exegesis. This examination shall assess the candidate’s ability to interpret an assigned passage of Scripture by demonstrating attention to the original language of the text, an understanding of the text’s historical [and literary]context, and an ability to relate the text effectively to the contemporary life of the church in the world.”

Both of these were approved by the General Assembly in plenary.

Since the Presbyteries’ Cooperative Committee on Examinations for Candidates conducted a study of the ordination exams and recommended changes in the description of the exam both in their manual and in the FOG I strongly urge anyone interested in this issue to read the study at:

http://www.pc-biz.org/IOBView.aspx?m=ro&id=1887&promoid=79

And the two recommendations to the General Assembly at:

http://www.pc-biz.org/IOBView.aspx?m=ro&id=1829&promoid=63

The core questions raised by the Cooperative Committee’s new policies are:

1. Should the Open Book Bible Exegesis Exam be a measure of the candidate’s ability to work in Hebrew or Greek; and
2. Should the Exam require the candidate to find and describe the true meaning of the text?

So it seems that satisfactory grades in Hebrew and Greek and in Hebrew and Greek exegesis (G-14.0450c) are now sufficient to determine whether a candidate can do proper exegesis and use that exegesis in a church setting. The Open Book Bible Exegesis Exam will no be an instrument to measure such ability.

Given the failure rate among candidates taking the exam one has to wonder if the standards are changing because of the inability of candidates to pass the exam.

In any case, I think the Cooperative Committee’s new policies are a mistake. Certainly there are passages that can have multiple meanings. But most passages have one meaning. A Bible exegesis exam should test the ability of a candidate to find the central meaning of a text and to use that text in a congregational setting. Do we want to ordain people who choose to take a passage out of context or say that it means something different than, (to the extent that we can discover it) the intention of the author or editor? We are to examine our lives in the light of the Scripture, not decide the meaning of the Scripture in the light of our lives.

As to Hebrew and Greek, the ability to use the original languages has been a mark of ordained Presbytery clergy throughout the history of Presbyterians in America. Are we willing to abandon this requirement, at least in the Bible exegesis exam, without denomination wide discussion?

Pastor Bob

THE PROBLEM OF PAIN

My brother Allan says that it is always a wonderful day when you walk into the mountains and walk out having learned something. Usually when you learn something in the mountains you did something stupid and if you walk out that means you survived.

Just over a week ago I went out riding my bicycle. I am still alive, no thanks to myself. I have no memory after leaving the house but it seems that I must have been going really fast down Pine Street without benefit of a helmet. That’s what the neighbors tell me, the ones who called 911 and made me sit down until the ambulance arrived.

I don’t remember much of the next two days. Sometime in there I learned I had a concussion and 6 broken ribs to say nothing of road rash. So a couple of basic lessons learned by going out bike riding and not riding home:

1. Wear that helmet! If I had had a helmet on I wouldn’t have had a concussion.
2. Slow down on hills! Wind and bugs in the teeth feel great but when you stop suddenly, (in my case by falling off, preferable to going head first into the telephone pole), it can be painful.

Now at this point I suppose I should state some basic reflections on human fallibility, (obviously I am), original sin and pain, some not so interesting theology and God and the problem of evil, but I have a few other observations about pain first.

Pain hurts! When younger, including a lot of people my age, you get up in the morning, go out and do your thing. Life just kind of goes on and you don’t even notice that you are up and walking. That’s life, right? But not only does pain hurt it also slows you down like nobody’s business! Getting out of bed is a tedious and painful process and just walking makes me dizzy. My knees hurt from the scabs when I walk.

We in the Western world, for the most part, just don’t even have a clue. We think of medicine not so much as a science than as a constant miracle. You get sick, you get pills, you get well. You have an accident like I did and even though you hurt for a while you know you’re going to get better. If you don’t get all better there are doctors and a hospital to sue because, after all, medical science is supposed to make everyone all better, isn’t it? We argue about who is going to pay the bill, not whether treatment can be done.

Most of the world has no such advantage. I’ve wondered if I was in rural India or parts of Africa or South America what would have happened to me. No scan, no x-ray, no epidural pain killers? With a concussion and all those broken ribs would I be up and walking around if I lived in rural Africa? Or would I have picked up an infection and died? And would I have vacation time, sick days etc.? We in the West complain a lot but life could be a lot worse. When I went bike riding I didn’t have to worry about catching malaria.

All of which is not to say that there aren’t theological issues involved. Why am I alive? It sure isn’t my fault! Thank the lady who called 911, thank the ambulance people, thank the great doctors, nurses, aides, etc., at the hospital and thank God! I don’t know why I’m alive but God surely has something to do with it even if you only consider the surface stuff like I live near a great trauma center.

Of course that doesn’t explain why a little girl died of cancer just a day earlier with all the medical help in the world at hand. When it comes to the whys and wherefores of who lives and who dies I wish God had chosen to heal Maggie and let me die. But I’m not in charge and make no claims to understand the will of God.

Yes, that means that I think God somehow participates in it all, doesn’t just sit on the sidelines and let things happen. No I can’t prove it. I think it’s a Biblical given, a theme. God is involved. You see God’s involvement from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelation. But when it comes to the whys and the wherefores we have to be content with God’s answer to Job: we just aren’t smart enough to understand.

So if you came here for profound insights into why I’m alive, I don’t have any. I certainly don’t think it’s because God loves me so much more than others. God has better taste than that. And it isn’t because I’m so much better, holier than others. God knows that’s not true!

I guess my best answer is Paul’s: to die would be better because I would be at home with Jesus. To live is to continue to serve Jesus.

And in the meantime even when it hurts to sit up I need to thank God because I can sit up and will continue in ministry.

Pastor Bob

SOME OBSERVATIONS ON GENERAL ASSEMBLIES AND THE HOLY SPIRIT

Many of my more conservative brothers and sisters, whom I love and respect, left San Jose angry, frustrated, and disappointed — sure that we Presbyterians have lost our biblical and theological souls. And I hurt because they hurt. But I am convinced that the main power player at this assembly was the Holy Spirit, laying waste to the best-laid strategies of most of the affinity groups. The heart of our faith is the absolute conviction that God calls us to die to the old, so that we can rise to the new. And the dying and rising is not in our control — but in God’s.
Susan Andrews, General Presbyter of Hudson River Presbytery
And former Moderator of the General Assembly
In Presbyterian Outlook, Monday, 04 August 2008

Following PCUSA General Assemblies those who win tend to claim that the Holy Spirit was at work in what happened. I suggest that such a claim is dangerous.

I disagree with the Rev. Andrews for a variety of reasons, not the least that I am certain we disagree on the meaning of Scripture surrounding the actions of the General Assembly on homosex behavior. But that is not my point. When anyone claims that a human body has acted in accord with the intentions of the Holy Spirit I think some hubris is involved.

Presbyterians are people who hold our beliefs in tension. While we call on all who serve in the governing bodies of the denomination to listen for the Holy Spirit as we deliberate and vote we must admit that the intentions of the Spirit are not always clear. We claim that the Spirit operates through the governing bodies of the denomination but we also admit that “All synods or councils since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as a help in both.” (Book of Confessions, the Westminster Confession, 6.175)

The time between the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD and the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD is instructive. There were at least 15 councils during that time, many of which held that Arius was correct, that the Son was not fully divine. There were attempted compromises suggesting that the Son was of like being with the Father (homoiousious) not of the same being with the Father (homoousious). In the end, at Constantinople the decision of Nicaea was affirmed, after both Arius and Athanasius (his opponent) were dead. The doctrine of the Trinity was proclaimed as a central truth of the Church and has been so held by the main stream of the Church since then.

So today we would confess that the Holy Spirit was at work at Nicaea and Constantinople but not at any council at which the Arians or Semi-Arians won the day. In other words it is difficult to see the work of the Spirit in the present. In the present, in the midst of disagreements major and minor we often claim that the Spirit is on our side because we must be correct and those who disagree with us must be wrong! Only looking back in history (and then only with great humility) can we say there the Spirit was at work.

One of my concerns with some Charismatics that I met back in my college days was their utter assurance that the Spirit had spoken to them or through them. Some claimed that the Spirit had healed them with no proof that is no physical evidence that healing had taken place. I believe that the Spirit can and does heal miraculously but I think one should make sure s/he now has 20/20 vision before s/he goes off to drive a car. But of greater concern are those who claim that the Spirit has told them to do something or believe something without any substantiation.

The great test of a claim that the Spirit has spoken has always been the Scripture. Where the Scripture speaks there the Spirit also speaks. The Spirit does not speak against Scripture because the Spirit speaks in Scripture. To say that the Spirit speaks against Scripture is to say that the Spirit disagrees with the Spirit an utter impossibility. The Spirit is not human, making one decision one day and a couple millennia later saying the opposite. The human task is to determine what the Spirit says today by comparing human claims to Scriptural text. Of course that is not as easy as it sounds or we would not debate over its meaning.

Frankly this is one of my great concerns about GA 218. There was no great debate about what the Scripture says and how to apply the Scripture today. Yes we have had those debates in the past and they have not yielded unity. But from those who attended GA I hear that there was no debate over the meaning of Scripture that in fact there was little or no debate at all over the various decisions about homosex behavior. And that, alas, is a mistake.

Part of the problem is time. In the modern age time is of the essence. The Council of Nicaea lasted for over two months. The bishops took the time to get it right. I am sure there were no two minute limits on any bishop’s speech. Because the General Assembly must finish its work in a specific period of time we Presbyterians do not take the time to get it right, to have the full conversation. Instead we ask a small group, a Task Force to study the issue, give the commissioners the work of the Task Force, have a committee study the work of the Task Force, (along with a myriad of other matters) and then ask the Plenary, (the full General Assembly) to make a decision in a limited period of time. I suggest that this is a poor way to determine the intent of the Holy Spirit.

So did the Holy Spirit speak on the issue of homosex behavior at GA 218? I think no. Susan Andrews clearly thinks yes. We cannot both be right. What worries me the most is that we both went into the week of General Assembly and out the other side with our minds already made up.

Maybe the Holy Spirit will speak through the presbyteries. Maybe not. But unless we do the hard work of studying the Scripture together: translating, exegeting, and hermeneuting, how will we ever know?

Pastor Bob

P.S. I did not deal with the main theme of the Rev. Andrews article: Dying to the Old and rising to the New. All old is not bad and all new is not good. Again, only the Spirit can tell us what is good and what is bad. As I am sure the Rev. Andrews would agree, the heart of the faith is not dying to the old and rising to the new; the heart of the faith is dying to the old which is sin and rising to the new which is Christ. There is one sentence in the article that is definitely true: "And the dying and rising is not in our control — but in God’s." I pray that we will die not to the old but to the wrong, to anything that opposes the work of Christ in the Spirit and rise again to serve Christ according to the will of the Spirit.

PEACE, UNITY AND PURITY

One of the promises that all those ordained in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A) make when ordained and/or installed is in answer to the following question:

"Do you promise to further the peace unity and purity of the church?" (W-4.4003g)

If you are getting ordained you have to answer all of the questions in the affirmative, in this case by saying, "I do." If you say "I don't" you don't get ordained. Of course I've never heard anyone say "I don't" or "I won't" even if the person didn't really understand the question. It’s kind of like someone stopping a wedding in the old order of service for a marriage. Who dares when the pastor asks, “If anyone knows a reason why this couple cannot lawfully be joined together in marriage let him speak now or forever hold his peace.” The only place I’ve ever seen anyone say that is in a Jane Austen novel. It just never happens.

This is an interesting question because it puts together three words that often seem to be at odds with one another. For some of us in the Presbyterian Church today, given recent events, these words do not describe the PCUSA today.

I write to suggest that among the people of Christ all these words must go together. And one of the major problems in the PCUSA today is that different groups within the denomination define the words in different ways.

So I begin with a series of affirmations:

1. where there is no peace there can be no unity and no purity.
2. Where there is no unity there can be no peace and no purity.
3. Where there is no purity there can be no peace and no unity.

To be in Christ is to be at peace with one another. Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead to make peace between those who believe in Jesus and the Father. We are therefore part of what some scholars call the organic unity in Christ. They refer to Paul’s images of the Church as the Body of Christ. Unless one is ill the hand will cooperate with the wrist and the foot with the shin. As Paul says in Ephesians 2,

For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit. (Eph. 2:14-18 NIV)

So the spiritual fact of the matter is we are at peace because Christ has made peace between us, as Paul says Jesus has “destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility.”

And yet, no matter what the spiritual reality we act as if there is no peace. From a human point of view f in the PCUSA today there is no peace. There has been no peace for years. (Has there every really been peace?) Curiously those in two different groups in the denomination: those who call themselves Evangelicals and those who call themselves Progressives agree that there is no peace. Some of us may not say that there is no peace. But when we disagree we blame each other. Evangelicals blame Progressives saying that if they would just drop this stuff about homosexuality then maybe we could have peace. To be fair we would disagree about other stuff but since homosexuality has been the leading issue in the denomination for more than 30 years, Evangelicals want some peace. Drop the argument, Progressives. You've lost so many times, why can't you accept it? (Sometimes I wonder if our argument about homosexuality is a way to avoid arguing about bigger, deeper issues, but let's stick to the presenting problem for now.)

Progressives on the other hand say that there can be no peace where there is no justice. For more than 30 years homosexuals have been oppressed in the PCUSA (and for millennia before that) and justice delayed is justice denied. There can be no peace until homosexuals can take their full place in the denomination including in ordained leadership. And they aren't going to drop it until they get their way. Besides if my definition of Progressive is correct, (and since I am not a Progressive I may very well be wrong), Progressives seem to believe in Progress. They believe sooner or later they will win because that is the way history is progressing. They don’t give up because they believe they just have to work long enough and sooner or later the denomination will move over to their opinion. To be fair Evangelicals are going to fight, trying to make sure that Progressives never get their way.

So while we who are in Christ are spiritually at peace here on earth there is no peace. Jesus calls us to love one another and many of us reach across the battle lines and love our friends who disagree with us but when it comes to votes we vote the party line. Sometimes we can have polite conversations but underneath the politeness there are a lot of strong feelings including a lot of anger and blame. I know I’m angry and I know I’m not alone.

The curious thing is that when we are talking about something else we can at least pretend we are at peace. We all agree that the ongoing genocide in Darfur is an abomination before God. We may not agree what to do about it and we may not even know what can be done about it, (although I think we all agree sending in the U.S. Army would be a mistake), but we can agree it is terrible. Nevertheless, even when we agree about some things there is always this big problem in the back of our minds. We all know that the day is coming when we will debate the issue again.

What I am about to say will sound radical but it is the way I think about it. I can be at peace with people who read the Bible and interpret it differently that I do. They are wrong, I know they are wrong, but we all make mistakes in translation and interpretation. (Humble, ain’t I?) The people I have problems with, the people I struggle to be at peace with are the ones who say that they know that they disagree with what the Bible says, its just that the Bible is wrong on the subject, or to put it in their words, science has shown that the writers of the Bible did not understand the concept of homosexual orientation. Some go even further, like Walter Wink, who says that he is sure that if Paul knew that homosexuality could be an orientation he would still think that homosex behavior was wrong. Still Wink thinks the behavior is acceptable to God. How can I be at peace with someone who simply says the Bible is wrong? Or is the problem that we have different concepts of Biblical authority as over against general revelation? Even then how can I be at peace with someone who takes general revelation, (what we see in the world), and place that as a higher authority over the Scripture?

A quick note for those who think I’m saying that there aren’t galaxies out there and the sun revolves around the earth: I believe that the authority of Scripture is limited to what the Bible intends to say. The Bible has nothing to say about dinosaurs or the workings of stars or galaxies. Neither is the point of the Noah narrative to tell about how the water came from outside the firmament into the world. But when we understand what the Bible intends to say the Bible is authoritative. Then, of course we have the responsibility to properly apply it to our present world which is another part of the problem.

Unity. Paul says in Ephesians 4, "There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." (Eph. 4:4-6 NIV) We may not act like we are one in Christ but the fact of the matter is, we are one in Christ. One of the biggest problems in the Church Universal is that for reasons big and small in this world we are not one in Christ at least at an organizational level. Denominations seem to multiply daily. But no matter how we be behave the fact of the matter is that everyone who is in Christ, that is everyone who is a Christian is one. We are unified.

Of course we have some problems with definitions. We Trinitarians say that the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons aren't really Christians and so we aren't one with them in Christ. (One as members of the human race, yes. One in Christ, no.) And speaking as a Trinitarian there seems to be a few leaders out there in the PCUSA who aren't Trinitarians. (To be fair we have done such a terrible job teaching the members of congregations over the last 50 years a lot of them can’t explain the doctrine of the Trinity at all!)

But all Christian are one in Christ. We are unified in Christ. Alas we don't act that way. In the PCUSA we gather in our political groups and plan how to win. We don't talk sometimes with those we disagree with because we don't want them to know our strategy. We call each other names. And sometimes we even say the person on the other side isn't really a Christian. It doesn't look like unity.

Unity doesn't mean we all have to vote the same way. But it does mean we have to acknowledge that we are one in Christ and treat one another as loving members of the same family, (and not a dysfunctional family!).

But how do we find unity when at the end of a General Assembly meeting some rejoice and some weep? What do we do when those who rejoice don’t care about the feelings of those who weep and vice versa?

And worse, what do we say about those who have finally had enough, who are tired of the argument and decide to leave the denomination? Granted the PCUSA is not the Body of Christ, but it hurts when someone says I can’t be in the same denomination as you anymore, even if you think that person, (or that congregation), is just wrong, that their reasons for leaving are not only misguided but a complete misreading of the situation?

Unity does not mean that all the Christians in a particular area have to send their pastors and an equal number of elders to a PCUSA presbytery meeting. Wouldn’t that be a mess? A blessed mess to be sure, but where would we meet? In the local stadium that holds 70,000 people? Besides some would expect us to send bishops to the meeting and we Presbyterians know we don’t need no steekin’ bishops! We’ve fought wars to get rid of bishops and Romanish liturgy! The unity that Christ has made is hard to find.

On to Purity. Again, in Christ all who believe in him are pure. “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. . .” (Romans 8:1 NIV) Christ made us pure when he died for us and rose for us.

But again the reality in this world is quite different. Christians all with the help and guidance of the Holy Spirit are working at sanctification. At least we are supposed to. We know we are sinners and we depend on the Spirit to help us sin less.

The problem in the PCUSA today is that we look at homosexuality and see purity in two different ways. Evangelicals and some others say homosex behavior is sinful. To be sure it is behavior that God will forgive but it is sinful. And what horrifies us the most is that some in the Church teach that what is sinful is not sinful. Progressives don’t like the comparison but for us Evangelicals it’s like saying that adultery isn’t sinful or that polygamy isn’t sinful. (In fact I think I can make a better case for polygamy from Scripture than I can for homosex behavior.) It is the task of the Church to help people in their process of sanctification. How can we do so if we tell people that sin is not sin?

For others, those who believe that homosex behavior between 2 consenting adults is not sinful homosex behavior is pure. It glorifies God. God made some people heterosexual, some homosexual, some bisexual and some people are transsexual, (I’m not sure if transsexuals believe God made them that way or that somehow things got messed up in this sinful world and a man somehow ended up in a female body.) Anyway, most in the PCUSA who take this position believe that God intends for people to love one another and sometimes that love takes the form of two people of the same sex loving one another romantically and physically. That is not only pure but it is something to celebrate.

So in Christ we are at peace, unified and pure. In this world we are not at peace we are not unified and we are not pure. Of course we should all look to ourselves first and get some help from brothers and sisters in Christ to examine ourselves and figure out what God wants us to work on in the process of salvation. Our problem in the PCUSA is that as we seek to further the peace, unity and purity of the church those of us who disagree find ourselves destroying the peace, unity and purity as we seek peace unity and purity! Or to put it bluntly, we really believe that those who disagree with us are destroying the peace, unity and purity of the church.

If only you Evangelicals would love and accept homosexuals! Then we could have peace, unity and purity. Duh! We Evangelicals do love homosexuals! We see Christian homosexuals as brothers and sisters in Christ who struggle with sin just like the rest of us. Our problem is that some of them and some heterosexuals believe that homosex sin is not sin. Then we get accused of having different standards for heterosexuals than we do for homosexuals. That accusation really confuses me. I would refuse to participate in the ordination of someone who was having a sexual relationship with someone of the opposite sex with whom that person was not married. I won’t let that person work with youth or teach Sunday School either because I don’t want people looking to him/her as an example for behavior. Do I love that person? Of course I do! I have relatives who have sex outside of marriage. Do I love transsexuals? Yes! Again, I have transsexual relatives. Do I love my friends who are homosexuals? Of course! Love does not mean you necessarily approve of what a person does. I don’t approve of everything I do! In fact I have a longer list of sins for myself than I do for anyone else. Of course I am always there when I sin and others don’t necessarily see me, particularly when the sin happens to be one of thought. I’m not always there when someone else sins, thank God.

If only you Progressives would obey the Bible and accept the authority of the Bible! Then we could have peace, unity and purity. This one is a bit more complicated for me partially because I disagree with Progressives on this issue and partly because I see a number of different viewpoints. Some look at seven passages that they believe refer to homosex behavior in the Bible, (and reject other possible passages), and think they applied to particular situations in the ancient world or don’t really talk about homosex behavior as we see it today. Also they think some of those passages aren’t really about homosex behavior in any form in any age. I would suggest that the dialogue has gone beyond this among scholars that are up on the most recent interpretations of the passages but some think that I and others like me are misinterpreting the Bible. My good friend and brother in Christ Jack Rogers interprets the Bible on this issue in ways that have brought him to the conclusion that homosex behavior between two people in a committed relationship is not wrong but a gift from God. Then there are those who think that the Bible does say homosex behavior is wrong but that since no one understood that homosexuality is an orientation back then the passages don’t really apply. And then there are those who love their homosexual friends and think that no matter what the Bible says God loves them as they are. (This is an argument I’m hearing more and more, that God loves everyone, that we shouldn’t judge others and look at what a fine person Jim is. Why shouldn’t he have a beloved like heterosexual couples just because he wants his beloved to be a man?) Or some combination of these and other positions. But how can you Progressives tell people that their sin is not sin? Don’t you know that you are endangering that person’s salvation? And how will you explain to God that you taught people that sin was not sin? It’s like saying, to quote one scholar, that incest between two consenting adults is not sin! We all know that God doesn’t approve of that!

Peace, Unity and Purity. Even if we solved this particular problem we wouldn’t have peace, unity and purity in the Church here on earth. But I don’t see how we Presbyterians can have peace, unity and purity around this issue. It isn’t, as some say, that one side wants unity and the other side wants purity. Both sides know that there can only be peace, unity and purity when they win. And to be fair to those on both sides we all in good faith believe that we are doing God’s will.

I find I can deeply love those who disagree with me about this. We can talk about other things and agree. We can even get together on other issues in the denomination and work together disagreeing with other Progressives and Evangelicals. But how do we have peace, unity and purity when we dare to say, “Look what they are doing to God’s Church!” Sometimes we accuse people of meaning their church not God’s church but to be fair to all, on our better days we believe that the other is hurting God’s Church.

So the 218th General Assembly is over. My side lost. It hurts a lot. The statement made in 1978 that homosex behavior is not God’s intention for humanity is gone. A curious and rather confusing Authoritative Interpretation of G-6.0108 in the Form of Government that is meant to overturn a GAPJC decision was passed. Personally I think that the GAPJC will overturn the Authoritative Interpretation. Won’t that be interesting? And then a replacement for G-6.0106b passed as well and is coming to the presbyteries for a vote. Then the Book of Order will no longer say you have to be married and faithful or single and chaste to be ordained. Oh, and sooner or later, (I think after 2010), we get to vote on whether we will change the Heidelberg Catechism.

One of the reasons it hurts is that when I was in seminary we Evangelicals were a minority that almost always lost. Since then we have become equal in power with the Progressives at least at the presbytery level. It’s easier to lose when you know you always lose. It’s different when you know if presbyteries would just send people to General Assembly who represented the presbytery’s point of view none of this would have passed. And it must be difficult for Progressives who can be pretty sure that the amendment to G-6.0106b won’t pass.

I hate the battle. I don’t want to vote on the amendment to G-6.0106b. But it does bring to the fore that we don’t have peace, unity or purity. And both sides fight as hard as we can to make sure we have more peace, unity and purity from their perspective.

I know deep in my heart that the 218th General Assembly took a pick axe to the peace, unity and purity of the PCUSA. I know deep in my heart that more congregations will give up and leave the PCUSA for what seem to be greener and less conflicted pastures. How can the denomination have more peace, unity and purity when more congregations feel pushed out?

There is no peace, unity and purity and I might as well just get used to it.

Ken Medema says in one of his songs:

If this is not a place where my heart cries can be heard
Where can I go to cry?

And also

I don’t need another place for always wearing smiles
Even when that’s not the way I feel.

I have no smiles. My heart cries are only heard by those who agree with me and a few close friends who love me and disagree with me. Seemingly nice letters from people at the GA that condemn me in not so subtle ways don’t give me any comfort at all.

There is no peace, no unity, no purity.

May Jesus return soon and make what is spiritually real, (the best and truest kind of real) real in all ways.

In the meantime, where shall I go to cry?

Pastor Bob

GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND THE AMMAN CALL

All that history in the last post was a prelude to this. The General Assembly endorsed The Amman Call, (See article in The Presbyterian Outlook).

While there are many things to agree with in the Amman Call, (who could not agree with a call for two states, Israel and Palestine, with secure borders and peace, with an open Jerusalem? Of course there will be great disagreement over whether Jerusalem should be an Israeli city or a Palestinian city or both and the real fight will be over freedom of religion for Jews, Muslims and Christians! When I was in Israel I was given to understand that if anyone who was not Muslim tried to pray on the Temple Mount that person was immediately hustled off by the Israeli police! And don't even get me started on the Waqf digging through archaeological areas with a backhoe!)

Whew! Anyway. I agree with the Amman Call that we need to support our Christians sisters and brothers in Israel and Palestine. What the call does not make clear is that part of the support they need is international light shining on the persecution of Christians by Muslims!

But the most important part is the part that sounds so innocuous. The call for the right of return. Read this part of the Call:

5. The premises of this action are the following:

5.2. That Palestinians have the right of self-determination and the right of return.

I'm all for Palestinian self-determination. Let them vote for whoever they want in free and fair elections. In fact they did when they voted for Hamas. The United States should have recognized the government, terrorist or not. Don't we believe in free sovereignty?

But the right of return is the real problem. Right of return means that all Palestinians who either voluntarily or involuntarily left their homes and villages since 1948 have the right to return to those homes and villages. This sounds very good but would create a variety of problems. It also does not take into account Jewish right of return.

As I stated in my last post after the 1948 war Jews all over the Middle East were forced from their homes, had their businesses taken from them, often even their personal possessions and were only allowed to take a limited amount of money with them when they left. As part of this agreement would the various Arab nations also allow their former Jewish citizens a right of return and compensation for their losses? I know the Palestinians are not responsible for what Arab governments did but why does the Amman Call make no reference to the suffering of Jews following the 1948 war? And why does it not take into consideration that there are many more Jews in Israel because the Arab governments stole from and kicked out their Jewish citizens? Should there not be justice for all? Or do only Palestinians get justice?

Quite honestly a Palestinian right of return is a deal breaker for Israel. The Amman Call says:

5.3That a two-state solution must be viable politically, geographically economically and socially.

and

5.5 That both Palestine and Israel have legitimate security needs.

These statements are meaningless if there is a Palestinian right of return. The reason is very simple. If Palestinians are allowed to return to their former homes in Israel then Palestinians will be the majority in Israel. In a democratic state the Palestinians would be able to vote out the Israeli government. Israel would not be a Jewish state. Then Israel would have no security concerns because there would be no Israel and no security for Jews in Israel. The two state solution would not be politically or socially viable for Israel because there would be no Israel. It wouldn't be economically or geographically viable either.

See, it's the little things that people don't mention.

One of several things would happen if there was a Palestinian right of return:

1. There would be no democratic government in Israel or Palestine. To be fair to the Palestinian people their choices of governments have been rather limited. Fatah was corrupt and really didn't want free elections. Hamas - well Hamas did get elected by a free and fair election. But Hamas has as one of its foundational statements that it pursues the destruction of Israel. If there was a Palestinian majority in Israel would Israel get a corrupt Fatah or a Hamas that wants to kick the Jews out or kill them?

2. At best there would be a secular state in which there was no Jewish majority or state. It should not surprise the world that this makes Jews very uneasy. After thinking that they were finally secure in Europe because of the Enlightenment the Dreyfus affair came along in France and then the Nazis came to power in Germany. And all through the 19th and 20th Centuries it was dangerous to be Jewish in Russia and, up until at least 1945 in Poland. Further antisemitism is on the rise in Europe. If you were Jewish wouldn't you want a land of your own in which your people were the majority and therefore there was a guarantee that no one would come and kill you just because you were Jewish? Besides rockets falling from Lebanon, (Hezbollah) and Gaza (at the very least tolerated by Hamas) suggests that Jews would not be secure in a secular state in Palestine.

3. There are more but I'll move on.

The security barrier. I've seen it. I hate it. From inside Bethlehem it looks like a prison wall. But if suicide bombers come into your country and blow up your children wouldn't you want a way to keep them out? I think the security barrier is in the wrong place. Too much of it falls on Palestinian territory. It has ruined the economic lives of Palestinian farmers. It has brought unemployment to many Palestinians. But the number of suicide bombers has gone down to almost zero. It would be wonderful if there was no need for the fences and the walls. The behavior of people in Gaza shooting missiles into Israeli towns does not suggest that the barrier is not necessary.

The other problem with the Amman Call is that it seems to assume that if Israel changed its ways everything would be fine. There are killers on both sides of the barrier. Yes there are some Israelis who want to kick all the Palestinians out of the West Bank and Gaza and claim all of Biblical Israel. They are a small minority. There are also Palestinians who want to kill all Israelis. There is no way to measure what percentage of the Palestinian population wants this. Those with the guns keep those who want peace very silent.

I want to think that the overwhelming majority on both sides want peace and prosperity. Certainly most Israelis will exchange land for peace if there will be a real peace. There is no way to tell how many Palestinians want this because it is dangerous in Gaza in particular to say that you want Israel to continue to exist.

Starting as far back as 1948 the Palestinians have been offered a variety of great deals. Either other nations or their leaders have always turned them down.

When the Presbyterian Church gets serious about peace in Israel and Palestine it will have to listen to both Jews and Palestinians. Until that day I will have to keep telling my Jewish friends please don't associate me with the statements of the General Assembly.

Pastor Bob

ISRAEL, PALESTINE AND THE WHOLE MESS

I think there are some problems that just aren't going to be solved before Jesus returns. Think of the problem of sinful lust. I'm like Jimmy Carter. I have looked at women who aren't my wife with lust in my heart. That's a sin Jesus says. Maybe if I stopped wearing my glasses when I go out I wouldn't see them and wouldn't lust. Of course then, given the extent of my vision problem, I would probably get run down crossing the street!

The problems in Israel and Palestine look like problems that won't be solved until Jesus returns. All of us know what has to be done. Or we think we do. Some radicals disagree but most people think that Israel should get out of the West Bank, including all the settlements, that both the Palestinians and the Israelis should have capitols in Jerusalem, that people who lost land, home and possessions should be compensated, (a complicated problem, more on this later), and that all should stop shooting guns, missiles, and shells at each other and that people should stop blowing themselves and others up. Sounds like a good deal, doesn't it?

Ah, but Israel offered most of this deal, (92% of the West Bank instead of all but with a good bit of money to compensate those who lost land), and Yasser Arafat turned it down in 2000. Why is a very curious question which I will not answer here because it would make the blog too long

But the problem looks very different on the ground. My child got killed by an Israeli missile. My child got killed by a Palestinian missile. Rockets land in Southern Israel towns on a daily basis (with a brief reprieve right now, thank God!). Israel responds with rockets. And it goes on.

The General Assembly passed some, I don't know, advice? about the situation in Israel and Palestine. Some of it was OK. Some if it looks good on the surface but the devil is in the details and commissioners don't get much time to consider the details.

But first a little history of Israel in the Middle East. I'm not going to go back to the Kingdom of David or the time of Jesus or even the 1920's. Let's start in 1948. In 1948 the United Nations proposed a partition of the land then called Palestine into two sections: an Israeli section and a Palestinian section. Jerusalem was to be a free city not part of either nation. Israel accepted the terms.

Unfortunately the nations around Palestine didn't accept the terms. (There wasn't any Palestinian government to accept the terms except for the Waqf, the ruler of the Muslim holy places.) Armies from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Iraq attacked Israel. They told the Palestinians to join them in the fight or get out of the way because they would push the Israelis into the sea or kill them off quickly and then the Palestinians could return to their land. Of course it wasn't that simple. Some Palestinians fought against Israel and the Israeli army (the Palmach) attacked the villages those fighters came from. Some Palestinian villages were attacked by Jewish groups not aligned with the Palmach like the Irgun who attacked some Palestinian villages indicriminately. It should not surprise anyone that the people from those villages ran away. Palestinian groups attacked defensless Israeli villages. Some Palestinians moved out of the way so that the five armies could take out the Israelis. And some Palestinians were moved off their land by the Palmach.

At the end of the war Israel had more land than it would have had under the UN proposed partition. It also had part of Jerusalem. Some Palestinians lived within what now became Israel. A few were allowed back into Israel. The others who, for all the reasons listed above, had to stay in what became the West Bank and Gaza and ended up in UN run refugee camps. Jordan annexed the part of Palestine that became known as the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Egypt annexed Gaza. At the end of the 1948 war there was no Palestine.

A little known fact: soon after, in the 1950's Arab countries across the Middle East kicked out most of their Jewish populations. Jews whose families had lived in Babylon or Alexandria from before the time of Christ were kicked out of their homes, were not allowed to take their possessions with them and were summarily told to get out. They went to Israel. They have never received any compensation from anyone for their loss. And on a curious statistical note, there were more Jews kicked out of Arab nations across the Middle East than there were Palestinians who ended up in refugee camps because of the 1948 war. There are almost no Jews in the Middle East today except in Israel.

The quick version of the time between 1948 and 1967 is that the Palestinians who had to move out of their homes in what became Israel were kept in refugee camps. They were not allowed to integrate into the rest of the West Bank or Gaza. The Jewish refugees were integrated into Israeli society. Oh and the Syrians had fun shooting shells from the Golan Heights into Israel.

In 1967 there was a war between Israel on the one side and Syria, Egypt and later Jordan on the other. Egypt made all kinds of threatening statements and finally asked the UN troops to get out of the way. Egypt moved a large army into the Sinai desert near Israel. Israel struck first and in 7 days took Gaza, the West Bank, Jerusalem, the whole Sinai peninsula and the Golan Heights. Everyone was shocked, including the Israelis.

Now there was a bigger problem. Israel proper already had Palestinian citizens. They were allowed to vote but weren't really integrated into Israeli society. But now Israel had all this land with Palestinians all over the place. And yes there were still all of those Palestinians in refugee camps. It was a mess.

I'm going to skip the other wars. There are whole books on just little parts of the whole history. To put it simply Israel became a country that had occupied territories. Ultimately after another war and much negotiation Israel gave the Sinai back to Egypt and they established diplomatic relations. Jordan and Israel found a way to get along, established diplomatic relations and Jordan said it didn't want the West Bank back. (Jordan didn't want the Palestinians either!)

Some Israelis believed that God gave them the whole of Israel, Galilee, Judea and Samaria as they called it, and started setting up settlements across the West Bank and Gaza. This really ticked off the Palestinians, particularly when their land was taken and they didn't get paid for it, (and besides they didn't want to sell their land anyway). With the settlements came guns and the Israeli army to protect the settlements. Some of the settlers were downright nasty to their Palestinian neighbors, including shooting at them. The Palestinians felt helpless.

So some Palestinians started what they thought was the only solution. They began to terrorize people. Often it was Israelis, like at the 1972 Olympics, but for a while it was airplanes around the world.

In the early 1990's Israel and Yasser Arafat came to an agreement called the Oslo Accords. This gave the Palestinians, (actually the PLO) limited sovereignty over parts of the West Bank and Gaza with the promise of more to come if things stayed peaceful. For a while it actually worked, in part. Light industry began on both sides of the border between Israel and Gaza. Life started to get better for some Palestinians.

But then Yasser Arafat turned down Israel's offer in 2000. And the second intifada began. There are a variety of opinions as to why this happened. Maybe the reason doesn't really matter. But rocks were thrown at Israeli soldiers and the soldiers shot back, most of the time with rubber bullets and sometimes with live rounds. Palestinians strapped explosives to themselves and blew themselves up in crowds of Israelis, killing the Israelis as well. One favorite place to blow oneself up was on a morning bus, which meant that Israeli school children died on their way to school. Those Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza who had jobs in Israel lost their jobs. Checkpoints became popular as Israel tried to stop the violence. Palestinians were humiliated at checkpoints and complained that amublances with people who were critically ill were stopped at checkpoints and the patients died. The Israelis complained that sometimes the ambulances had explosives in them.

Israel responded with guns, tanks and missles. And finally Israel decided that the logical way to get rid of suicide bombers was to not let them into the country. So Israel build the security barrier. Most of it is a fence. Some of it is a wall. Suicide bombing dropped off dramatically. Life in Palestinian areas became unbearable. The unemployment rate went through the roof. I was in Bethlehem in February. There is a wall all the way around Bethlehem. The shop keepers begged us to come back to Bethlehem and bring our friends and stay in town. Children and adults try to sell beads and postcards to tourists. And the Christian population in Bethlehem and throughout the Palestinian territories, (or the occupied territories, call it what you want), is dropping off dramatically, in part because of persecution from their Muslim neighbors. Besides the Christian population tends to be wealthier than their Muslim neighbors and can afford to move to Europe or the USA.

Israel moved out of Gaza, forcing the Israeli settlers to leave. The Palestinians saw this as a victory. For a variety of reasons, mainly corruption in Fatah, the Palestinians elected Hamas as the ruling party in the last election. Both the US and Israel refuse to talk with Hamas. And someone, probably with the permission of Hamas, has been shooting missiles into Israel from Gaza. Of course the Israeli army responds. And it goes on.

This is more than long enough. I'll tell about what the General Assembly did in my next post.

Pastor Bob

THE nFOG

Another positive blog! What happened to Bob the curmudgeon?

I feel really good about this one because I proposed an overture to the Philadelphia Presbytery which passed the GA with some minor changes.

Basically, the 2006 GA appointed a Task Force to write a new Form of Government, (nFOG). It gave the Task Force less than 2 years to come up with the nFOG! A preliminary draft was made available last September and the final form came out in January.

It is my experience that most Presbyterians are not Constitution wienies like I am. So the nFOG came out and it was my guess that few if any Presbyterians actually read the thing. So the Tully Memorial Session proposed an overture to the presbytery (which passed) asking the GA to put 0ff the final vote on the nFOG until 2010. I figured that maybe more people would read it if they had 2 years to do so.

I have a lot of problems with the nFOG. The biggest is that it assumes that Presbyterians trust each other. The fact of the matter is, we don't. To be honest I would have preferred that the GA would have voted it down. But I hope that 2 years for studying and recommendations to the expanded committee will produce a better document. If not maybe the GA will vote it down in 2010. Or maybe the presbyteries will vote it down. Or maybe the Spirit will settle upon the expanded committee and produce a FOG that God wants. I hope if that happens we all recognize it as a gift from God. After all synods and councils, (and General Assemblies and presbyteries), and even Pastor Bob do err!

Pastor Bob