Hallead

Blinded by the Light?

2012-02-18T18:49:00.008-05:00

Well the master bathroom at the manse is almost finished. A complete makeover - from new floor joists to new electrical wiring to tile and fixtures. All that is left is the glass shower enclosure. The Manse Upgrade Task Force (in conversation with Carol and I) selected a white subway tile for the walls (to 48") and white hexagonal floor tile to try to keep it looking as much like the original as possible. The same white pedestal sink (dated May 9, 1929) was reused as was the toilet that had just been replaced last year. This was coupled with chrome and porcelain fixtures. And the walls and trim work were painted white.

Upon entering the bathroom we were struck by the shocking, almost blindingly white nature of the bathroom and quickly decided we needed something to tone it down. Enter Sherwin Williams "Morning Fog" a nice medium hued gray. It looks REALLY nice. The gray just makes the tile "pop."

Bright light is hard to deal with, and at times hard to navigate in. We put sun glasses on in summer, our welders wear special lensed protective gear, we avoid looking at a solar eclipse and, in this case, we use accent colors in the bathroom.

As I reflected on the brightness of the bathroom I wondered how much my reaction to the brightness is like many people's experience of the Lord? Are we not, at times, shocked by the blindingly bright nature of His truth. It is sometimes such a shock to our own perceived sensibilities that we find it upsetting, even judging it to be too much for us, and so we tone it down, we compromise and we feel better, sometimes even arguing that our own "interpretation" makes it better (as if God's word could be improved upon).

Psalm 119:105 says: "Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path." It is God's word that illumines Truth to us. It is his revelation of right and wrong, his definition of love and hate, his way of life and death. There are harsh demands in the scripture to be sure.

Eph 4:22-24 "You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness."

Matt. 10:37 "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me..."

2 Cor. 6:17 "Therefore, come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you.”

Matt. 5: 44 "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you..."

And so, so many more.

How hard it really is. Light burns. But so too light illuminates. It's especially hard to deal with if we've been living in the dark for some time. Even a dull light strains the pupils ability to take it all in and the brains ability to interpret it.

"But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin. I John 1:7.

So who wants to dwell in the light, walk in the light, have fellowship in the light and in so doing be purified from all sin?

Let him who has ears, hear.

Rotten to to the core?

2012-02-14T13:45:00.011-05:00

We have set our hands to the plow and cannot look back... really.

The bathroom update is almost completed. It really needed to be done. And of course in removing everything, including the tile floor, mud and subflooring we found some significant structural issues, not to mention the reality that much of the electrical work was still glass knob and tube... But that's almost behind us. So onto the next project.

The kitchen is gutted. The rest of the old knob and tube wiring discovered in the first floor has now also been removed/replaced. The floor is scheduled to be torn out and an entirely new kitchen put in - from the studding on the walls to the replacement of the sub-flooring. Everything will be new. And we thought we were well on our way to a new kitchen.

And then a drip... and another drip... another drip and a puddle... and upon further investigation we found the bathroom above the kitchen is bad. Not just bad but awful. It was poorly constructed it seems, probably unknown to the occupants at the time. The bathtub, in never having been properly supported, has shifted as people have stepped in and stepped out, breaking grouting seals and caulking lines, for 70 years... and the old, one-time solid lumber, which has served us well in keeping the bathtub from falling through the kitchen ceiling is no longer able to do it's job. It was asked to do too much for too long, with too little support. And now that the kitchen ceiling has been removed, the obvious is, well, obvious. Another VERY significant expense and a more extensive piece of work will have to be done. But this work is an absolute necessity before the kitchen is put in. That's the frustrating thing about maintenance - sometimes it isn't until a problem occurs that we find a deeper issue.

That's the frustrating thing about our physical health as well. Sometimes it's a fall that we never recover from, or through which we receive a diagnosis of osteoporosis. Sometimes it's a cough or weight loss, or something else that leads to a diagnosis of cancer. These are the surprises that are a part of life.

That's the frustrating thing about faith and our church structures as well. Both can seem to serve us well for many years, until we notice a drip, until we experience a fall, until the strength of that faith is tested. And then we see the rotten core, the wood that has become punky, the poor construction and the unnecessary wear and tear that have resulted. Fortunately for the Christian, the Rock on which we rest our faith is secure. The foundation is never an issue, just the way we have constructed our lives, our theology, our spirituality. We are cautioned to work out our salvation with fear and trembling.

The walls of our kitchen, we now know, were partially scabbed together with scrap 2x4's and a poorly designed support structure.

It occurs to me that we do that with our faith. We pick and choose which scripture we like scabbing together some twisted form of biblical faith that makes sense to us... at the time, sometimes building on a non-existent or poorly designed basic structure/conversion experience. And after a time we have scabbed together a faith that may stand fast and hold us up for a time and a season, but the day of exposure is coming - either in the crisis that may befall us or the final judgement which is to come when the "working out of our faith," the building of our lives will be judged. Sometimes in life these "stress points" are the places where we abandon the structure all together looking for greener pastures. Some have even abandoned the faith. But in most cases what we really need to do is to simply keep our hand to the plow.

It's a good lesson for us as individuals, as a congregation, and as a denomination.

Certainly with the manse we now have to decide, will we just cover over the rotten core and hope for the best, leaving someone else to pick up the pieces, or will we put forth the time, the effort, and the resources to do the job correctly.

But what of the congregations in which we serve? And what of our denomination? Is the core so rotten that we abandon the work? If not, how do we disassemble, tear out if necessary that rotten core, correct the design, and built the structure to bear witness to this great work the Master Carpenter would do through us, the next generation and the one after that and the one after that.

Jesus says "no one who puts their hands to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God..."(Luke 9:62) and "He who has ears, let him hear." (Matt 11:15). I pray we can yet salvage the core, but if we sense the Inspector condemning the structure we must be willing to set our hands to a new plow. The point is we keep to the work.

Life in the Presbyterian Manse...

2012-01-01T08:49:00.000-05:00

It seemed wise to me to begin a different tale... A tale that may often not be told... The tale of life in the Presbyterian Manse...

Still coming soon...

2011-12-24T17:03:00.001-05:00

Coming Soon...

2011-11-25T21:12:00.005-05:00

Time Away...

2011-08-08T18:31:00.002-04:00

August 8, 2011: I'll be taking some time off from blogging for the next few months to attend to other matters...

Having lunch with a colleague...

2011-08-05T14:43:00.001-04:00

... the thought occurred to me that one of the main sources of our current dilemma in the "franchise" (as the Kopp Disclosure - http://www.koppdisclosure.com refers to our denomination) may have very little to do with the social issues before us and everything to do with the death knell begun in the 1950's - Unified giving. Unified giving began the disconnect process when we began stopping independent thought processes and decision making and gave it over to others whom we thought knew better. Money was easy, growth was perceived as inevitable and who wanted to be bothered with "micro managing" mission.

Before long we didn't know who our missionaries were or even what our mission was or even if we had a mission or sent missionaries.

And now we seem to be surprised at the lack of connectionalism.

Hmmmm.....

Another reason to love Michigan's U.P.

2011-07-29T20:35:00.000-04:00

On a Wednesday evening's drive along the lakeshore (that'd be this past Wed. July 27th) we had to turn the heat on in the car to take the chill off...

The Manistique Lighthouse from the Lake Road - Hwy 2

2011-07-27T19:01:00.000-04:00

Just one reason to love the U.P. - wild blueberries!!!

Manistique River

2011-07-22T17:17:00.006-04:00

Well, we did 15 miles today on the Manistique River - canoe provided by Northland Outfitters in Germfask (http://www.northoutfitters.com/). It was a great day - about 80 degrees and mostly sunny. Just enough breeze and occassional light cloud cover to keep it nice.

The trip started about a mile or so outside of the Seney National Wildlife Refuge (http://www.fws.gov/midwest/seney/) so most of the 15 miles was inside the refuge. Of course this meant a few obstacles along the way.

But there was no need to portage and the depth was a wondeful 3-10' the whole way. The river is mineral rich (primarily iron) so it had that beautiful reddish-brown hue to it. It is a sand bottom river thanks to the glaciers and the water was crystal clear.

All-in-all a beautiful day.

And now off to a perch dinner... doesn't get much better than that!!!

Our canoe trip tomorrow...

2011-07-21T21:05:00.001-04:00

A fascinating blog on the canoe trip Carol and I will be taking tomorrow, near a piece of land we may consider purchasing... enjoy.

http://natureremains.blogspot.com/2009/10/manistique-river.html

Pictures to be posted following,

... to live for ...

2011-07-13T13:33:00.002-04:00

There is an almost outmoded expression in the west indicating, euphemistically, one's intense enjoyment of something. "That dress is to die for..." "This wine is to die for..." you get the picture. And one is left wondering if something, anything really would be worth dying for?

In the strong, almost militant, wave of patriotism currently sweeping the USA, certainly many would say that our freedom is worth dying for. But I wonder, how many people who occupy our pews on Sunday would consider their faith worth dying for? How much more so would we consider our faith worth living for? Can we passionately affirm that - "our Lord is to live for?" as well as "our Lord is to die for?" And mean it?

Apparently Barker, NY Town Clerk Laura Fotusky thinks so. Fotusky has resigned her position as town clerk saying that she can't bring herself to signing a document (marriage license) that would approve (and therefor imply support for) same sex marriage. Good for her. Whether or not you agree with her position, people who would rather resign their employment positions than compromise their moral values seem to be few and far between these days. What once made our country great - principled people willing to sacrifice their well being rather than compromise - seems to be going by the way side with our "post-modern" notions that there is no absolute truth.

But the question in NY is even deeper. While religious institutions have thus far received a "pass" on not having to perform the ceremonies there is a question about other non-religious-professional engagements such as photographers, et. al. Whether or not they will be allowed to decline due to religious reasons has yet to be fully tested.

And so one is left wondering at least two things - if the photographer (or other professional) has a legitimate religious issue which prohibits him or her from photographing the wedding-

1. Will the photographer have the passion to resign? and/or
2. Will the couple whose request was declined have the character to honor that wish and not bring charges?

Is this faith we hold dear worth living for? Is it worth dying for? Or is it just a philosophical assertion subject to the waffeling passions of western society teetering on the brink of self-destruction?

Confession...

2011-07-12T09:06:00.007-04:00

I confess that I am not a Greek scholar...never claimed to be...not interested in becoming one. I can use a lexicon. I can still read and parse ever so poorly. But day to day parish work lacquered over the deeper aspects of my Greek and Hebrew linguistic skills a long time ago. So I'm sure I'll receive adequate correction from my colleagues as appropriate on this post.

That being said, there have been an uncanny number of instances lately where the concept of "love" has come into play in my conversations. Most of these have been around my treatment of the traditional and biblically sound understanding of God's intention regarding sexual activity - that it be constrained to heterosexual, monogamous marriage. I have, at times been called unloving, but generally only by those who won't take the time to converse with me personally.

As I reflect on the biblical use of that word, which is rich and varied, I can only come to the conclusion that those who are advocating for a more "inclusive" polity regarding sexual behavior seem to be utilizing a "phileo" approach to the issue - that is that love is something which is: to approve of, to like, or to sanction - rather than "agape" - that is to be well pleased or to be contented with.

Agape clearly carries the nuance of sacrificial acceptance of God's will. In John 21 Jesus and Peter play the game with these words where Jesus asks Peter if he loves (agape) him and Peter responds of course he loves (phileo) him. Some scholars want to make these words synonymous but it is counter intuitive to the discussion. Jesus seeks to know whether or not Peter will sacrifice his all for Jesus and Peter basically says he approves of him or loves him as a brother. Perhaps Peter already had a sense of what following Jesus would cost him.

And so one is left asking what has become of sacrifice in the church today? Do we really lay down our lives and pick up the cross, the burden, the challenge of new life in Jesus trusting him for strength for today? When we walk in the Light (the all-sufficient Light, who needs "more light" than Jesus?), we have fellowship with one another - we don't need a program to develop that or to maintain that. But if we say we have no sin (or deny that what God has declared to be sin is in fact sin?) we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us (1 John 1:7-10).

So wherein lies the future of the church? Where it has always been - in Him who is all righteousness, not in a denomination, not in a congregation, but in the Truth of His Word (written and living). And the love (agape) of God (John 3:16) which atoned for our sins is sufficient for us. If he loves us enough to sacrifice his life as a ransom for ours, how can we not set aside our own perceived needs and desires for the kinds of righteous behavior he prescribes. That's not unloving. In fact it defines love - to be well pleased or content with what he has said.

Do as I say, not as I do...

2011-07-06T17:28:00.003-04:00

"Do as I say, not as I do" was a favorite expression of my father... It meant a sober admission that he was not perfect, that he was not where he hoped I would be, that wisdom was wisdom. Period. Even if he didn't always follow it. After I got caught smoking in 7th grade he promised not to smoke anymore cigars, if I'd quit cigarettes. Well that lasted about three months. Vacation came. A friend offered him a cigar, and up the trail he came, stogie in mouth. I said "yeah right dad" and he quipped, "do as I say, not as I do." It was harsh at the time and hard to hear, but now as an adult I understand the sobering admission and the hopeful direction that such a statement can take. Not the ideal model of course but it is still reflective of truth.

These days, as I counsel people, I often hear strange comments like, "well didn't you _________ too when you were young?" (Fill in the blank with your favorite mistake.) While I may have always understood my father's point I have never understood this latter comment. This latter point seems to put forth the idea that if I did it it must have been okay... So smoking outside next to the car (in fact right by the gas tank) was okay??? Shoplifting is okay??? And on and on? NO!

We seem to have gotten to a place in American culture where our own failures prohibit us from waxing forth in truth. If we fail to personally live up the standards we hold to be true, we have no right to expect or even ask that anyone else does. Oftentimes those in the church are accused of hypocrisy for this very reason, that we declare to be sin, that which we ourselves are guilty of. Yes we do. But this is because it is not our declaration of sin. It is our declaration of what God has declared sin and hence we can, at the same time, both be sinners and declare God's standard against which each of us struggles.

Do we still have a right to say that those engaged in a willful and ongoing neglect of God's standards should not be in leadership positions even though we may have struggled with the same or similar sins ourselves? If we have repented and if we have turned, or if we continue to battle the temptations, absolutely. Each of us should be engaged in a struggle toward progressive sanctification. We ought to be getting better. But we can't if we begin to declare "not sin" that which God has called sin.

Historically, the Presbyterian Church (USA), through it's affirmation of the Scriptures and the Confessions, has clearly stated that sin is sin. So perhaps the greatest thing the denomination can do is to begin anew to read and study scripture and the confessions. Personally, I, like Gary Miller, would love to figure out why we aren't still on the Westminster Standard? I have yet to hear, even from formal theologians, a clear answer to that question that didn't border on heresy...

Paul writes: Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you (Philippians 4:8-9), implying, I believe that the good should be emulated, forget the rest, but our lives OUGHT to be a model of perfection to the extent to which we are growing in grace, remembering that there is only One who could ever say - "Do as I say and as I did!"

A Tough Call...

2011-06-28T17:36:00.002-04:00

(Winfield) Casey Jones has a great entry over on "The Outlook" website. The Outlook, for the uninitiated is something of a "centrist" (meaning not rocking the boat) Presbyterian magazine.

The tough call Casey makes is basically that IF (and that's a huge IF) congregations and judicatory bodies take seriously the Book of Order provisions for individual examinations for ordination, they will in fact have a much more difficult time approving ordination for any person sexually active outside of heterosexual monogamous marriage since there is absolutely nothing in the confessions or scripture which would allow for it. The problem, as I have stated before is the "post-modern" approach we are entering into when, as a denomination, we have basically required each ordaining body to determine its own standards for ordination.

So here's Casey's entry into the discussion. It is a compelling argument:

An investigation of what our constitution now says

Written by WINFIELD CASEY JONES

Monday, 27 June 2011 17:56

Given the removal from the Book of Order of the national ordination standard calling for “living in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness,” what remains? The clear intention of the new amendment’s supporters has been to make possible the ordination of non celibate gay and lesbian persons. The big question is, how widely has that door been opened?

How are sessions (when examining elders and deacons) and presbyteries (when examining candidates or those transferring from other presbyteries) for the office of minister of Word and Sacrament to determine whether these examinees are qualified for these offices? And, the national fidelity/chastity standard having been done away with, may local governing bodies still make judgments based on an interpretation of Scripture and of our confessions which upholds the necessity of fidelity in marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness? I believe the short answer is “yes.”

Our Book of Order

Our Form of Government says at G-6.0106a that those who are called to be officers must be “persons of strong faith, dedicated discipleship and love of Jesus Christ as Savior. Their manner of life should be a demonstration of the Christian gospel in the church and the world. They must have the approval of God’s people and the concurring judgment of a governing body of the church.”

Also, new G-6.0106b says ordination standards reflect the church’s intention to “joyfully submit to the Lordship of Christ in all aspects of life.”

So, according to our Book of Order, sessions and presbyteries examining officers need to make decisions about the following constitutional issues which pertain to lifestyle:

» Does the person’s life demonstrate “dedicated discipleship?” G-6.0106a

» Is their “manner of life” a “demonstration of the Christian gospel in the church and the world?” G-6.0106a

» Are they submitting “to the Lordship of Christ?” G-6.0106b

There are manifold constitutional resources for affirming that God’s will for the human exercise of God’s gift of sexuality is either fidelity in marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness. These resources appear in our Book of Confessions as it interprets Holy Scripture.

Portions of Part I of our Constitution (Book of Confessions) with italics added for emphasis.

Q. 108. What does the seventh commandment teach us?

A. That all unchastity is condemned by God, and that we should therefore detest it from the heart, and live chaste and disciplined lives, whether in holy wedlock or in single life. B.C. 4.108 (Heidelberg Confession)

Marriage

For marriage (which is the medicine of incontinency, and continency itself) was instituted by the Lord God himself, who blessed it most bountifully, and willed man and woman to cleave one to the other inseparably, and to live together in complete love and concord (Matt. 19:4 ff). Whereupon we know that the apostle said: “Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled” (Heb. 13:4). B.C. 5.246 (2nd Helvetic)

Of Marriage and Divorce

Christian marriage is an institution ordained of God, blessed by our Lord Jesus Christ, established and sanctified for the happiness and welfare of mankind, into which spiritual and physical union one man and one woman enter, cherishing a mutual esteem and love, bearing with each other’s infirmities and weaknesses, comforting each other in trouble, providing in honesty and industry for each other and for their household, praying for each other, and living together the length of their days as heirs of the grace of life. B.C. 6.131 (Westminster)

Marriage is a union between one man and one woman, designed of God to last so long as they both shall live … Marriage is designed for the mutual help of husband and wife(,) for the safeguarding, undergirding, and development of their moral and spiritual character (and) for the propagation of children and the rearing of them in the discipline. B.C.6. 133, 6.134

Reconciliation in Society

The Confession of 1967 states:

“The relationship between man and woman exemplifies in a basic way God’s ordering of the interpersonal life for which he created mankind. Anarchy in sexual relationships is a symptom of man’s alienation from God, his neighbor, and himself. Man’s perennial confusion about the meaning of sex has been aggravated in our day by the availability of new means for birth control and the treatment of infection, by the pressures of urbanization, by the exploitation of sexual symbols in mass communication, and by world overpopulation. The church, as the household of God, is called to lead men out of this alienation into the responsible freedom of the new life in Christ. Reconciled to God, each person has joy in and respect for his own humanity and that of other persons; a man and woman are enabled to marry, to commit themselves to a mutually shared life, and to respond to each other in sensitive and lifelong concern; parents receive the grace to care for children in love and to nurture their individuality. The church comes under the judgment of God and invites rejection by man when it fails to lead men and women into the full meaning of life together, or withholds the compassion of Christ from those caught in the moral confusion of our time.” B.C. 9.47

Clearly, the confessional statements above, in their interpretation of Holy Scripture, contain more than ample reason for any governing body, in good conscience, to conclude that fidelity in marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness is God’s command and therefore necessary for church officers in order that they exhibit “dedicated discipleship” (G-6.0106a), in order that they display a “manner of life” which is a “demonstration of the Christian gospel in the church and the world” (G-6.0106a) and in order that that they show they are “submitting to the Lordship of Christ.” (G-6.0106b)

On top of all of that, B.C. 7.249 (the Larger Catechism) says that the seventh commandment (against adultery) applies to “fornication,” and “sodomy and unnatural affections.” The reference to sodomy” and unnatural affections” contains a Scripture footnote referencing Romans 1:26-27. The references to sodomy and to Romans 1:26-27 are part of a much larger and broader confessional argument (about which all governing bodies must now make their own decision) that God in Scripture commands either marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness.

In fact, even after the passage of Amendment 10-A, those favoring the ordination/installation of sexually active GLBT persons have a much harder confessional case to make than those who oppose such ordinations. It would take a whole new effort to change those constitutional standards in our confessions requiring a two-thirds vote of the presbyteries to amend or add to them.

Lacking such an amendment to the Book of Confessions, advocates of GLBT ordination “as a right” are on very weak ground, since the overwhelming weight of our confessions affirms that sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is sinful and therefore supports governing bodies denying ordination to those involved in same-gender sex on the basis of G-6.0106a and (new) G.6.0106b.

It can be reasonably argued that these confessional statements (along with the Scriptures they quote and reference) taken together make a case against same-gender sex in Part I of our Constitution. At the same time it must be said that no hint of an argument for same-gender sex is present in our confessions.

Conclusion: When one compares all the confessional statements listed in this whole document, it is clear that sessions and presbyteries have strong grounds when examining candidates for office to conclude that same-gender sex or lack of fidelity in marriage by an examinee does not exhibit “dedicated discipleship,” display a “manner of life” which is a “demonstration of the Christian gospel in the church and the world” or indicate that the person is “submitting to the Lordship of Christ.”

New York's Shame, the Culture's Gain

2011-06-27T10:16:00.010-04:00

Today, Albert Mohler is blogging about the sad state of affairs in New York which has succumbed to the broader leanings of unredeemed culture in legalizing same sex marriage. He reminds us of how this became quite a personal issue in the case of Democratic Senator Carl Kruger.

     “One of the lessons learned in this sad spectacle” Mohler writes, “is the fact that enough
     Republican senators changed their positions on the issue under intense pressure, thus
     enabling the passage of the legislation. The same was true for the minority of Democratic
     senators who had previously voted against the measure. One of these, Carl Kruger,
     changed his vote because the nephew of the woman Kruger lives with was so outraged
     over the issue that he had cut the couple off from an ongoing relationship. ‘I don’t need
     this,’ the Senator told a colleague, ‘It has gotten personal now.’”

     “Well, of course it has. But what this statement really means is that many Americans,
     including many in the political class, simply fold their moral convictions when they
     conflict with the lifestyles or convictions of a friend or relative.”

I’ll be addressing this issue this coming Sunday on the “The Cost of Discipleship” using Luke 14:25-35 where Jesus says: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters – yes, even his own life – he cannot be my disciple…” Anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.”

For, now, let’s just point out that one of Kruger’s major issues was that he, himself was living with a woman, likely enjoying the fruits of a relationship that he was not willing to truly commit to. He was already engaging in what the scripture labels sin. And when one begins down the road of moral license it becomes more and more difficult to know where to draw the line. How can we so casually affirm extra-marital affairs and homosexuality, and not see that the battle will next be polyandry...polygamy...pedophilia... The question is NOT whether or not those who approve of certain relationships (i.e. GLBTQ) will necessarily approve of other relationships (i.e. paedophilia), but how will we ever determine standards? Is there any ultimate truth or authority in these matters? Post-modern, revisionist approaches would say "no." Each must decide for him or herself what is write... And scripture refers us back to (Judges 21:25) the days when "Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit."

The books of I and II Kings and I and II Chronicles is filled with references to Isreal's Kings either doing what was right in their own eyes or what was right in God's eyes.... And so too will our leaders answer to God for fearing a loss of relationship with other over a loss of relationship with Him who reigns...

Spirit-Guide Silliness

2011-06-21T17:11:00.001-04:00

Today, Mark Roberts is furthering his series on “How Does God Guide Us?" with a great entry on Spirit-guide silliness: http://www.patheos.com/community/markdroberts/2011/06/21/spirit-guide-silliness/.

He says: “I do take seriously the tendency for people, even well-intentioned ones, to misconstrue God’s direction. It’s especially tempting for all of us to project our own desires onto God, reading them back as confirmation of what we ourselves want. We believe God is speaking to us through our experience, when it may just be that our experience is drowning out God’s authentic voice.”

This is one of the approaches (labeled the “Post-Modern Model”) which I discussed in last week’s blog on Biblical Interpretation. (It can be found here: http://hallead.blogspot.com/2011/06/day-1-down.html.)

Spiritual discernment is a difficult task that ought not to be left open to any hack “spiritualist” who claims to know God’s (or someone else’s) mind, but rather is the province of the church of Jesus Christ. I look forward to seeing you this Sunday when we can talk more about the role the scriptures play in this process.

Rather than Blog this week...

2011-06-20T19:38:00.002-04:00

I'm going to send you over to colleague Mark Roberts blog: Reflections on Christ Culture and Church - just click anywhere on this gray print to go.

He's started a blog series on "How Does God Guide Us?" It'll be an interesting and sound approach to the age old question he poses.

The first one makes mention of his younger days when he flipped open the Bible for a quick answer. While affirming that God was involved in that particular instance he moves us forward from that point. Take the time to read. It promises to be a good series.

Week 1 Down...

2011-06-17T15:49:00.002-04:00

So week one is completed and the weekend in open before me...

...with three books by Brevard Childs, and two commentaries sitting on the shelf waiting to be processed for a pre-modern exegetical method based expository paper on Exodus 10:21-29 - "The Plague of Darkness". And so goes my weekend.

One of the commentaries I processed earlier this afternoon gave a great triadic structure outline to the plagues that I hadn't paid particular attention to but in which the author (of the commentary) finds great meaning -

Aaron's hand/staff - water and the denizens:

   Plague 1. blood/water - warning - outside - morning
   Plague 2. frogs -            warning - palace - ______
   Plague 3. gnats -             ______ - _____ - ______

Moses prays, God strikes, Moses acts - People, then livestock, then people and animals
   Plague 4. flies -              warning - outside - morning
   Plague 5. pestilence -    warning - palace - _______
   Plague 6. boils -             ______ - _____ - _______

Moses's hand - airborne
   Plague 7. hail -              warning - outside - morning
   Plague 8. locust -          warning - palace - _______
   Plague 9. darkness -     ______ - _____ - _______

This type of methodology reflects something of a modern or critical treatment in that it seems to want to find authority in the form (form criticism) or the human reasoning sorts of treatments in which something seems to make sense to us. Dr. Carol Meyers is the Mary Grace Wilson professor of Religion at Duke and one of, if not the, leading authority on women in the Hebrew Scriptures. Her commentary on Exodus is a fascinating read. Of course she makes the wonderfully obvious connection with the retelling of the plagues in Psalms 78 and 105 as well as bringing us back to the reality of the connection between the darkness in Egypt and the darkness which prevailed over the earth at creation.

My favorite quote from her book which I'm sure will find it's way into the final paper states:

"The signs-and-wonders are not random occurrences, although they are not not unrelated to known ecological events. But it is the intensity and timing of these calamities that takes them out of the ordinary and casts them into the arena of deliberate divine activity for a specific purpose. They are over the top in terms of severity, as indicated by the frequent use of 'all' to indicate how widespread they were and also the recurrence of phrases such as 'had never been seen before' to denote how utterly extreme they were. Moreover they are collectively comprehensive, affecting all of creation, as depicted in Genesis 1: water and its inhabitants, vegetation and land animals, and the air."

I really enjoy reading people whose expertise in the scripture and whose love of it deepens my own appreciation for it. Not that I always agree with the implications of the authors I read. But I must admit an admiration for the depth of knowledge and commitment to reading it faithfully as the Word of God.

And so the task this weekend is to put some of this learning to pen and paper (or should I say keyboard and paper), even while I anxiously look forward to actually getting started on the project.

Great Day!

2011-06-15T23:41:00.001-04:00

Well yes there were the classes, but the real highlight was getting time to spend with Michael Weller, PC(USA) Horn of Africa Regional Liaison. Rachel (Michael's wife) was working so Michael and I walked over to Max's in Deutschtown for a burger/reuben and a beer and then back to the Wellers for conversation. Tossed around a great idea Rachel had shared with him about Mission Personnel Retreats.

We're going to feed some pieces to our friends in Presbyterian World Mission to get their response so I won't say too much until we hear back from them except to comment that we both felt it could have an exciting impact on future Mission Personnel Retreats.

And at the end of the evening, as we said our goodbyes (we don't get to see each other very much these days) it occured to us that it had been 17 years to the day since we had first gone out in mission together. Two familes both with 4 children between 16 months and 7 years.

Great friendships that last that long over many different continents and countries are hard to come by but there is something between us that seems to echo that love Jonathon and David shared. God puts these things together.

Thank you, Lord for people like Michael Weller...

Here's a link to their site: http://gamc.pcusa.org/ministries/missionconnections/weller-michael-and-rachel/

Day 2

2011-06-14T22:54:00.000-04:00

Long day...

Professor Creach was back. Great news on his injury. Thanked us for our concern. Genuinely seemed relieved.

Spent some good time furthering implications of differing methods of exegesis and then had two teams present their exegesis. Yep, yours truly was one...we seemed to get sidetracked on the issue of whether or not a natural occurrence (i.e. a sandstorm as the darkness in the 9th plague) would detract from the mystery and power of the wonder of the plague. Most all agreed it would. It wasn't sufficient to warrant such a treatment as it received. They were aware of such issues. They were normative. This had to be something incredible...

Lots more went on. I followed class and dinner by trying to get some advance reading done on my final project - to better understand the phenomenon of personal transformation through mission and I AM BEAT.

'night.

Day 1 Down

2011-06-13T21:24:00.003-04:00

So day 1 is drawing to a close. We spent the afternoon and evening in the library working on refining our papers/presentations. The professor, Jerome Creach, cut a tendon in his finger on Saturday and had to see a specialist this pm with possible surgery needed. Bummer. We had just gotten going.

Had some good conversation on modern, post-modern, and pre-modern (pre-critical) exegetical models, assumptions and methods. Really helfpul to see that many of us are on the same page with the pre-critical methodology being the superior approach. So many of us were educated in the modern (critical) methods that wreaked havoc on theology and biblical studies in the 1950-1990 era. I think few educated pastors would attempt that process today. The major problem is the post-modern approach that is stuck in too many young pastors educational quivers.

The long and the short of it is this:

Modern - Enlightenment Model:

Authority is found in human reason
Interpreter must be objective (in other words subject only to science - hmmmm)
There is only one valid original meaning

While the scientific (i.e. cultural) elements are important in determining original context, the problems with this line of thinking is that it is definitely not objective in that it ignores the experience of the interpreter and the religious tradition of understanding not to mention one would need to throw out the whole concept of plenary inspiration.

Post-Modern Model:

Authority is to be found in the interpreter's own experience
The interpreter admits his/her own subjectivity and uses reason to explain subjectivity or experience
There is no single meaning and perhaps no invalid meaning

While the interpreter has increased freedom to explore his/her own experience in light of the text, the problems with this line of thinking is that it can easily enable sophistry and elevate subjective experience above context. Lately the trend has also been toward issues of power and much of everything is read in terms of unjust power relationships. (Herein lies the dishonor of much of the liberation and feminist theology we read).

Pre-Modern (Pre-Critical) Model:

Authority is to be found in Divine Revelation (both as given and as received by interpreter)
The interpreter is subject to the text
The text has more than one valid meaning (i.e. plain sense, ethical sense, symbolic sense)

In this model the Scriptures are seen as an extension of the incarnation and both Old Testament and New Testament are understood to be God's revelation of Himself to His people. It allows for both literal and figurative uses of the scripture while being mindful of the reality that the scripture can never mean something contrary to its original context.

And so I now have a name for my hermeneutical approach, Pre-Critical Exegesis...

Okay, so for those who are not yet asleep, I bid you adieu

Back in the 'burgh...

2011-06-12T20:07:00.005-04:00

So I'm back at the Seminary working on this doctorate. I've always wanted to do this and it is a delightful experience, but it gets me wondering...I'll try to blog on the experience as I am able to over the next two weeks.

I've got a 3rd floor room which means a microwave and fridge but no television. Perfect! The other students have begun to arrive. We have a military chaplain, a young recently married RCA pastor, two female pastors (one from the Westminster Church here in Pittsburgh, where I served from 1986-90), a PCA pastor (who is always a great encouragement in faith) a host of PC(USA) pastors from a variety of backgrounds.

This week we have our Biblical Studies Seminar with Jerome Creech and next week our Project Seminar with Susan Kendall. Both seminars will focus on preparation for the projects, which we will need to have focused and outlined by September and then completed and written up by March. In addition to this we will need to take two more courses which focus on the area of our project during that interim period.

And I am still vacillating on the project:

"Herding Cats: Discipleship in the PC(USA)" or
Prophetic Arrivals, Pathetic Departures: Reimagining the Call Process on the Local Level" or
"Short-term Mission Study Tours as Personal Transformation..."

Since we had to have a brief 3-4 page introductory Biblical Defense of the project prepared for our first course and a 100 word synopsis of it for our second course, I chose the easy one on Short-term Mission, but I'm not sure where my heart lies in all of this. So many possibilities. I just know that it has to be something I am passionate about if I'm going to spend the next 9 months being attentive to it.

So stay tuned. Comments, criticism, clarifying questions and even absolute nonsense are always welcome.

Great end to a great day... more new members and another (especially meaningful) adult baptism...

God is GOOOOOD!

Testimony of a Friend in Thailand...

2011-06-09T16:33:00.000-04:00

A friend of ours in Thailand recently penned a touching piece on her experience with Moms in Touch in Chiang Mai, Thailand. It is a poignant reminder of the importance of praise in our lives...

My Experience with Moms in Touch

In the morning we hear the sound of a gong, signifying Buddhist monks coming down our street. They are dressed in their distinctive orange saffron robes. Our neighbors dish out cooked rice and other food in the silver colored bowls the monks carry, then bow before the monks as the monks deliver a blessing. Although I've seen this sight numerous times, the level of devotion given by the act of bowing before another human being still disturbs me.

Everyday we are surrounded by the sights, sounds and smells of the religious aspects of this nation: a spirit house in every yard with offerings of food and drink to appease ancestral spirits, who apparently enjoy coke and orange Fanta; the aroma of incense; the large, foreboding statues of strange, evil-looking creatures along temple walls, with even larger statues of Buddha inside; the sound of chanting emanating from inside the temples; and, at times, the muslim call to prayer reaches our ears from one of the five mosques located in Chiang Mai. Every day we see people giving homage and respect to gods that are represented in the forms of idols made of metal, stone or wood; yet we ourselves serve the Creator, the Redeemer, the one and only God.

Once a week I arise at 5:30 a.m. and head off for our early morning prayer meeting. We are a bit different from the average Moms in Touch group since all of our members home school and are all missionaries. Meeting before dawn allows us to return home before our children start their school day under our supervision. Losing a little sleep for one day is a small sacrifice to pay for the precious time of prayer that occurs during our weekly meetings. I have been a part of this group for almost 10 years now, and I consider it a vital aspect of my entire ministry. The support, encouragement, and answers to prayer I have received have provided what I need to continue to serve in a country that is not my own. My Moms in Touch group is an oasis for me. It is haven where I can give praise to the God I love with others who serve the same God as me.

When the group started, learning to use the praise time adequately was a challenge. Now we have decided to extend our meeting time as our praise section often takes up a good half hour or more of our meeting and none of us wants to curtail it. We live in a nation that gives great outward devotion to demonic forces, so, for us, praise is a weapon of warfare to stand against the enemy by giving glory and praise to the only true God. God has spoken to our group that our praise is vital, and we feel praise is even more important than our time of intercession. Although every aspect of the Moms in Touch prayer format is important to us, our time of praise is guarded vigilantly.

Lifting up His name and attributes in this land of spiritual darkness has blessed us in numerous ways. The unity in our group is amazing, even though we all come from different mission agencies and church backgrounds. Praising the same God binds our hearts together in ways that are beyond our comprehension. We have seen the Lord come through for us and our children even when a request never made it as part of the prayer meeting, but the God of our praise was there for us. We have watched God change the hearts of our children and draw them to Himself in ways we would never have imagined. When oppression from the enemy has been strong, God has broken through and given us victory. Answered prayers, encouraged hearts, lives brought to Christ--all have been birthed in those early morning prayer times that began with praise.

Our group also is willing to expand our prayer focus at times to include things going on in our community, nation and world. After all, these events have an effect on our children too, so we often pray for these things in relation to how our children can be involved in matters beyond themselves. Our desire is to raise up children who will carry the light of Christ into the next generation and throughout the world. Our group is small, ranging from three to six praying moms, but we know size is not important when it comes to prayer and trust the Lord to accomplish big things through our small group.

I am very thankful for the Moms in Touch ministry and encouraged that there are prayer groups around the globe that are investing in this ministry of prayer for our children. We will probably never know the full impact of this ministry until we reach heaven, but I can certainly say I have been blessed by my one little group tucked away in this corner of the world.

Blessings,

Barbara M.

Chiang Mai, Thailand

P.S. If you are interested in learning more about the Moms in Touch ministry, visit their website at: www.MomsInTouch.org

The Confessing Church Movement

2011-06-09T11:35:00.000-04:00

Viola Larson, over at "Naming His Grace" has some provocative thoughts on the role of the confessing church in Germany and the cultural/social tensions that may relate to American society in general and the PC(USA) in particular... food for tought.

The Confessing Church in Germany & the orthodox in the PC (U.S.A.)

Many orthodox Christians, in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), in conversation with one another, find themselves often referring to the Confessing Church of Germany. The analogy, while not complete, is nonetheless helpful.

German Christians took their theological and political position by reinterpreting scripture, insisting some scripture was less than the word of God and claiming new revelation. They promoted nationalism, anti-Semitism and a Christianity that fit their cultural milieu. The Progressives of today have on the whole reinterpreted scripture, they insist that some scripture texts are not useful or relevant and they often refer to the new thing that God is doing or to God’s on going revelation. With this ‘new revelation’ they are aligning the denomination with the decadent morals of western culture. Using Kyle Jantzen’s book Faith and Fatherland: Parish Politics in Hitler’s Germany I want to show how the analogy is possible and then at the end offer some lessons the orthodox might draw from Janzen’s history.

Kyle Jantzen in his book looks at three local parishes in Nazi Germany. He reveals the battles that were fought between local members of the Confessing Church and German Christians. As someone has pointed out it was messy. The Confessing Churches in many cases were churches within churches. Confessing pastors and members often fought very personal battles, some with their parishioners standing behind them, some with moderate leadership protecting them. And discernment often failed.

One very radical German Christian pastor was accepted in a parish because his candidacy sermon seemed biblical and he used the Apostles Creed and the trinitarian version of the invocation. The author writes, “It soon came to light that Pastor Gille was in fact from the extreme racial wing of the German Christians. He had in the past regularly deviated from the Apostle’s Creed because he did not fully subscribe to it and generally conducted syncretistic German Christian religious celebrations rather than the prescribed services of the Old Prussian Union Church.” The protest from parishioners reveals the heretical views of the German Christians.

In the petitions against the German Christian pastor many of the complaints were about his lack of orthodoxy. Jantzen writes, “One accused Gille of neglecting to preach about Jesus Christ, of belittling God by conflating divine and human faithfulness, and of emphasizing human obedience as the way to God rather than Jesus’ atoning death and resurrection.” On the other hand those pastors who were faithful to biblical and confessional standards continually spoke the truth, refused to cooperate with higher church bodies and worked to protect their parishioners.

One particular Pastor, Herbert Posth of Berge, refused to send money to higher church organizations, refused to handover his parish responsibilities to German Christian leadership and fought continuously to keep German Christian pastors out of other confessing churches. Posth used his vow of ordination including the upholding of biblical and confessional truth as his foundational reason for his faith stand. Other Confessing pastors ministering at the local level struggled in the same way. All of them in the end, as the struggle continued, insisted that it was the German Christians who had become the false Church and that they themselves were the true church which upheld the Bible and the Confessions.

Some local pastors and leaders were never members of the Confessing Church but because of their orthodoxy protected those pastors who were a part of the Confessing Church. Such non-Confessing pastors detested the German Christians because of their heretical views and because of their aggressive political manipulative activism. Jantzen writes of one such pastor and leader, Ulrich Bettac.

Bettac, as Jantzen points out, used three means of stopping the aggressive takeover of his district. The author writes: “by advancing pastoral candidates who would support the Confessing Church in their parishes, by transforming the divisive monthly pastoral conferences into informal ‘brotherly get-togethers’ which drew in neutral and Confessing Church clergy, and by opposing German Clergy in interpersonal conflicts among pastors in the Nauen district.” There are some important points here.

Bettac intentionally stayed with the Prussian Church government rather then join the Confessing Church which rejected the church government. However, Bettac referred to the ‘brotherly get-togethers’ as confessional church convents. He only invited those who were neutral or confessing church pastors, that is those who actually rejected his leadership. And he chastised confessing church pastors because they did not nominate their members to the synod which would have prevented the German Christians from taking over the synod. On the other hand, without the Confessing Church, there would have been no formal protest against the German Christians.

In all of the above I believe there are lessons:

• The Confessing Church in Germany lived in messy times-so do we and that is not unusual-read some Reformation history.

• The local Confessing Church pastors and elders stood on their ordination vows, the Bible and the Confessions. That was their foundation. Sometimes they lost their churches and/or went to jail, sometimes they won.

• Those pastors who had parishioners in agreement with them were helped by them. Your church cannot help you if they don’t know what is going on. Neither will they know how to help if they have not been taught the essentials of the faith. Teach the Bible and the Confessions.

• Not giving money to higher denominational bodies which advocate for heretical views was and is important. Where your heart is there will your treasure be.

• Discernment. Discernment. Discernment. Ask questions.

• Do not speak against those you know to be theologically orthodox just because they stay in full fellowship in the PCUSA. You do not know where God is calling them or how he will use them.

• Do not speak against those you know to be theologically orthodox, who join, if possible, theological synods or presbyteries. You do not know where God is calling them or how he will use them.

• Do not speak against those who you know to be theologically orthodox who leave the PCUSA. You do not know where God is calling them or how he will use them.

• The Confessing Church had a particular confession which confessed Christ in the midst of claims of new revelation. In the midst of new claims to new revelation we also need a new confession; we need to once again confess Christ.

• Rest in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Listening to the Sermon

2011-06-01T13:11:00.005-04:00

We often hear a comment on the adequacy of a sermon, but how often do we evaluate the “hearing” of the sermon? In this 1^st part of a series on “How Do You Listen to a Sermon” Earl Johnson cuts right to the chase… for the Presbyterian Outlook -

How Do You Listen To A Sermon? Part 1

Written by Earl S. Johnson Jr.

Monday, 30 May 2011 23:00

Most church officers and members of a church have heard enough sermons over the years to recognize a good one when they hear it. But what exactly is involved in sermon reception, and what is the responsibility of the listeners? Most Presbyterians think they know what the pastors are supposed to do (see W-2.2007 for an exact definition.) But what is required of those sitting in the pews each week? In the Directory for Worship we are told that “listening to the reading of Scripture requires expectation and concentration” (W-2.2006). What are some useful criteria for hearing and responding to a sermon?

Perhaps the best place to start is to define what a good sermon is not. It may be irrelevant, for example, that a sermon is entertaining if it does not reach the hearts and lives of the hearers and has no spiritual depth. It may not matter how short and easily digestible it is if it contains no discernible Word from the Lord. It may be inconsequential that the preacher is a great storyteller or a media expert if the message is long on anecdotes and images and short on theology.

When you are listening, consider the following checklist.

» Is the sermon based on Scripture, or is it a group of stories looking for a Bible text to authenticate a previously conceived message? Does the sermon take Reformed principles of reading the Bible seriously? Is it based on careful exegesis that reflects the latest and best analysis of the biblical text? Does the preacher know what the text means in its own historical and literary contexts, or is it cloaked with generalities like “The Bible says,” or “Scripture claims that,” etc.? Does it reflect the assertion in the Confession of 1967 that the Bible is not a witness among many but “the witness without parallel” (C-9.27)?

» Is the sermon portable? Will you talk about it on the way, at the dinner table, at work, in the kitchen, at school, in the gym or on vacation? Does it touch your lives directly or does it seem abstruse, impractical or banal? Will it satisfy the longing expressed in Jeremiah 37:17, “Is there any word from the Lord?” Does it address the critical question, “What is God saying to us today through this Scripture?”

» Does the sermon challenge you to use the best gifts that God is giving you; does it contain any summons to obedience; does it bring what the author of Hebrews calls “exhortation” (Hebrews 13:22) , i.e., a demand for spiritual and moral excellence? Does it call you to confess what you have done or have left undone; does it urge you to turn around and change your ways?

» One final criterion for a good sermon is one that my mother insisted on as a Presbyterian elder and one I have attempted to remember in all my years of preaching: “Does the sermon have Jesus Christ at center?” In 1982 the General Assembly of the United Presbyterian Church adopted a statement that put it succinctly, saying that a primary guideline for hearing God’s Word is that we remember that Jesus Christ is the center of Scripture and that all interpretations of it should be in accord with his twofold rule of love, loving God and loving neighbor (Biblical Authority and Interpretation, Office of Theology and Worship, 1998, 60-61).

What do you hear when you listen to a sermon? Are you prepared to take it seriously and discuss it critically with other members? If someone asks for your opinion (it might even be the pastor), do you have the tools to offer thoughtful and critical feedback based on Reformed principles of preaching and listening?

It's Nominating Time...

2011-06-01T13:01:00.000-04:00

Food for thought from the Moderator of the PC(USA) - the orginal link can be found here

“I’m just an elder.”

Have you heard someone say that? Have you said it yourself? Maybe in response to being asked to lead worship, or preach, or visit someone in the hospital?

“No,” you reply, “I couldn’t do that. I’m just an elder. Those are things the pastor does.”

Our Presbyterian polity doesn’t recognize the statement, “I’m just an elder.” In our polity, ruling elders and teaching elders (also known as Ministers of the Word and Sacrament) share equally in the governance and spiritual leadership of the church. Our calls to ministry encompass different functions and tasks, but we are called equally to ministry and to leadership in the church.

For too long the ministry of ruling elder has been diminished, equated with serving on a non-profit board of directors. Yes, the session does perform tasks like hiring nursery attendants and deciding whether the amount of insurance coverage is adequate. But that is not the primary task of the session or of the ruling elders who serve on it.

Ruling elders have the awesome task of measuring our community of faith’s fidelity to the Word of God. As the proposed new Form of Government puts it, “Ruling elders, together with teaching elders, exercise leadership, government, spiritual discernment, and discipline and have responsibilities for the life of a congregation as well as the whole church, including ecumenical relationships” (G-2.0301).

There’s no “just” anywhere in that sentence.

Being a ruling elder is not easy. But we are not in this alone. Others are there to guide us as we seek to carry out our high calling.

The Future of the PC(USA)???

2011-05-26T09:00:00.002-04:00

I remember seeing the proverbial "handwriting on the wall" (Daniel 5:24-28) back in 1988 while in ministry with the Waltham Presbyterian Church - Blackhawk Presbytery. It came in the form of the statement "A Call to Renewal" which formed the basis of a, then, new organization called Presbyterians for Renewal. For the past 23 years PFR (as is has come to be known) has sounded both the call to renewal and the call to stay with the denomination. They have recently announced that their director, Paul Detterman, will also serve in an interim capacity with The Fellowship - authors of the "White Paper" and planners of this August's Minneapolis gathering.

So I found that "Call to Renewal" and reviewed it, yet again. Amazing how this stuff has been circulating for years but seems to have found its way into the "circular files" of too many pastors rather than the meetings tables of their Sessions...

So for our mutual edification I present -

A CALL TO RENEWAL

WE CONFESS that too often we have not practiced what we demanded of others.

WE CONFESS that we have been too quick to condemn those with whom we differ, and too slow to pray for them and ourselves.

WE CONFESS that we have contributed to the problems within our denomination by our isolationism, our prideful independence, and our greater concern with our congregations and local spheres of influence than with the connectional corporate witness of the church.

NEVERTHELESS, by this Call to Renewal we are bold to affirm our faith and our strong concerns for certain areas in our church’s life and witness.

We affirm the historic Presbyterian confession of a Triune God: the Father, who created all things; Jesus Christ, his Son, who alone is Savior and Lord; and; the Holy Spirit who empowers the church for its mission in the world.

We affirm that this God is revealed in Holy Scripture, which is in a unique sense the word of God, and the only infallible rule of faith and practice.

We affirm the Reformed confessions as reliable guides to the Christian faith revealed in Scripture

I. THE UNIQUENESS OF CHRIST

We affirm the historic position of the Presbyterian Church that Jesus Christ is the incarnate Son of God and the only Savior and Lord of the world. We believe that God calls people into a living relationship with him by faith, and that the proclamation of this message is the starting point for the work of the church.

We repudiate the creeping universalism found in some parts of the church’s life and program, which we believe has compromised our obedience to the Great Commission, seriously inhibiting our efforts in evangelism and directly contributing to the church’s disastrous decline in membership over the past two decades. We believe it has also drastically diminished our involvement in world missions.

We repudiate the tendency to pursue social justice to the neglect of evangelism; and with equal force we also repudiate the failure to pursue social justice in preoccupation with evangelism.

II. THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE

We affirm the authority of Scripture as the foundation of our faith and life, in a world hungry for absolute truth in the face of relativism and chaos.

We, therefore, repudiate any attempt to build the church on secular foundations:

By giving precedence to the insights of secular resources, neglecting the witness of Scripture as the basis for its ministry and program:
By abandoning biblical language about God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in order to conform to current ideologies; or,
By so compromising with theological pluralism that we lose the distinctive standard set for the faith by our Reformed confessions.

III. THE HOLY LIFE

We rejoice in the thirst expressed throughout our church for spiritual vitality, resulting in lives of more disciplined godliness.

We repudiate the empty formalism which results from failure to seek presence and power of the Holy Spirit.

We repudiate the denial of individual responsibility for personal morality.

We repudiate the acceptance of homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle and the efforts of some within the church to promote the ordination of practicing homosexuals to church office, as we would object to the ordination of one known to be cohabiting heterosexually out of marriage.

IV. THE CHURCH

We proclaim our loyalty to the Presbyterian Church (USA) as an integral part of the body of Christ, and recognize that our separation from the church would be a critical wounding for that body. Therefore:

We affirm the importance of connectionalism as an essential element of church structure.

But we repudiate the inversion of that connectionalism which seems to expect the constituency to support and follow the administrative structure, when that structure should exist to serve the constituency, discovering and implementing the convictions of that constituency.

We affirm the role of the Session as the primary governing body responsible for the oversight of the local church.

We repudiate the disproportionate growth of staff and budget at Presbytery and Synod levels at a time when church membership is declining and the gulf between membership and leadership is perceived as widening.

We affirm that we are blessed and enriched by our diversity. We believe we are called to be an inclusive people: to nurture, equip, and elect to leadership, as their spiritual gifts might recommend them, women and men of all racial and ethnic backgrounds.

We insist that in the leadership selection process the criterion of spiritual maturity be given primacy.

We repudiate the application of any system which fails to accept this primacy.

We commend these concerns to the church at large, and offer them as a rallying point for those who share our hope for continuing reformation and renewal in the Presbyterian Church (USA).

Tony Evans, Sexual Sins, and the Church of Jesus Christ

2011-05-25T08:49:00.000-04:00

Well, Dr. Harold Camping was wrong, the world did not end... And many of the pundits discussing the end of the PC(USA) seem to have been a bit off as well. It seems that those opposed to 10-A (including the author of this blog) have only hardened their resolve to make sure the congregations they serve hold the banner of Christ high. Many of those will meet in Minneapolis this summer to discuss the formation of what may amount to a network within the denomination of those committed to a sound Biblical Morality and Shared Missiology.

As I have been considering how I will lead the congregation I serve I came across an organization called "rightnow.org." In on of the dvds, Dr. Tony Evans, Sr. Pastor of Oak Cliff Bible Fellowship, Dallas, TX, addresses a large gathering of pastors and church leaders makes the statement:

     Jesus says this is my ecclesia (church) and the gates of hades (hell) shall not prevail
     against it. Therefore, if hell is winning we're not building His church, we're building
     our church using His name...

It seems to me that we too often confuse the structure of denominationalism with the reality of the church of Jesus Christ and try to build our church in His name. In recent years this has been the slippery slope of institutional churchism that has yielded a great focus on programming and subsequent churchianity. When the structure become perverted, however, the gates of hell do prevail against the institution and the very things which the Lord has commanded us to observe become optional and in fact subordinate to the success of the institution. Unity begins to take precedence over purity rather than being a partner of it.

Sexual sin has been around as long as sexuality. There are ample Scriptural sources that this is a major sin, but 1 Timothy probably says it best in explaining the need for the "law.." Remembering that the purpose of the law was to bring us to an acknowledgement of our sins and repentance, Paul reminds us...

     "⁹ We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels,
     the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers,
     for murderers, ¹⁰ for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave
     traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine
¹¹ that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God..."

Sexual sin is mentioned again (and quite frequently) in the Book of the Revelation to John

Rev. 2:14 - Nevertheless, I have a few things against you: There are some among you who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin so that they ate food sacrificed to idols and committed sexual immorality.

2:20 - Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols.

9:21 - Nor did they repent of their murders, their magic arts, their sexual immorality or their thefts.

21:8 - But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”

22:15 - Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.

Sexual sins have constantly disrupted the church's ministry and God's word clearly indicates that sexual sins are besetting sins, sins that alienate us from God in eternal ways. But the church of Jesus Christ is still alive and well. Why? Because true believers accept the authority of Scripture and constantly seek its "teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16).

Interestingly enough, the particular congregations so condemned for these sins in Revelation no longer exist, and so too will congregations who continue to endorse human standards such as "justice-love" over obedience to His commands. To repeat, Tony Evans' comment: "... if hell is winning we're not building His church, we're building our church using His name..." Something to think about.

The Huffington Post Makes a Good Point!

2011-05-24T10:51:00.004-04:00

I'm not a great fan of the Huffington Post. It seems, all too often, to live up to the first part of it's name "Huffing." Huffing is a term used to refer to the abuse of inhalants. The National Drug Intelligence Center defines huffing as: "the purposeful inhalation of chemical vapors to achieve an altered mental or physical state, which for most abusers is a euphoric effect." All too often it appears that some of those writing for the Post have been "huffing." Okay, I understand that is unkind but it does reflect my own frustration with some of the silliness I read on the site. (Remember these are "rants" and as such aren't meant to follow the PC of public discourse...)

"Anywho," as my mother used to say, Phil Cooke really made a great point on his response to Dr. Harold Camping's miscalculation of the rapture... It really is worth a read. The link to the site is here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/phil-cooke-phd/what-harold-camping-got-right_b_865111.html

And here's what it says. It makes some GREAT points, that today's church needs to hear.

What Harold Camping Got Right

The deadline has passed, the world has survived, and radio preacher Harold Camping was denied his apocalypse. All mainstream, orthodox Christians disagreed (including myself) with Mr. Camping's prediction. We believe that the Bible is right when it says that only the Father knows the day and time of His return. For Camping's followers however, it took 6pm Saturday to see that once again he got it wrong.

But let me tell you what he got right:

Getting the message out there.

Over the last few months, a remarkably tiny group of people have done a brilliant job sharing their message with the world. Inaccurate, wrong, or wacky -- they have told their story far better than major Christian denominations, mega-churches, and supposed "media" ministries have done. I travel more than most people, and I've seen their billboard campaign in cities like Los Angeles, the full page ads in major newspapers like USA Today, people handing out handbills outside subway stations in New York, mobile advertising, personal word of mouth, and more. It may not be the most creative or brilliantly designed, but at least it's unified and strategic.

All from a fringe radio preacher that 99 percent of Americans had never heard of six months ago.
In the meantime, what has the rest of the Christian world been doing to get their their message out?

The Methodist's seem to be trying to redefine church itself. Their advertising campaign "Re-Think Church" (can't remember that one, huh?) was more interested in social justice, in a vain attempt to appear relevant.

It's tough to find anything from the Episcopal Church, even though they've had a denomination-wide ad project since 1979 that seems to have resulted in an "advertising collaborative." They did try their warm and fuzzy "I am Episcopalian" series, but you don't remember that one either, right? At least on YouTube you can find a video of an Episcopal Bishop talking about "honoring your spiritual journey" -- whatever that means.

The Presbyterians haven't been sharing their message much lately, because they seem to be far more interested in making sure we all know that they're ordaining a handful of gay, lesbian, and transgender pastors. Apparently, appearing inclusive is more important than actually sharing a message of salvation.

Catholics seem to be more intent on just bringing back their lapsed members with their "Catholics Come Home" campaign.

The Baptists? Forget it. They can't even decide on a logo. After all, how are you going to agree on a common message nationally, when you can't get two Baptist churches in the same town to agree on what it should be?

The bottom line is that most of these anemic efforts are so focused on trying to convince us that Christians are "just like you" that they've completely lost any unique, compelling, or provocative message about the life-changing experience of following Jesus Christ.

So when it comes to telling his story and getting that story heard, fringe radio preacher Harold Camping and his small band of followers have embarrassed the largest denominations, churches, and Christian ministries in America.

This morning, his story was on the front page of the Los Angeles Times -- and most likely every other major paper in America. His story leads CNN and other news networks today. His story is being talked about on Twitter hashtags, blogs, social media sites, and on the street.

Why? Because Harold Camping and his followers really believe their message. When that happens, you're not afraid to spend money, creativity, passion, and energy to make sure your story impacts people's lives.

It's just a shame that it's the wrong message.

And even more of a shame the rest of us have done such a poor job of getting the right one out.

The Headline read...

2011-05-23T16:35:00.001-04:00

..."10 people we wouldn't know without Oprah Winfrey"

I was mildly amused since I have so little respect for people whose primary popularity has to do with what, how much, and to whom they give stuff... It's like purchased popularity. But I fell for the headline anway and clicked on the CNN news link.

What a surprise... well not really. I had only heard of one of the people listed - Some Dr. Oz. I see him from time to time dressed in scrubs doing some infomercial type of traveling medicine show as we are flipping stations during commercial breaks.

What does it say about my cultural adjustment that 10 people CNN seems to think we all know because of Oprah, I haven't a clue about? And even more important, why am I even the least bit concerned???

I wonder...

2011-05-21T18:11:00.002-04:00

The most common subject in the blogger world this week (and perhaps next) has been the issue of the rapture predicted by Dr. Harold Camping. But amidst all of this I wonder, do we dare ask:

How many "not yet" believers actually wondered "what if it's true?" and may actually be turned to find out more because of this?

How many hard-hearted pagans posing as believers scoffed secretly fearing their own standing?

How many believers even know enough to be able to discern the signs of the times?

How many people will stay away from worship tomorrow due to what they perceive is a failed "religious prediction" without taking the time to ask whether or not they will be ready when it does happen?

How many truly lost souls, comfortable in their complacency with faith just don't care?

How many will pray for Dr. Camping and those whose predictions may have caused some very costly mistakes?

How many will be able to forgive as they have themselves been forgiven?

How many will still dare to declare the day is coming and we should live each day as if it were the last day we had to serve, because someday it will be that day for every single one of us...

It's 6:00 pm

2011-05-21T18:00:00.001-04:00

I'm toying with not showing up at worship tomorrow...

It's 6:00 pm

From the files...

2011-05-20T21:39:00.002-04:00

I pulled this old "Witness for a Biblical Morality" statement out of my files and found myself asking, "so what has changed?" Really nothing. This continues to reflect my personal understanding of a gracious standard for any congregation, judicatory body or even denomination... So I'm thinking of adding a page to the blog and posting this as my marital standard... It'll take a bit more tweaking but I really like the way it is worded... Thoughts?

WITNESS FOR BIBLICAL MORALITY

SESSION RESOLUTION

We, the Session of ___________________________________________ resolve and declare that we seek to be a congregation which is committed to follow Biblically revealed standards of moral thought, behavior, and relationships within our homes and church, God helping us.

Believing that:

"Christian marriage is an institution ordained of God, blessed by our Lord Jesus Christ, established and sanctified for the happiness and welfare of mankind, into which spiritual and physical union one man and one woman enter, cherishing a mutual esteem and love, bearing with each other's infirmities and weaknesses, comforting each other in trouble, providing in honesty and industry for each other and for their household, praying for each other, and living together the length of their days as heirs of the grace of life." (Westminster Confession of Faith.XXIV-BOC,6.131);

"Because the corruption of man is apt unduly to put asunder those whom God hath joined together in marriage, and because the Church is concerned with the establishment of marriage in the Lord as Scripture sets it forth, and with the present penitence as well as with the past innocence or guilt of those whose marriage has been broken; therefore as a breach of that holy relation may occasion divorce, so remarriage after a divorce granted on grounds explicitly stated in Scripture or implicit in the gospel of Christ may be sanctioned in keeping with his redemptive gospel, when sufficient penitence for sin and failure is evident, and a firm purpose of and endeavor after Christian marriage is manifest." (Westminster Confession of Faith, XXIKV-BOC, 6.132); and

"The relationship between man and woman exemplifies in a basic way God's ordering of the interpersonal life for which he created mankind. Anarchy in sexual relationships is a symptom of man's alienation from God, his neighbor, and himself.... The church, as the household of God, is called to lead men out of this alienation into the responsible freedom of the new life in Christ. Reconciled to God, each person has joy in and respect for his own humanity and that of other persons; a man and woman are enabled to marry, to commit themselves to a mutually shared life, and to respond to each other in sensitive and lifelong concern; parents receive the grace to care for children in love and to nurture their individuality. The church comes under the judgment of God and invites rejection by man when it fails to lead men and women into the full meaning of life together, or withholds the compassion of Christ from those caught in the moral confusion

of our time." (The Confession of 1967 - BOC, 9.47)

We do now call ourselves and our congregation to a life that:

1) Respects all family members in an atmosphere of love, forgiveness, and grace and so

avoids any kind of abuse of children, spouses, and/or parents;

2) Confirms God's intention for humanity that those who enter into marriage shall seek in

mutual love and respect to live, one man and one woman, in Christian fidelity as long as both shall live;

3) Fulfills God's design for the gift of sexuality to be exercised and enjoyed only within

the covenant relationship of Christian marriage of one man and one woman;

4) Acknowledges God's expectation that the unmarried shall live a pure and celibate life

refraining from sexual intimacy, whether such perceive his/her sexuality to be inclined toward heterosexuality or homosexuality;

5) Obeys the voice of God through Scripture to extend the privilege of ordination to church office only to repentant sinners, whether heterosexual or homosexual, and to withhold this ordination privilege from the unrepentant whose practice of sexual sin prevents their manner of life from being a demonstration of the Christian gospel in the church and in the world; Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament.

6) Extends to all who sin in failing to keep these revealed standards of God regarding family abuse, Christian marriage, human sexuality, celibate continence, and ordination to church office that same forgiving love that the father extended to the prodigal son, and that same costly grace which Christ himself extended to the woman taken in adultery when he said to her: "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more."

We hereby make this declaration and adopt this standard this ________th day of ______________, __________.

So a group of us met...

2011-05-19T19:43:00.002-04:00

A number of concerned pastors in the presbytery in which I labor met this morning to discuss a way forward in shadow of the error of 10-A.

Within an hour and a half we had decided as a group that we would:

move toward having the Presbytery pass on to the Synod and G.A. only the per captia which it actually receives (assuming that there will be an increasing number of congregations choosing to withhold which would create an unhealthy burden on the Presbytery's budget);
develop a theological declaration of conscience for willing Sessions and Pastors to sign and perhaps adopt as a Presbytery;
move toward toward the adoption of the former G-6.0106b as a standard for ordination in this presbytery;
move toward the temporary adoption of the San Diego and Sanata Barbara Presbyteries' materials on preparation for and examination of candidates for ordination and installation; and
in the midst of all of this, begin to develop our own set of ordination standards.

Okay, before you all get your proverbial "knickers in a knot" we know about the GA PJC's decision on judicatory bodies remittance of per capita dollars in cases where individual congregations are remiss AND we know that the nFoG has not yet been adopted. But it seems that in order to exist in the environment of mistrust which is a reality for us today these are matters that need to be taken care of.

Exciting days. Finally something to sink our teeth into. Interesting related sidebar -- we have recently received two pastors from the PCA into our presbytery. They are doing great work and don't seem to regret the move at all, even when one was installed just two days before the guillotine fell on the faithful interpretation of Scripture in a majority of the PC(USA) presbyteries.

Congratulations to those who chose and will continue to choose to remain obedient to the Lord and to Scripture - there is a remnant to celebrate! And a caution to those who dare to trade the truth of God for a lie...

There are somethings...

2011-05-18T17:16:00.005-04:00

...that I just can't get past. Like the following headline in today's Telegraph (thanks, Church and World dot com) Academics claim callling animals, pets is insulting...

Really, I'm serious. You can't make this stuff up. It's also insulting to call animals in the wild "wildlife." Seems it's equally as insulting. People are starving in a world with ample food resources to feed them, more children are aborted each year than people were killed in the entire Vietnam War, The United Nations has an absolutely out of control budget (complete with PORK excesses everywhere), the USA is about to or already has passed the legally allowable debt ceiling (it's in the quarda-mega-super zillions reminding me of the unpayable debt of the Unmerciful Servant of Matthew 18:20ff), and we're worrying about how the animals feel about our references to them.

I would apologize for my insensitivity but I have a boxer, as a "pet" and it is dumber than a box of rocks. I love my boxer. She is a rescue dog who was left to starve tied up on the side of a garage in KY, her left foot having been caught in a trap and who seems to have been used as a puppy factory. I'll bet she was not seen as a "pet" by her previous owner...

The gist of the article is that when we refer to animals with such contempt as "pet" or "wildlife" the pejorative nature of our relationships are likely translated into mistreatment. I repeat, my pet the boxer is dumber than a box of rocks. I sometimes call her "stoopid" as in "you are soooo stooopid" while we laugh at the fact that she was looking at us as she walked into a wall... I bring her up to bed about 6:00 am and she cuddles up at the foot of the bed while I get my wife her first cup of coffee...guess that make me an abuser. She's almost the queen of the house, but the real queen is of course the "other pet" our Puggle.

I cannot figure out how academics, like this, justify their outrageous salaries and tenured positions guaranteeing us nonsense like this. Really? If it isn't academics, who, in fearing an impending death, declare there is no heaven, hoping to ward off the just punishment and eternal consequences of their self-absorbed life and their pride, then it's meaningless drivel like "the term pet is an insult..." Hmmm...

Just food for thought.

Trying to keep the main thing, the main thing is increasingly difficult in today's pseudo-academic, so-called scholarly environment. Sorry but it's that darn cynicism I picked up in returning from poverty strickened regions to the affluent and largely calloused, misdirected, and comfortably complacent west...Where our pets hear and understand...

Oh and if you are able to read far enough into the article you'll see that the term "eating like a pig" is an insult to the pig! Where do these people grow up? Suburbia? Probably in the academic environment of their parents. Ever seen pigs eat? The term refers to the hurried non waiting ill mannered approach many have to dinner. "Waiting like one pig waits for another." Seems to me that these so-called academics ought to study a little about the derivation of the term before they condemn it. Pigs really are much more sloppy (that's why we call it slopping the hogs) and less patient than humans...

Next up? Don't call a tree, a "tree." Call it a living specimen...

Wranting again... hmmm. I kind of like this venting.

D.Min. Work Day...

2011-05-17T11:11:00.009-04:00

So for my next set of classes on the Doctor of Ministry degree I need to bring (for the Biblical Seminar) a 3-4 page rough draft introduction of the "Biblical defense" section of my project paper... Now keep in mind that following the Biblical Seminar is the actual Project Seminar where we begin work on fleshing out the project. Is this the proverbial cart before the horse? (I'm just askin'...)

Based on amazing personal experiences in ministry and mission with the PC(USA) and seeing the impact on congregations and pastors alike, I have put forth several conceptual frameworks for this project, including:

1. VOCATIONAL IDENTIFICATION IN THE CONTEXT OF PARISH MINISTRY: IS MUTUAL DISCERNMENT WITH THE CONGREGATION POSSIBLE?

Can a pastor discern with his or her congregation whether or not it's time to seek a new ministry or maybe that ministry is not the vocation he or she is called to?

Or maybe with all that is happening with short term mission exposure trips, is it possible for a pastor to discuss with the congregation he or she is serving whether or not he or she might be called to mission service in a way which is similar to what we ask non-clergy types to do?

2. Prophetic Arrival – PRAGMATIC Departure: Discerning the Call of the Pastor to International Mission Service in the Context of

Congregational Ministry.

Or maybe I will stick with something that might produce less anxiety for the congregation I am
currently serving...

3. SHORT-TERM MISSION EXPOSURE TRIPS AS EXPERIENTIAL TRANSFORMATION: CAN A SHORT TERM MISSION STUDY TRIP BE USED AS A MEANS OF PERSONAL TRANSFORMATION FOR PARTICIPATING MEMBERS OF THE CONGREGATION?

Of course #3 has received the most positive response from the D.Min. congregational committee. The first two pretty much got shot down (by some outside the congregation) as being too personal and not affecting the life of the congregation sufficiently. I would argue otherwise but hey let's let it go.

So now, in light of 10-A, as I work on these papers (Tuesday is my D.Min.work day), I'm wondering if perhaps I should change gears completely and do a project on something like:

PEARLS BEFORE SWINE: PREACHING CHRIST IN THE SHADOW OF 10-A

We all know that will go nowhere but I just thought I'd put it out there for shock value... It's humorous primarily because, like all good jokes, it has to have a certain ring of truth to it! So too it's sad because it has such a deep amount of truth to it. (The pearl before swine passage appears in Matthew 7:6)

Now to be sure there will be those who can't get past the whole swine thing and miss the teaching that pigs aren't supposed to appreciate pearls. They have no need... But the deeper teaching is that it is a waste of time and resources to expect any such appreciation. And so I point the reader to one of my previous blogs which can be found by clicking here. As a heads up, the theme is: "Biblical interpretation without plenary inspiration yields intellectual information devoid of spiritual consecration..."

And so my question basically is how can we expect anything but a yes vote on 10-A from people who tend to deny plenary inspiration, whose spiritual understanding seems incapable of, or unwilling to, accept the concept of inspiration, that God might actually mean exactly what He has said...

Well at any rate, maybe now that that is off my chest I can get back to work on the expository paper on the exegesis of the Plague of Darkness in Exodus... Hmmmm.... another contemporary image...

Interesting Silence...

2011-05-14T14:38:00.002-04:00

So I was reviewing the statistics on the blog and the unique page views (i.e. distinctly different visitors to the blog) has quadrupled over the last week following the most recent blog post on where I stand and the email I sent to the congregation...

But not one comment. Does this bode well? Do people agree? Are people angry? Confused? Surprised? Overcome with joy?

The Session meeting this week will be interesting. I am hoping to bring something of a letter of "Here I stand I can do no other" as a way of testing the waters to see where the Session stands on this and where we ought to be going (or perhaps should I get going??? ;-) ).

Anyway, feel free to comment, as adults, hopefully with grace...

If anyone is interested here are the stats by country (you can also click on the map on the right):

United States (US)653

United Kingdom (GB)26

Germany (DE)20

Ghana (GH)10

Australia (AU)10

Canada (CA)5

Korea, Republic of (KR)5

Thailand (TH)3

South Africa (ZA)3

Russian Federation (RU)3

Niger (NE)3

Philippines (PH)3

Ireland (IE)2

Portugal (PT)2

Netherlands (NL)2

Norway (NO)2

India (IN)2

Taiwan (TW)2

Belgium (BE)1

Austria (AT)1

France (FR)1

Finland (FI)1

Sweden (SE)1

Argentina (AR)1

Italy (IT)1

Azerbaijan (AZ)1

Israel (IL)1

Singapore (SG)1

Mexico (MX)1

Vietnam (VN)1

Japan (JP)1

Peru (PE)1

Serbia (RS)1

Guyana (GY)1

Spain (ES)1

Bosnia and Herzegovina (BA)1

The Letter to the Congregation I Serve...

2011-05-14T12:43:00.000-04:00

Dear Members and Friends of First Presbyterian Church of Wellsboro, PA -

You will be hearing, if you haven't already, that the Presbyterian Church (USA) has opened the doors to the ordination of persons living in committed same sex partnerships...

Well, that depends on who is spinning the news. Here is the actual language of the Amendment, broken down by sentence with my sense of where I'm going to take it interspersed, so that you can know and be assured how this congregation will be addressing the issue:

"Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life..."

The standards of this congregation and the PC(USA) do indeed reflect the reality that one MUST joyfully submit every aspect of his or her life to the Lordship of Jesus Christ, including one's sexuality. Our confessions and the Scriptures are abundantly clear on the fact that heterosexual activity is the only acceptable form of sexual expression for a believing Christian. Engaging in sexual activity is always a choice (accepting involuntary experiences of various types). And scripture admonishes us to avoid "pornea" (fornication - any sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage including adultery) and "akatharsia" (uncleanness - other forms of sexual impurity).

"The governing body responsible for ordination and/or installation shall examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation and suitability for the responsibilities of office..."

This congregation through its Session is responsible for examining each and every elder we ordain and install (irrespective of whether or not they have previously served). We will continue and increasingly consider the seriousness of this charge to personally examine each and every candidate's "calling," "gifts," "preparation," and "suitability" for office based on Biblical and Confessional guidelines. And scriptural standards, not cultural, will determine that suitability, to the extent to which we are reasonably able.

"The examination shall include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s ability and commitment to fulfill all the requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions for ordination and installation..."

Elders will be examined in order to determine their ability to commit to fulfilling all the requirements (which include upholding the Biblical and confessional standards for ordination).

"Governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates...”

And, as a congregation, we will continue to be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying all standards to individuals - including and especially the standard that any and all sexual activity outside of the confines of heterosexual monogamous marriage will be a barrier to ordination in this congregation, as well as such issues as drunkenness, licentiousness, and other such standards unbecoming one who would be a leader in the church of Jesus Christ.

Now, truth be told, there will be those who interpret this differently. Even at the General Assembly level of the PC(USA) there is a division in the house as to the implications of this change in wording. But the fact of the matter is that Scripture hasn't changed, nor has the language of our confessions - both of which this new Amendment requires submission to.

This new wording does replace the former wording which specifically named fidelity in marriage and chastity in singleness as requirements for ordination. But the removal of that wording does not, necessarily, remove the barrier. That needs to be decided at each level by those doing the examination, ordination, and installation.

Certainly, there will be congregations and Presbyteries which will continue to pursue cultural standards as a means of interpreting scripture, who will attempt to argue falsely that our understanding of sexuality has changed and that the church, if it is to be relevant, must compromise on it's old worn out morality, or who will simply disregard those standards which don't accord with their personal opinions. But I can assure you that as long as I serve as your Pastor, we will continue to hold fast to the faith which was "once and for all delivered to the saints." And I will carry that message with me as I have the opportunity to be in conversations at the Presbytery and General Assembly level.

I welcome your response, and ask that you hold this matter in prayer for the Glory of God and the advancement of the Kingdom!

In Faith and Hope,

Glen

A Reasoned Response...

2011-05-10T22:35:00.000-04:00

Presbyterians for Renewal has made a wonderfully gracious response to the error of 10-A.

Here it is fresh from my inbox... but don't fail to check out their site: http://www.pfrenewal.org/

from	PFR pfroffice@pfrenewal.org
reply-to		enews@pfrenewal.org

date		Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:27 PM
subject		PFR Responds to the Passage of 10-A

Dear Sisters and Brothers in Christ,

Amendment 10-A has now been approved by a majority of the presbyteries within the PC(USA). While the ongoing voting in remaining presbyteries is important, both as a means of faithful witness and for the sake of understanding the state of our divisions, the biblical standard of fidelity in marriage between a man and a woman and chastity in singleness will soon be removed as an explicit denominational standard for ordination and/or installation of church officers. We deeply grieve this unfaithful action, for it brings great harm to the life and witness of the PC(USA). We have prayed that our denomination would uphold this biblical standard, and we have worked to maintain it. But now a line has been crossed.

This revision of our Book of Order signals a massive change in our covenantal life and a departure from the beliefs and practice of the historic and global church. We who are committed to holding fast the clear teaching of scripture must pray and work all the more to discern how to move forward with biblical faithfulness in and for a denomination that has lost its way.

First, we must affirm what has not changed:

Jesus Christ is Lord-this has not changed and never will! Remember Jesus' words, "I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18).
The ultimate victory of Jesus Christ over sin and death has not been compromised! No action taken by the PC(USA) can threaten our Lord's redemptive purpose.
Scripture still clearly teaches that God intends the gift of sexual intimacy to be expressed within a lifelong covenant of marriage between a man and a woman. No vote by the PC(USA) can change God's truth.

Within the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), other important realities have not changed:

Congregations and presbyteries have the right and the responsibility to examine and elect Deacons, Elders, and Ministers of the Word and Sacrament.
The new constitutional language, though lacking the clear expression of "fidelity/chastity," does not require us to violate our understanding of biblical standards.
Our Book of Order can be amended again. We who oppose this decay in ordination standards are still free to work to restore the clarity that has been lost and even to raise the level of accountability.

This is not a time for panic or for ill-considered actions that could potentially damage our mission and witness even more than the passage of Amendment 10-A. Neither is it a time for pretending that we can continue to "do church" as we have before. Instead, this is the time for:

focused prayer on repentance for our own unfaithfulness and wisdom for the future;
new covenanted fellowships within and perhaps beyond the PC(USA) based on closer theological agreement, which will support continued biblical faithfulness, and;
sober assessments of the options we have for ministry with integrity.

PFR pledges to continue our ministry of networking, resourcing, educating, and equipping biblically faithful, missional leaders within the PC(USA). We have been here for you throughout the many struggles that have led to this point, we are here with you now-and wherever God may lead us.

So let us together lift up our hearts-it is not an accident or a disaster that brings us here. God is at work!

A downloadable (PDF) version of this response is also available.

The Board of Directors of PFR

President: James Kim, Lakewood, WA

Vice President: Mateen Elass, Edmond, OK

Treasurer: Nancy Caudel, Greenville, SC

Executive Director: Paul Detterman, Louisville, KY

Nelson Bell, Dallas, TX

Herb Codington, Clinton, SC

Laura Crihfield, Baltimore, MD

Henry Greene, Merced, CA

Anne Hilborn, Charlotte, NC

Keith Hill, Richmond, VA

Ray Hylton, Evanston, IL

Megan Handley Katurjian, Arcadia, CA

Kelly Kenion, Oak Ridge, NC

Julia Leeth, Lompoc, CA

Tammy Letts, Anchorage, AK

Nicole Lock, Snellville, GA

Mike Loudon, Lakeland, FL

Hector Reynoso, Mercedes, TX

Sam Stare, Cincinnati, OH

Andrew Stepp, Houston, TX

Bill Teng, Alexandria, VA

Gale Watkins, Phoenix, AZ

In the shadow of 10-A

2011-05-07T15:58:00.009-04:00

Okay so we're pretty much living in the reality that 10A is going to pass. Certainly there is not much wrong with the actual wording of the amendment. I haven't heard anyone make a case against the actual wording. Rather it is in the implications of the amendment that there is great concern.

And, as I have heard them, they are basically:

it has the potential to drastically reduce our mission funding (as churches opt out of denominational engagement);

it may well impact our ability to send missionaries (both in light of the above mentioned funding issues and in light of the reality that some of our partners may either send our missionaries home or refuse additional missionaries or both);

it could impact the inter-presbytery movement of pastors (perhaps even preventing some congregations from receiving pastors who may be in accord with their ordination standards but at odds with that of the presbytery in which the pastor would labor); and

it most certainly will result in increased judicial actions taken to resolve differences.

Those who know me, know that my greatest fear in the post 10-A environment will be the inherent reduction in the international missionary sending capacity of our denomination. General Assembly actions like Amendment 10-A have a decisive impact on our ability to attract, send, and keep international missionaries in the field. Largely ignorant of these implications, presbyteries often vote, in seemingly well-intentioned but largely self-serving ways for what they perceive to be "God's answer for us." (Many still remember the tensions and problems created by former Moderator Susan Andrew's comments about the Presbyterian Church of East Africa and it's reaction to this question of ordination.)

I absolutely agree that congregations and presbyteries should have the inherent right to make determinations regarding their qualifications for ordination. But the concept of ordination must be viewed in light of our connectional theology. We ordain on behalf of the whole church - congregations, presbyteries, denomination and even partners. (A PCUSA friend of mine and a former PCUSA Missionary now with TAP was actually ordained by the PCEA)...you get the picture.

When we send missionaries, if they are ordained, that ordination is recognized by our international partners. Elders, Deacons, and Pastors are all recognized. So one of the implications for us in ordination is the more ecumenical and missional aspect of our ordination process. For years we have heard from some of our partners that they could not stay in partnership with us if, what we believe is now about to happen, happens.

So what can we do?

1. Get a copy of Hunter Farrell's letter to our international partners and the Fact Sheet he included.

2. Let your international partners know that you and many others will continue to hold to the Biblical standards of ordination for which we have stood for such a great portion of our history as a denomination.

3. Encourage committed godly persons to apply for mission service with the PC(USA).

4. Let the Presbyterian World Mission Office know of your continued support for international mission work and hopefully of your intention to increase that commitment through the PC(USA).

5. Call Doug Welch, Assoc. Director of World Mission 1-800-728-7228 ext 5353 or Hunter Farrell, Director of World Mission 1-800-728-7228 ext 5348 and let them know of your support for them and others at the GAMC level who help make mission possible.

Now is a time when those committed to being a missional church engaging in international mission need to make sure that the denomination's witness along those lines is not diluted.

SUNDAY MORNING CAVEAT - As I was doing some general reflection in final preparation for this morning's sermon Luke 8:4-18... true and noble hearts which receive the word of God and produce fruit by persevering... and the wonderful folks with whom I have been provided an opportunity to minister, I was stuck on a scriptural quote which got me to searching and where did it land me but Jude. Go figure... Better yet, go read...

Cutting Down the Tree...

2011-05-06T17:59:00.000-04:00

We're having a tree cut down. It's a large tree. It's an old tree. It was a dying tree. This was obvious to me two years ago when we moved in. You can often tell the health of a tree by the condition of the crown...

We had two choices. One - we could leave it be and risk that someone would be hurt or even killed by the 6 inch diameter branches that have been falling (four in the last 12 months). It would continue to provide some morning shade and an older and more stately appearance to the manse, as well as avoid the cost... for a time.

Or, two - we could pay the price, have it cut down, be done with the risk of damage and live with the barren look while planting another tree which, in time, would do everything the previous one had done. Only this time, better.

This time WE would choose the type of tree. (Previously, it seems that the township had a love affair with Silver Maples - glorified weeds - a quick growing but relatively short-lived tree susceptible to wind damage, having a shallow root ball which typically raises sidewalks and is notorious for plugging sewer lines.)

There is something in this for eyes to see and ears to hear, if they are attentive and spiritually quickened. There comes a time in which ministries and even denominations should not be allowed to die a slow miserable death which might be infectious, cause increased suffering, and potentially damage the integrity of related ministries. There is always pruning to be done. And the Lord does the pruning. Just as certainly as our Reformed tradition echoes - "The Church Reformed, Always Being Reformed" - so too does Scripture itself talk in terms of the Lord's pruning...

If indeed we, who have been grafted into the vine, understand the process of grafting and pruning then we may clearly see how much of what we are experiencing may indeed be related to this ongoing work. I'll leave it to the reader to decided whether what we are experiencing is a pruning or a cutting down, but certainly something good is afoot, because God is at work and will not be left without a remnant.

Those of us who remain with the dying tree will need to continue to speak the truth to those with itching ears. Seems interesting that about the most quoted OT verse in the NT verse has to do with those having ears to hear but not be able to hear and those with eyes to see but not being able to see. Without the truth of God spoken, judgement is not just. And God is a just God... Think about it.

A Convergence of Thought

2011-05-04T15:05:00.000-04:00

Sooo... amidst my anxiety and frustrations over what I perceive to be a loss of anchorage within the denomination I serve, incredible frustration, disappointment, and tiredness of behalf of many pastors I talk with/exchange email with, and the reformation of our Prayer Partnerships, I have received multiple sharings of the following:

Psalm 61:1-5 ¹ Hear my cry, O God;
   listen to my prayer.
² From the ends of the earth I call to you,
   I call as my heart grows faint;
   lead me to the rock that is higher than I.
³ For you have been my refuge,
   a strong tower against the foe.
⁴ I long to dwell in your tent forever
   and take refuge in the shelter of your wings.
⁵ For you have heard my vows, O God;
   you have given me the heritage of those who fear your name.

and John 3:19

¹⁹ This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.

How is it that these two come together at this particular point in my journey, and what is the good Lord saying about the way things are? At what point do we understand that the people who walked in darkness, have adjusted their eyes? At what point does the "fear of the Lord" which is the beginning of wisdom become just another piece of "theological baggage" to be left by the side of the progressive road?

I continue to hear echoes of things like - "It's just sex. It's not like it's something important." But it's not about sex, or gender, or orientation, or even ordination. It's about the place the Bible has in our lives, the level of authority it plays in our discernment. It is either the "Word of God" or it is a "word about a god"...

So who, if anybody, really cares????????

I do.

So... a "Polity Wonk" question...

2011-05-03T08:12:00.005-04:00

If both amendment 10-A and the New Form of Government pass and each congregation and presbytery do their own due diligence in ordination standards is it not conceivable that different presbyteries and different congregations will have their own differing ordination standards, in which case, we may not recognize each others' ordinations?

So if the Moderator of the PC(USA) is visiting the congregation I serve and happened to have been ordained in, say, San Francisco Presbytery, I might not be able to invite her or him to help lead or even serve the sacrament of communion since his or her ordination wouldn't be recognized?!

Or if the Northumberland Presbytery examined a pastor ordained in, perhaps, New York City Presbytery might it's rejection of that pastor due to differing ordination standards also be construed as a rejection of her or his ordination? I'm struggling with this particularly as the church I serve prepares to ordain elders. When I invite elders forward for the laying on of hands, I'll now, perhaps need to invite only those elders who have actually been ordained in this congregation... and then maybe only by this pastor, since the ordination standards may again change from pastor to pastor???

Okay, this may seem a bit far fetched but I can see this happening and am wondering where the preventative measures are in the new Form of Government because I can't find the connectional, ordination on behalf of the entire denomination terminology.

And then to take the image further, if the connectional pieces are or were to be put in place would this not require us to accept other congregation's or other presbytery's ordination standards, mitigating against our own responsibility to examine?

I find these constitutional matters very troubling...

Anyone care to comment on the FACTS of the New Form of Government as they apply to this situation?

A Response to Michael Adee's Open Letter

2011-04-26T12:05:00.006-04:00

My Own Open Letter to the Presbyterian Church From One of Your Baptized Kids

Rev. Glen James Hallead

Michael Adee's original letter can be found here (caution: this link will take you to an external site whose contents are not endorsed by the author of the blog)

April 26, 2011

Grace and peace to all of you. I too was baptized as an infant, but at the Grosse Pointe Woods Presbyterian Church in Grosse Pointe Woods, MI. I too was taught faith, Scripture, the good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and later confirmed, but at Lake Shore Presbyterian Church, St. Clair Shores, MI. However, as a kid and teenager, I didn't especially enjoy going to church or being part of a church family. (Although I did like sitting behind the Sutton family with their three incredibly beautiful daughters.) They may well have been what kept me coming... (Sinful inclinations CAN lead to one being exposed to the Gospel and result in repentance if the heart is open and the Spirit chooses)

I lived the wild life of a 1970’s teenager - drugs, alcohol, sexual promiscuity and worse… but then in a house trailer in Weidman, MI the Lord came to me, spoke to me, and saved me. It was irresistible grace. That night I placed my life in His hands and it has never been the same.

I wish I could say I was magically delivered from all of the garbage I had accumulated. I wasn’t. I still struggled. I still struggle. But God, in whom I place my trust, has been more gracious and more loving, and more powerful in holding back the temptations, as I pray for his deliverance… day by day.

I believe the 219th General Assembly's Ordination Amendment 10-A makes a mockery of this kind of deliverance and makes light of the ongoing struggle of all who seek deliverance from besetting sins. Worse it baptizes our sinfulness, welcomes it, embraces it, and in fact celebrates it. And after wrestling with my own sinfulness and that of many others caught in sexual and a host of other sins, as well as studying, praying, serving, preaching, and crying, over the brokenness of a sin based life I hereby provide…

My Top Ten Reasons to Renounce Amendment 10-A

1. While this amendment would return our Church to the historic Presbyterian way of focusing upon faith and character as qualifications for ministry, it would result in a process that ignores biblical standards of behavior which are clear indicators of one's character (i.e. sexual immorality) and ignores the lack of trust current in our denomination which will prohibit the acceptance of ministers from other presbyteries and the rejection of elders from other congregations should this amendment pass.

2. While this amendment honors God's call to ministry and the recognition of gifts for ministry given by God to some people, its implementation would ignore the harsh demands of obedience and the clearly recognized mandates of scripture for the determination of who should and should not be ordained.

3. While this amendment allows for local congregations to call ministers, elders and deacons who can best meet the needs within their own communities, its adoption would result in the disregard of any connectional aspect of our communion and the ignoring of the reality that hitherto we have ordained on behalf of the entire church.

4. While this amendment would affirm the moral equality of all persons and end discrimination based upon sexual orientation, in so doing it would ignore the obvious inequality and immorality of those who choose sin over obedience.

5. In so ignoring sexual morality as a barrier to ordination, the adoption of this amendment would result in the adoption of many processes developed to meet its standards which would necessarily deny the fall of creation clearly depicted in Scripture and elevate hedonism and self-love above repentance.

6. This amendment would neither affirm the calling of God to persons to come out from among them (those who reject his call) nor provide encouragement or support for the GLBT community in a way that will allow them to repent and resolve their brokenness.

7. The adoption of this amendment would force our denomination to ignore the 37 years of debate, legislation and judicial cases about sexual orientation, as well as the clear consensus of the majority of Presbyterians. Further it would neuter our witness by having us focus our energies on mission and service to a hurting world that needs our care and ministry, without the benefit of a transforming Holy Spirit.

8. This amendment is clearly a libertarian solution to the 200+ years of adherence to the historic Presbyterian standards for ordination. Placing individual self-worth above godliness, the adoption of this amendment would further create hurt, suspicion, division and would drive even more people away from this denomination.

9. The adoption of this amendment would result in ordination processes which deny that God's creation, God's love, God's grace and the Gospel of Jesus Christ are available for all persons, by failing to allow many to hear of the transformation power of the gospel, of the transforming love of a Savior – one who delivers…one who saves from not to sin.

10. This amendment affirms Jesus' commandment for us to love God, neighbor and self; and to recognize as Jesus' taught, that all persons are our neighbor in God's world, no exceptions, - without ever asking people to give that which they cannot keep to gain that which they cannot lose.

Imagine, dream, pray and work with me to yet proclaim God’s grace in the new mission fields of the PC(USA), that someday faith will come to light again… For in the approval of 10-A, the people who walked in darkness will have merely adjusted their eyes.

Albert Mohler...

2011-04-25T11:19:00.004-04:00

...comes through again with his recent blog post -

Why Conservative Churches Are Growing: David Brooks and the Limits of Sociology

Again and again we read of the reality that the lower, the looser, the less stringent the standards of the churches the more likely they are to decline in membership...

And hence the state of the Presbyterian Church (USA). In its continuing need to "be less strict", to be open to a "new work of the Spirit", to "get with modern societal needs" continues to shoot itself in the foot.

Amendment 10-A may well be the fatal shot for a denomination which has long been slowly cutting its wrists, crosswise, in an attempt to get some attention.

When will we come to the sad conclusion that without a single confessional anchor we will never move forward. Our standards need to be clear, understood and professed by our members, and strictly adhered to by any in positions of leadership.

It seems to me that the clear mantle of Presbyterianism is increasingly more in the line of the OPC, PCA, BPC, EPC, FPC, and others who maintain a clear understanding of the Westminster standards. Not only does 10-A further our journey down the road to heresy but the proposed nFOG seems to make it clear that even the confessions we claim to have authority are only periodically relevant and not of longstanding significance but only of historical significance.

So is leading a congregation to leave the denomination really a dividing of the church, a rending of the connectionalism, or a furthering of disunity when there seemingly is no visible unity, connectionalism, or shared fellowship?

I wonder if we asked our congregations why are we a part of the PC(USA) if there would be any answer but, "I like the way we...," "We've always been Presbyterian" (as if the PCA, EPC, etc weren't), or other such shallow answers. How many of our elders and members would actually know any PC(USA) - note I didn't say Presbyterian - distinctives.

It seems to me that our current PC(USA) distinctives are more likely to be: argumentation, disagreement, anger, rhetoric, instability, loss of membership, legal entanglements, extortion, property disputes, and theological confusion than pre, post, or pro millienial, non, or post dispensational, Calvinistic, etc.

So how 'bout an open season of congregational sharing and pastoral changes such that a major realignment might take place amongst the Reformed Churches of the world?

Any PC(USA) pastor subscribing to Westminster could with proper examination move to any other reformed church willing to accept and so too the congregation (church buildings and all). Perhaps a PC(USA) distinctive might become mutual forebearance and love...

nFOG...

2011-04-24T18:50:00.004-04:00

I just spent the last two hours reviewing our proposed new Form of Government. I had scanned it before and read portions of it to get a feel for it. There were things that indicated some significant shifts. But this afternoon, I really spent some time reviewing the actual wording and comparing it to the current Form of Government.

Wow! It really represents some significant changes not just in how we do things but in declaring what we believe... I had heard some of the controversy about universalism but it wasn't until this afternoon that I realized Jesus didn't come to save just the elect (Reformed but not always Presbyterian doctrine) but God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, create, redeem, sustain, rule, and transform all things and all people... not came in order to hopefully do it or to offer a chance for it... it's a done deal. Everyone is redeemed, transformed, and ruled by God. Really? I'm so glad to hear the the Vietnamese government officials are all redeemed and ruled by God. And so too the Burmese military rapists and Israelite settlers, Palestinians bombers, and Kim Jung Il I guess we no longer need to do evangelism or work for social justice... Helps me to understand how loving those governments really are in their oppressive actions. And are trees really transformed and sustained? And I guess it's God who is transforming the environment here in north central PA with all the fracking water... I'm not sure where all of this is going and it certainly requires a whole lot deeper analysis but I'm a bit more concerned now than I was before...

An equally disturbing missiological feature is the sense one gets that instead of a cooperative connectionalism, with nFOG we will get a VERY strong hierarchical structure. Sessions will now govern congregations... okay. Presbteries will now govern Sessions... huh? and Synods and G.A. will now govern Presbyteries. And this impacts how we decide what our respective missional engagements are. One gets the sense that the G.A. will make sure that the Synod is making sure that the Presbytery is making sure that the Session is supporting whatever the G.A., Synod, and Presbytery want the Session to support, removing from the Session it's responsibility for determining how its offerings are used. And one might probably be certain that per capita will become a required payment. The good thing might be that each church could possibly determine it's own method for securing a pastor and with no requirement (yes, no requirement) for a COM at the Presbytery level it might get a pastor who refuses to acknowledge the Presbytery's authority... No. No. No... but it's still rather messy... And could we finally own the property we paid for and cared for with our own members' money??? No. No. No. but it's still rather messy... lots of questions you see.

And then there's the whole issue of whether or not ordination standards for elders can be determined by the Session or whether the Form of Government would now require each and every Session to offer ordination to anyone who is an active member without regard for their willingness to repent of any sin... Oh wait, that section might be out if amendment 10-A wins...

I remember when I used to read the Book of Order and mark the changes made to it...

I'm losing my interest in being a Presbyterian... What's that song say? If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything???

Thank the Lord for one of the brightest moves the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Committee has made in recent years - they slammed the nFOG primarily because of the loss of precendence. It seems that with the changing of the wording in the constitution all the legal language reflecting on and setting precedent for, which is based on the old language may now be no longer applicable - back to square one? "Do-overs" in constitutional law?

I wonder if we don't need to take a sabbatical from all of this posturing and change. Anyone for an amendment to end all amendments and litigation for two years? If a congregation wants to leave, let it. If one wants to ordain someone let it. If a church wants to ignore the denomination, let it. Let's just be done with all of this infighting and get on with the work of Jesus Christ. After all it's not like we're experiencing any sort of connectionalism as we are...

One of the great unwritten rules of mission work is first do no harm. Wouldn't it be nice if just one G.A. meeting took that to heart? But let's not forget it's not the G.A.M.C. staff that is the issue. They are often times people of great faith and conviction suffering most the ravages of these battles. It's those goofy, seemingly undereducated Presbytery Commissioners to General Assembly that are making all of these changes. So maybe it's just best if all the Presbyteries separate and become their own denominations... I mean would it really be that big a change compared to what the new F.O.G. is already suggesting... would it?

By the way... we had a GREAT dinner today - Leg of Lamb! Indisputably the best meat around!

Resurrection Day Sermon intro...

2011-04-23T20:00:00.002-04:00

Jesus was dead. When cut down, his lifeless body dropped from the cross like a dead weight. There was no chance for resuscitation. The blood had drained from his ragged corpse. Beaten, spit upon, bloodied and filthy the corpse had lain in the tomb until it’s deathly odor had reached the nostrils of the Heavenly (but broken-hearted) Father like an offering of incense…

And in love, Jesus bursts forth from the tomb. The resurrection power radiating through the very stone that held the body trapped, sealed by the authorities… And later, the messengers of God come in the unremitting power of an earthquake which rolls the very stone door open so that we might see inside…

An empty tomb… No dead body. No silly rabbit. Not a colored egg in sight...

A Resurrection Prayer

2011-04-23T10:57:00.002-04:00

My Heavenly Father,

Jesus said - the greatest commandment was to love you, the Lord our God... what does that mean? If you so loved us that you died for us... ought we not die to self and live for you?

And the second greatest was like the first... to love our neighbor as ourselves... I can't love myself, Lord for I am wretched. So wretched it took your death, the death of God, to save me. But I now know how much you love me and that is enough. And who is my neighbor, Lord? How do I love him or her if I can't even love myself? Heck I don't take the time to tell him or her about the salvation, the love, the incredible changes that you have made in my life, as often as I should. Sometimes a "good morning" is all I can get out.

I think he or she is Baptist anyway so they're "good to go." It's the Catholic on the other side I worry about. You know they have that Pope guy... And what about Sally Jane? She's Pentecostal so she goes to church, most of the time. I think. And Frank well he's a nice guy. I like him. He's a little rough around the edges but he says he and the big guy upstairs have an agreement. He's never been able to define it, but who am I to judge?

Lord, how do I love those who love themselves more than anyone else. Those for whom the acronym J.O.Y. (love Jesus, Others, and then yourself) is more Y.O.J. (because I love myself I can love others and because I love myself and others that must mean I love Jesus)... especially when they are already in the "church" and have been for years... generations even - in Boston, in San Diego, and even in Jos.

I guess the only way I can love them is as you did when you said:

"For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:20... or do I treat them like you did and make a whip out of cords... and drive all from the temple courts... scattering the coins of the money changers and overturning their tables? John 2:15...

I don't know how else to love them Lord. I weep over Jerusalem as you did and I am deemed to be self-righteous, having a messiah complex, comparing myself to you...

It seems a whole lot easier Lord to love the so called "unredeemed" outside the doors of the church than so many who pretentiously occupy the pews. Is it because those outside the "church" have already consigned themselves to your judgment and are willing to take the punishment which is rightly theirs... like the thief on the cross who chastises the other - “...we are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve...” (Luke 23:40)?

I know the joy he must have felt, that absolute exhilaration when he heard “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43).

I know the power of that deliverance Lord when you spoke to me Zechariah 3 and delivered me from that mess I had made of my life. All I want, Lord, is to invite others to sit under that tree - but they, as I had to, must come to terms with their filthy rags, even as I do today... and every day.

Your resurrection joy is all I need! Thank you for loving even me, the worst of the bunch!

"...I stand by the door. I neither go too far in, nor stay too far out..."

God's Friday...My Life...

2011-04-22T11:13:00.001-04:00

As the deer pants for streams of water,
   so my soul pants for you, my God.
My soul thirsts for God, for the living God.
   When can I go and meet with God?
My tears have been my food
   day and night,
while people say to me all day long,
   “Where is your God?”
These things I remember
   as I pour out my soul:
how I used to go to the house of God
   under the protection of the Mighty One
with shouts of joy and praise
   among the festive throng.
Why, my soul, are you downcast?
   Why so disturbed within me?
Put your hope in God,
   for I will yet praise him,
   my Savior and my God.
My soul is downcast within me;
   therefore I will remember you
from the land of the Jordan,
   the heights of Hermon—from Mount Mizar.
Deep calls to deep
   in the roar of your waterfalls;
all your waves and breakers
   have swept over me.
By day the LORD directs his love,
   at night his song is with me—
   a prayer to the God of my life.
I say to God my Rock,
   “Why have you forgotten me?
Why must I go about mourning,
   oppressed by the enemy?”
My bones suffer mortal agony
   as my foes taunt me,
saying to me all day long,
   “Where is your God?”
Why, my soul, are you downcast?
   Why so disturbed within me?
Put your hope in God,
   for I will yet praise him,
   my Savior and my God.

Inspiration

2011-04-19T11:55:00.003-04:00

"Biblical interpretation without plenary inspiration yields intellectual information devoid of spiritual consecration..."

It took me a while to put that one together, but I think it reflects my great concern for the church in the west today. It also bears a little unpacking. There is a tendency in the church in the west and western culture in general today to see science as being the end all to our questions. It is the new bearer of the "truth." Bear in mind that there is little in science that is truly factual. Science by definition is "self-correcting" meaning that any perceived truth is always subject to new information. So really it means that what we have in scientific truth is always conditioned upon the truth as we know it... today... Which really is nothing more than a definition of relativity... truth is relative to the information we have, subject to further investigation.

One day butter is better, the next margarine is best, but then we're back to butter. This is not a condemnation of science in fact it is one of its strengths. It is also an honest reflection on the relative nature of its self-correcting understanding.   We have much to be thankful for - Neils Bohr, Isaac Newton, Jonas Salk all have their place in history. I am personally thankful for my father-in-law, Walter Doelp Jr. who was on the Ford Team that developed the electronic ignition unit. I no longer have to gap the points in my car or break out the timing light...

But has science made us better? Kinder? More generous? Or just more efficient in our living and our sinning?

For quite some time in theology, JEDP theories, Form Criticism, and other "more scientific" models and classifications for the "authentic" study of the scriptures were seen as helpful to Biblical Interpretation. But the reality is that it led to (in the circle of those who sought to defend their faith with science) a demise of the understanding of Plenary Inspiration - that is the belief that the Bible was written by people carried along by the Holy Spirit to convey the truth of God's timeless activity in His created order. And so, the advent of social science and cultural anthropology has increasingly led to a weakness the church's understanding of the formation of morality and the role of the church in society.

Scripture cautions us that there is nothing new under the sun. Infanticide, homosexuality, lust, pornography, theft, dishonesty/deception, and other seemingly contemporary issues bear great resemblance to the sins that have beset humans since their creation. Science (biology, sociology, psychology) would have us believe that we know "better" now or that in days of old we didn't possess the proper understanding of things as we do today. There is a word for that line of thinking. It's called temprocentrism - the idea that our place in time is somehow more significant than other points in time.

Nero's biography clearly states that his culture already played with the idea that homosexuality may have had biological connections. In O.T. time Israelite women and men willingly sacrificed their babies in the fires of Baal worship for the sake of a better harvest (an economic interest). We are foolish indeed if we think that our understanding or technology today has changed the face of the human proclivity for sin. It hasn't. It has only made us more expedient in our pursuit of that sin. And our tendency to want to remove the label of sin from that which the Lord clearly declares to be sin is something which needs to be carefully considered.

We all want to define those people we like as good people, tending to ignore their sin, since to point to their sin might require us to wrestle with our own. We'd prefer to just let sin alone and not deal with it. We just don't have the time to do the hard work necessary to openly and honestly confront it and make the changes necessary in our lives to avoid it. Let's face it. Dealing with sin is neither convenient nor fun.

But living a redeemed life means that we were redeemed from something, and redeemed for something.

And so I repeat my initial statement that "Biblical interpretation without plenary inspiration yields intellectual information devoid of spiritual consecration." Without an understanding that God has inspired the scriptures with a timeless level of truth we lose any real sense that the Bible is anything more significant than a historical record written by groups of people who either were winners of a conflict or who had a specific and largely selfish agenda to advance their cause and hence all the nonsense about the undue and inappropriate (read not politically correct) influence of the patriarchal forms of culture and faith.

When we grant unto the scriptures the plenary inspiration they claim for themselves -

      For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke
     from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter 1:21)

we are released to understand the power of Holy Writ. Our lives are changed and with love we are better able to address the sin in our own lives and that in others and work to become more like the One we claim to emulate, the One who came, died, and rose for us!

Happy Easter! Because He lives, we might also.

The Missionaries are Coming...

2011-04-15T16:27:00.000-04:00

Carmen Fowler shares the following on her blog today:

Yesterday was “that” day. I knew it was coming. I was in line waiting for the barista to make my latte at Starbucks and while the milk was steaming he beamed over the equipment and greeted me, “Good day, my lady.” His accent was unmistakably West African so, returning his greeting, I asked, “Where in Africa are you from?” His smile widened further as he announced with pride, “Togo.”

“I have a cousin serving as a missionary in Togo,” I shared. As he poured the milk into the espresso he said, “It is a beautiful place. I miss it very much.”

“You are here for work then?” I inquired. And he handed me my coffee he leaned toward me and whispered, “I’m here on a mission from God.”

“Really? What kind of mission?”

“The only kind that matters: Introducing people to Jesus. He is the Savior of the world and one day He is coming again. Most people are not ready for that because most people don’t even know who He really is. Especially here in America,” my brother-in-Christ shared with a heart filled with passion and compassion.

I have known for some time that we are experiencing the back-flow of mission as U.S. Christians continue to abandon the primary calling of the Church to proclaim the Gospel, making disciples and teaching people to obey everything that Christ commands. I had not, until today, met such a foreign missionary on U.S. soil.

If Jacques is any indication, they are working as tentmakers in our midst. His humility and joy, calling and commitment to evangelize what he perceives as a pagan nation is irrepressible. The mainline expression of North American Christianity may be dying, but the Church of Jesus Christ is alive and moving.

Jacques perceives himself to be literally snatching people out of the fire. He has the spirit of Peter and Paul, the Spirit of the living God. He is more my brother than people with whom I share a denominational moniker but with whom there is no unity of the Spirit and no bond of peace in Jesus Christ as the only way to salvation.

Jacques and I are praying for each other and he is also praying for my cousin, Jenny, and her family whom God has sent as missionaries to his homeland of Togo. To that point he acknowledged, “As was true for Jesus, prophets are not as welcome in their hometown as they are far from home. I don’t understand that, but it is true. You have listened to me today because to your ears my voice is beautiful. My people will listen to your cousin because she has blond hair. What we share is Jesus. Nothing else matters. Only Jesus.”

Amen, my brother, amen.

Presbyterians for Renewal

2011-04-13T14:39:00.000-04:00

Paul Detterman, over at Presbyterians for Renewal raises some good questions for us to consider in light of the ongoing conversations in the PC(USA) -

https://pfrenewal.org/missionally-minded/392-fellowship-pcusa-potential

People who have been shaped by Scripture are steeped in the language of individual repentance, forgiveness, grace, and a new beginning. (2 Corinthians 5:17) But when it comes to the nature of the institutions of our faith, the bureaucratic structure and the substance of the Church, as well as denominational expression of practical theology, it is a rare and important moment when we get the opportunity for a corporate do-over. There is an emerging consensus among thoughtful people from various points across the spectrum of the PC(USA) that we are in just such a rare and important moment.

The “trial balloon” proposal for a new non-geographic (17^th) synod, created by PFR and delivered to the 2010 General Assembly by Santa Barbara Presbytery, didn’t get out of committee—no real surprise there. But that same Assembly did create the Middle Governing Bodies Administrative Commission, where Tod Bolsinger and his team are now doing an amazing amount of listening and creative thinking. Beyond the mandate of any General Assembly, conversations like the NEXT Conference and the proposal that created the Fellowship PC(USA) are drawing attention from different groups of Presbyterians. And, of course, overshadowing all these developments for many, is the current voting on Amendment 10-A and the New Form of Government, the outcome of each soon to be cause for rejoicing by some and a source of significant trauma for others.

Right now, many people are understandably concerned about practical issues: what will a different denominational structure look like? How can we get from “here” to “there”? How long will it take to write the new presbytery manuals if NFoG passes? What will happen in many congregations if 10-A passes? Can a pastor and his/her congregation in New Hampshire really be part of a presbytery in California just because they share similar theology? These are important questions, but the deeper reality and the far greater potential in this rare and important time of PC(USA) re-thinking goes beyond any regional or national exoskeletons. What could a refreshed, revitalized, reformed witness offer to a post-modern, post-Christian world?

We begin to reach that greater potential when churched people who self-identify as “liberal” and “conservative” realize we have missed the gospel mark. Liberals have been co-opted by currents in an increasingly skeptical and pluralistic culture to become extra-biblically liberal. Conservatives are equally guilty of capitulation to the protectionism and hyperbole of the political Right with equally extra-biblical results. Meanwhile, the good news of Jesus Christ in its fullness, truth, and transforming grace—the very thing we have been commissioned by Christ to proclaim--is not fully evident among us. So let’s seize the moment, catch our breath, and allow the Holy Spirit some space for inspiration.

What could the ministry, witness, and impact of a congregation be if Jesus’ followers were deeply rooted in the authority of Scripture and unequivocally committed to a life of prayer, worship, and service? What amazing joy and satisfaction could it be for deacons, elders, and ministers to exercise spiritual leadership in such congregations?

What could many congregations like this accomplish if they were affiliated with one another in groups of reasonable size, around commonly held convictions of faith and practice? What joy could there be for elders and ministers to meet together as frequently as possible for worship, prayer, mutual encouragement, and accountability?

What could the benefits of such a Presbyterian “order” be—people who, to the very best of their ability, acknowledge and repent of what the Scripture calls sin, embrace and proclaim a gospel identity, and aggressively seek, identify, and nurture those whom God has gifted for biblical leadership in the generations following them? That’s the heart of the proposed Fellowship PC(USA). But let’s go further.

Could these congregations become places of extravagant welcome to all God’s children, regardless of race, gender, age, sexual orientation, addiction, or handicapping condition?

Could they become places where the good news of acceptance is equally paired with the amazing news of transformation and healing—communities where our old selves are discarded and every part of us becomes new in Christ?

Could such congregations be places where children are safe from physical, mental, and emotional harm, and where they are actively nurtured in discipleship from the nursery on?

Could these be congregations where men and women are equally welcome in all levels of spiritual and structural leadership, where all people are called to service based on their spiritual giftedness and not on abstract quotas or entitlements?

Could these be congregations where God’s gift in creation is recognized and hallowed, where people who care deeply about stewardship of resources and the environment?

Could these also be congregations where people welcome and encourage artists and musicians, writers and dancers to join with God’s created world in ceaseless praise?

Could these be congregations where skeptics and seekers are actively welcomed, where Scripture is both transcultural and countercultural, and where people who have previously experienced abuse by the Church find new hope in a community of Jesus’ followers?

Finally, could these be congregations where people who meet for study and worship are intentionally equipped to live beyond their doors, showing sacrificial love for the poor, the oppressed, and the truly marginalized; courageously taking a stand for God’s justice and mercy in their homes and in their clubs and in their work places; proclaiming, by their very presence, the redeeming grace of Jesus Christ in a broken and hurting world?

We know our answer can be yes—so the only real question is, are we willing to do whatever it takes to become such a Church in this rare and opportune time?

We need to reconnect with Jesus in ways that are truly and radically progressive—in our care for people, in our commitment to ministries of justice and compassion, and in the embrace of our welcome—so much so that we alarm many die-hard social conservatives. And at the very same time, we need to reconnect with Jesus in ways that are truly and radically orthodox—in preaching and living the fullness of God’s Word, in proclaiming the truth of Scripture, and in holding one another accountable to a redeemed and transforming way of life—so much so that we alarm many committed social liberals.

I want to be part of a Church like this more than I want anything else in this life, and I believe the proposals now coming together in the project called Fellowship PC(USA) have tremendous potential for helping Presbyterians accomplish all this and more in this rare and important time.

God has given many of us the opportunity, the desire, and the capacity to re-think church, to shed the excess baggage of a by-gone era, and to live into His amazing future. In faithfulness and in joy, we must seize this moment to repent of what we have become, seek forgiveness from God and from one another, proclaim the freedom of grace in Jesus Christ, and follow the Holy Spirit into a new beginning.

Northumberland Tallies and Wellsboro Rallies...

2011-03-21T08:43:00.024-04:00

The Presbytery of Northumberland has now voted on all of the amendments sent down by the last General Assembly. They have again affirmed the biblical standards of heterosexual marriage for the expression of sexuality and rejected the proposed new Form of Government and the addition of another Confession of Faith. Let me take this space to explain a bit about my personal feelings on the issue of 10a the amendment which would (and likely will) remove the Fidelity and Chastity standard for leadership. I write both as one educated and continually engaged in Biblical studies and as a pastor/missionary with 25 of years of experience in these matters.

Certainly the first question must be why change the Book of Order at all? Any persons or judicatory body bringing an amendment obviously feels that there is a compelling reason for change.

In the case of 10a - the amendment which would remove the "Fidelity and Chastity"clause from the Book of Order - there is obviously a sense that fidelity and chastity is the issue. Irrespective of how we might want to spin this issue it is a question of whether or not it is appropriate to insist upon faithfulness in heterosexual marriage and chastity outside of that setting. Those who see sexual activity outside of the confines of heterosexual marriage as acceptable would consider fidelity and chastity an unreasonable standard. Those who see heterosexual maritally based sexual activity as being the only acceptable expression would see this standard as reasonable. So it really does boil down to whether or not faithfulness to one's spouse in heterosexual marriage or chastity for the unmarried should be normative expectations for leadership.

Based on the clear teaching in scripture regarding sexuality (Gen 2:18-25, Lev 18, Matt 15:19, Acts 15:20, I Cor 5:1, 6:9-18, II Cor 12:21, Gal 5:19, Eph 5:3, Col 3:5, I Thess 4:3-5) sexual sin is considered a besetting sin, one which is clearly and consistently condemned throughout scripture. But it is Rom 1:18-32, 2:1-16, Rom 6:1-23, I Cor 6:1-20, and I Cor 7:1-11 that most clearly convey the prohibition against such sexual sin as described herein. There really is no basis within biblical teaching for a perspective other than that which sees heterosexual monogamous marriage as the defining relationship for humanity's expression of sexual engagement and enjoyment.

Psychology, Sociology, Biology all have something to say about the reality of life as we experience it and no one would deny that there are clearly other forms of sexuality which are expressed and oftentimes understood to be normative by other groups. But within the church of Jesus Christ, if one is to be faithful to the clear teaching of scripture, there is no other acceptable relationship for the expression of sexual love. We are not a theocracy, so as the church we may need to realize that culture and politics will have a differing perspective - and that may eventually lead to a conflict for us, but the church's role is clearly to be the moral voice of culture not to be changed by the wavering, ever-changing standards of the surrounding culture in which we exist.

Those opposing the biblical standard are constantly in the position of trying to make scripture say something it doesn't say or attempting to give reasons why the teaching is no longer valid. Oftentimes the issues of slavery or women's ordination are brought to bear on this - assuming that if we were wrong on other things then we may be wrong on this.

Those arguments are spurious at best and manipulative and deceptive at worst. There is no clear commendation or condemnation of slavery in the Bible. It is acknowledged as a social reality and if it is practiced there are clear guidelines for both the Christians oppressed by it and those using it. But the Bible neither approves nor condemns it, in the way that it does sexuality outside of marriage.

Likewise women's ordination. There is no direct commendation or condemnation of it. We do know that the clear intent of the Greek in Paul's mentioning of some of the apostles in Romans 16:7 is an indication that Junia (always a women's name) and Andronicus (clearly a male's name) were both Apostles - "Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was."

So the argument really needs to be confined to the matter at hand. Does the Bible clearly indicate that heterosexual monogamous marriage is the only acceptable relationship for the free expression of sexual activity? And the answer is a clear yes. Hence my opposition to removing this as a standard.

Another complaint that is often made is that we are too lax on heterosexual sin in leadership positions and that if we are lax in that how can we be so intolerant in the area of alternative expressions of sexuality. I suggest the logical answer is a better enforcing of our current standards not an increasing of moral laxness. This is not rocket science. It is simply the essence of biblical faith.

I am happy to discuss this in a public setting and members and friends have been invited to join the Session on the third Wednesday of each month following the Session meeting (about 8:00 pm) for more conversation. Irrespective of how we as a congregation or our elected leaders (elders) feel about the eventual decision we make as a denomination, our future as a congregation will be impacted.

Stay tuned!

News of the day moving toward Sunday's Sermon...

2011-03-18T15:07:00.006-04:00

It seems that the U.N. Women's Commission can't even agree on whether there are two "genders" of human being or more... and the PC(USA) thinks it has troubles deciding on the parameters for its various discussions...

http://www.c-fam.org/publications/id.1808/pub_detail.asp

The pundits are thinking ahead...

http://web.mac.com/noela/My_Site/AnderspeaK/Entries/2011/3/17_IF_10-A_PASSES.html
http://www.churchandworld.com/PCUSA/2011/Viewpoint/0318-Bruce%20Becker-CanYouTellTheDifference.htm

And in the continuing category of the Nature vs Nurture argument (based on Lady Gaga's hapless "Born this Way" drivel) one wonders is there a morality gene???

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/marchweb-only/sindoublehelix.html

And, by the way, what would Niebuhr do? Would he really support our President or would he clearly take him to task. Since President Obama and others seem to celebrate his "Christian" manifesto on "Christ and Culture" and other social issues, what does the PC(USA) News writer have to say on this...

http://www.pcusa.org/news/2011/3/17/wwnd-what-would-niebuhr-do/

When all is said and done here is what I'll preach on on Sunday -

The Bible Passages
The Idea

Soli Deo Gloria

A Naked Emperor - A Divisive Issue!

2011-03-17T17:56:00.003-04:00

How does one deal with an issue which is so divisive that reason, logic, and faith descend to name calling, accusations, and clear falsehoods? How can it be that people who read the same Bible come to such disparate conclusions and then try to smooth it over by talking, and talking, and talking, and voting, and voting, and voting.

The Emperor is naked for goodness sake and no one seems interested in declaring it.

We muddle through our disagreement fearful that if we were to openly express our true feelings, scripture's clear teaching, God's revealed truth, that we would loose social standing, social acceptance, relationships. And so we stuff it down and talk some more, and vote again. One time it goes our way, the next time it doesn't and it's always in terms of whether or not we get what we want.

The Emperor is naked for goodness sake.

Currently we are engaged in a battle for the soul of the Presbyterian Church (USA). Yes I said the soul of the PC(USA). Will it maintain any sense of integrity in it's biblical witness or will we cower to the shower of stoles and the lie of self-hood? When will we come to terms with the fact that we disagree on something that is so crucial to each of us as a fundamental matter of faith? When will we agree that to stay in conversation with each other is as much a mockery of our faith as anything else?

The Emperor is naked for goodness sake. Naked is NAKED. It's not a new way of dressing. It's not a new style. It's NAKED, NUDITY, AN ABSENCE OF CLOTHING!

And so, I ask, can we with any integrity stay with one another? One of the highest levels of integrity I've seen lately was when a member of our congregation removed their name from our membership roles. At least this person has the integrity to say that this issue is so important that she/he has to leave to maintain any sense of personal dignity. I think it was one of the few acts of courage I have seen, and I am humbled by it!

And so we realize the Emperor is naked. Why not declare it and stop the parade or should I say charade?

And what will we do when the vote goes my way, or your way, or his way or her way, or our way or their way? Will we leave or will we take a serious look at whether or not it goes God's way? And if it doesn't go what we consider to be God's way, how will we deal with it? Can we stay in communion with those whose way the vote went, even if we believe to not be God's way? At what point do we label apostasy, apostasy? At what point do we openly admit that this is such an important point that division is an essential witness? Does not staying together infact demonstrate how little this point really matters? Or are we with the Belahr Confession announcing that visible unity (even with a disease ridden soul) is more important than biblical faithfulness, purity, or peace?

The Emperor is naked and we seem to be enjoying the parade. Perhaps it is the very perversity of our souls that enjoys not having to take a stand that is so costly...

The Emperor is not only naked, the Emperor is ugly!

What does the future hold???

2011-02-18T17:10:00.025-05:00

It is interesting to watch the vote tallies coming in on the Amendments before the Presbyterian Church (USA). The following deadlines have been established for the individual presbytery's submission of their vote tallies:

1 New Form of Government (New FoG) 6/13/2011
2 Belhar Confession (Belhar) 7/10/2011
3 Amendments to the Book of Order, esp. 10-A (Amend 10-A) 6/13/2011

As of February 16..........New FoG.....Belhar.....Amend 10-A
Overall vote tally.........16Y/202N...25Y/22N....35Y/30N

1. The new Form of Government will require a second vote at the next General Assembly in 2012. It offers a much streamlined Form of Government with a very traditional view of process and freedom on behalf of the presbyteries, which is a good thing. The criticism is that we do not live in a setting of trust such that presbyteries can be depended upon to do the work they would need to do to truly ordain on behalf of the entire denomination and that the freedoms appropriately assigned to the presbyteries in this regard provide a libertarian process for ordination. It also has no specific provision as to whether or not previous judicial decisions will be honored and so the judicial process will need to sort that out. My vote? NO WAY! Bad move, insufficient time to study and review, and no real need for this at this point in our life as a denomination.

2. The Belhar Confession arose in the struggle for freedom in South Africa and was basically an admission of the sin of apartheid - an essential and noble move for the church. Our adoption of it would help us affirm our partnership with the church in South Africa and the Reformed Church in America and remind us that the struggle for the elimination of ethnic prejudices is an ongoing battle. Conversely the Confession raises the issue of Unity above all else and is quite condescending in its attitude toward whatever ethnic group might happen to be perceived to be in power. Unity becomes a more important sign of the true church than faith, grace, purity, peace, worship, proper administration of the sacraments, love or any other mark... This is an unnecessary and culturally inappropriate confession for the PC(USA) and further muddies the already twisted confessional confusion in which the denomination exists. My vote? Not a chance!

3. Finally the amendments to the Book of Order - the most famous of which is the removal of the "Fidelity and Chastity" clause which implies that no sexual activity outside of heterosexual, monogamous marriage would be tolerated in those who seek ordination. The replacement language would clearly establish the presbytery's responsibility for examining all candidates in accordance with the Book of Order and the Book of Confessions provisions. On the surface there is nothing wrong here except that this is the only place in the Book of Order where such a faithful presentation of the need for sexual purity re: behavior is explicitly mentioned. My vote. Leave it be!

Say it with me 1, 2, 3, no sir - ee!

So what happens if these pass... At this point in time it seems unlikely that the new Form of Government will gain the necessary votes. But the decisions on the confession and Book of Order provision (re: fidelity and chastity) seem to be "anyone's call" at this point. Pastors and Elders in many congregations are in a quandry. Many who look to remove the prohibition against a more open sexual tolerance in ordination standards have pledged to work until the current standards are overturned. Many who feel strongly about the standards remaining have discussed leaving if the standards are overturned. A very notable "White Paper" has appeared (see previous post) which is gaining momentum.

What does the future hold? Can the PC(USA) hold together amidst all of the apparent dissension on these and other issues. It's anyone's guess what the denomination will look like in a couple of years but it may be a moot point. If denominationalism as we know it is dead as so many pundits are positing, then are we really working to save anything? Is the reality that our connectionalism has already shifted? And what of local congregations? Do they really care? I do not know what the future holds, but I do know WHO holds it and the picture is both scary and glorious.

Whither or Wither the Presbyterian Church (USA)?

2011-02-12T17:22:00.002-05:00

Recently a significant number of well-respected evangelical and reformed persons drafted the following letter to the Presbyterian Church (USA). It bemoans the childish struggles of those who would sooner destroy the denomination than respond to the grace of God in their own lives, much less extend that grace to those in great need of it. Many claim false motives of property, money, and power, but all that under values the truth of the slippery slope of Antinomianism clearly evident in the PC(USA) since the adoption of the Confession of 1967 and clearly lifted up by the letter which is reproduced here below. The Session of the congregation I serve will use the letter as a springboard for discussions on the future of the church at their next meeting on Wednesday, February 16.

A Letter to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)

February 2, 2011

Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

To say the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is deathly ill is not editorializing but acknowledging reality. Over the past year, a group of PC(USA) pastors has become convinced that to remain locked in unending controversy will only continue a slow demise, dishonor our calling, and offer a poor legacy to those we hope will follow us. We recently met in Phoenix, and have grown in number and commitment. We humbly share responsibility for the failure of our common life, and are no better as pastors nor more righteous than anyone on other sides of tough issues.

Our denomination has been in steady decline for 45 years, now literally half the size of a generation ago. Most congregations see far more funerals than infant baptisms because we are an aging denomination. Only 1,500 of our 5,439 smallest churches have an installed pastor, putting their future viability as congregations in doubt. Even many larger congregations, which grew well for decades, have hit a season of plateau or decline. Our governing bodies reflect these trends, losing financial strength, staffing, and viability as presbyteries, synods, and national offices.

How we got to this place is less important than how to move forward. We are determined to get past rancorous, draining internal disputes that paralyze our common life and ministry. We believe the PC(USA) will not survive without drastic intervention, and stand ready to DO something different, to thrive as the Body of Christ. We call others of like mind to envision a new future for congregations that share our Presbyterian, Reformed, Evangelical heritage. If the denomination has the ability and will to move in this new direction, we will rejoice. Regardless, a group of us will change course, forming a new way for our congregations to relate. We hate the appearance of schism – but the PC(USA) is divided already. Our proposal only acknowledges the fractured denomination we have become.

Homosexual ordination has been the flashpoint of controversy for the last 35 years. Yet, that issue – with endless, contentious “yes” and “no” votes – masks deeper, more important divisions within the PC(USA). Our divisions revolve around differing understandings of Scripture, authority, Christology, the extent of salvation amidst creeping universalism, and a broader set of moral issues. Outside of presbytery meetings, we mostly exist in separate worlds, with opposing sides reading different books and journals, attending different conferences, and supporting different causes. There is no longer common understanding of what is meant by being “Reformed.” Indeed, many sense that the only unity we have left is contained in the property clause and the pension plan; some feel like withholding per capita is a club used against them, while others feel locked into institutional captivity by property. While everyone wearies of battles over ordination, these battles divert us from a host of issues that affect the way our congregations fail to attract either young believers or those outside the faith. Thus, we age, shrink, and become increasingly irrelevant. Is it time to acknowledge that traditional denominations like the PC(USA) have served in their day but now must be radically transformed?

We need something new, characterized by:

A clear, concise theological core to which we subscribe, within classic biblical, Reformed/Evangelical traditions, and a pledge to live according to those beliefs, regardless of cultural pressures to conform;
A commitment to nurture leadership in local congregations, which we believe is a primary expression of the Kingdom of God. We will identify, develop, and train a new generation of leaders - clergy and laity;
A passion to share in the larger mission of the people of God around the world, especially among the least, the lost, and the left behind;
A dream of multiplying healthy, missional communities throughout North America;
A pattern of fellowship reflecting the realities of our scattered life and joint mission, with regular gatherings locally, regionally, and nationally to excite our ability to dream together.

Our values include:

A minimalist structure, replacing bureaucracy and most rules with relational networks of common purpose;
Property and assets under stewardship of the local Session. Dues/Gifts for common administration should only allow and enable continued affiliation among these congregations;
Rather than large institutions, joint ventures with specialized ministries as congregations deem helpful [PC(USA) World Mission may be a source of joint support, aspects of the Board of Pensions, Presbyterian Foundation, Presbyterian Global Fellowship, Presbyterians for Renewal conferences, Outreach Foundation, etc.];
An atmosphere of support for congregations both within and outside of the PC(USA).

We invite like-minded pastors and elders to a gathering on August 25-27 in Minneapolis to explore joining this movement and help shape its character. Our purpose is to LIVE INTO new patterns as they are created, modeling a way of faith: the worship, supportive fellowship, sharing of best practices, and accessible theology that brings unity and the Spirit's vitality.

OUR PROPOSAL:

A Fellowship: The most immediate change we intend is creating a new way of relating in common faith, a Fellowship (name to be determined). The primary purpose of this Fellowship will be the encouragement of local congregations to live out the Good News proclaimed by our Savior, increasing the impact of the Kingdom of Heaven. This Fellowship will exist within current presbyteries for the time being, but energies and resources will flow in new directions. It is an intermediate tool to bring together like-minded congregations and pastors, to enable us to build a future different than our fractured present.
New Synod/Presbyteries: In the near future we will need “middle bodies” that offer freedom to express historical, biblical values amid ordination changes in the PC(USA). More importantly, we long for presbytery-like bodies with theological and missional consensus rather than fundamental disagreement over so many core issues. We need new processes that identify and support the next generation of leadership differently than the current model, which unintentionally weeds out the entrepreneurial persons we so desperately need in our congregations. Many current functions should be removed; some, like curriculum and mission relationships, have become less centralized already. We will work with the Middle Governing Bodies Commission since changes to The Book of Order will be needed to step fully into this reality.
Possible New Reformed Body: Congregations and presbyteries that remain in a denomination that fundamentally changes will become an insurmountable problem for many. Some members of the Fellowship will need an entity apart from the current PC(USA). It is likely that a new body will need to be created, beyond the boundary of the current PC(USA), while remaining in correspondence with its congregations. The wall between these partner Reformed bodies will be permeable, allowing congregations and pastors to be members in the Fellowship regardless of denominational affiliation. All kinds of possibilities exist, and much will depend on how supportive the PC(USA) can be in allowing something new to flourish.
Possible Reconfiguration of the PC(USA): We intend to continue conversations within the PC(USA), and have met with both Louisville's leadership and that of the Covenant Network in the past few months. We believe the denomination no longer provides a viable future and perceive that the Covenant Network also sees a broken system. We hope to work together to see if some new alignment might serve the whole Church.

Any model that includes an entity outside the PC(USA) does mean fewer remaining congregations, pastors, and elders to fight the challenges of the current PC(USA). Votes will swing in directions that had not been desirable before. For many this outcome simply acknowledges that fighting is not the way we choose to proceed; our goal is not institutional survival but effective faithfulness as full participants in the worldwide Church. We hope to discover and model what a new "Reformed body" looks like in the coming years, and we invite you to join us, stepping faithfully, boldly, and joyfully into the work for which God has called us.

We invite you to:

download and share a PDF of the white paper “Time for Something New”,
visit our temporary webpage for more information,
and email us at fellowshippcusa@gmail.com if you have questions and/or would like to be a signatory on this letter.

Steering Committee:
Vic Pentz, Peachtree Presbyterian, Atlanta, GA
John Crosby, Christ Presbyterian, Edina, MN
David Peterson, Memorial Drive Presbyterian, Houston, TX
Jim Singleton, First Presbyterian, Colorado Springs, CO
David Swanson, First Presbyterian, Orlando, FL
Rich Kannwischer, St. Andrews, Newport Beach, CA
Mark Toone, Chapel Hill Presbyterian, Gig Harbor, WA

Concurring Pastors:*
G. Christopher Scruggs, Advent Presbyterian, Cordova, TN
Mark Brewer, Bel Air Presbyterian, Los Angeles, CA
Allan Poole, Blacknall Memorial Presbyterian, Durham, NC
Rick Murray, Covenant Presbyterian, Austin, TX
Tim Harrison, Crossroads Presbyterian, Mequon, WI
Bob Burkins, Elmwood United Presbyterian, East Orange, NJ
Doug Pratt, First Presbyterian, Bonita Springs, FL
Mateen Elass, First Presbyterian, Edmond, OK
Rich McDermott, First Presbyterian, Fort Collins, CO
Richard Gibbons, First Presbyterian, Greenville, SC
Dan Baumgartner, First Presbyterian, Hollywood, CA
Jim Birchfield, First Presbyterian, Houston, TX
Jim Davis, First Presbyterian, Kingwood, TX
Jerry Andrews, First Presbyterian, San Diego, CA
John Sowers, First Presbyterian, Spokane, WA
Jim Miller, First Presbyterian, Tulsa, OK
Jack Peebles, First Presbyterian, Yakima, WA
Don Baird, Fremont Presbyterian, Sacramento, CA
Doug Ferguson, Grace Presbyterian, Houston, TX
Bill Teng, Heritage Presbyterian, Alexandria, VA
Ronald W. Scates, Highland Park Presbyterian, Dallas, TX
David Lenz, Hope Presbyterian, Richfield, MN
Paul A. Cunningham, La Jolla Presbyterian, La Jolla, CA
Bob Sanders, Lake Grove Presbyterian, Lake Oswego, OR
Kevin Pound, Mandarin Presbyterian Church, Jacksonville, FL
John Ortberg, Menlo Park Presbyterian, Menlo Park, CA
Jeff Ebert, Presbyterian Church at New Providence, New Providence, NJ
Douglas Garrard, Palm Desert Community Presbyterian, Palm Desert, CA
Paul Detterman, Presbyterians for Renewal, Louisville, KY
Mike McClenahan, Solana Beach Presbyterian, Solana Beach, CA
Steve Hartman, Third Presbyterian, Richmond, VA
David Joynt, Presbyterian Church of Toms River, Toms River, NJ
Douglas J. Rumford, Trinity United Presbyterian, Santa Ana, CA
Patrick H. Wrisley, University Place Presbyterian, University Place, WA
George Hinman (Senior Pastor) University Presbyterian, Seattle, WA

Tim Snow (Executive Pastor), University Presbyterian, Seattle, WA
Peter Barnes, Westlake Hills Presbyterian, Austin, TX
Baron Eliason, Westminster Presbyterian, Lubbock, TX

*Signatories represent themselves, not necessarily the Session or congregation of their respective churches.

Three Uses of the Law

2010-09-19T17:25:00.000-04:00

One of my favorite elements of Calvin's writings is his "three uses of the law." For Calvin, as for many who followed, the law (of God) has three basic uses.

The first was the pedagogical - basically the ability to teach us we are sinners, to reveal our sinfulness. The idea is that the law was given to us and we were allowed to wallow in it those many years as a means of teaching us of the significance of the need for a Saviour.

The second use of the law is the civil - basically that, like civil law, it teaches us to obey. It gives us guidelines and therefore, to a limited extent, actually restrains sin... just not enough... again hence our need for a Saviour.

The third use, and this is the one that gives some people trouble, is the didatic or teaching use of the law - basically that it can used to urge us into good works... again not that we are ever capable of saving ourselves but that with Christ, in Christ, and because of Christ we have this new understanding of the law which he fulfilled on our behalf.

Thank you, Lord, for your law...

Just a lazy Sunday afternoon thought. Off to pick some berries...

I've been thinking...

2010-09-09T09:37:00.000-04:00

I am adding items to this blog that may help the readers understand a bit more about why or how or what I believe... The first two pages (I'll eventually be adding 10) have to do with my personal faith (My Creed - from "credo" meaning I believe) and my view of why the church exists (My Ecclesiology - from ecclesiae the genetive or possesive form for "of the church").

One of the strange developments in that past 100 years within church life is an amazing vaccum in either a reformed biblical theological understanding OR an intense lack of true born again fervor. Many who consider themselves to be solidly reformed lack the zeal or even perhaps the born again experience that is necessary to true faith. This is evidenced in their increasing manipulations of the text and their so called "progressive" or "more light" approaches to relativize the scriptures.

On the other hand too many people are running around having had some sort of emotional experience which they equate with the biblical term "born again" without a truly life changing experience that is biblically defensible and properly framed as something initiated by God rather than self-determined (reformed versus arminian).

The addition of these pages will attempt to give background to my own personal faith development in light of my experiences, education, and cultural experiences... To God be the glory!

I believe...

2010-09-09T09:02:00.003-04:00

the Church exists to:

...proclaim the gospel for the salvation of humankind;

...provide for the shelter, nurture and spiritual fellowship of the children of God;

...maintain worship of the One True God;

...preserve truth;

...promote social righteousness; and

...exhibit the Kingdom of Heaven to the world.

And that, in order to accomplish this, it must, without equivocation to the social, political, economic or other worldly pressures surrounding it...

...preach Christ crucified and risen as the only means of salvation;

...ensure that its members’ physical, emotional, and spiritual needs are met through purposeful fellowship and care activities;

...provide for regular, contextually appropriate, and theologically sound worship;

...teach and proclaim the Bible as the final word of authority in all matters of faith and life and God’s absolute and infallible truth, and otherwise provide for the teaching of sound Reformed doctrine;

...actively engage in ministries within the community to provide for the needs of the less fortunate, those without a voice, and the most vulnerable members of society;

...extend its ministry to the ends of the earth through active missional engagement of all cultures and people groups;

...that is members should live their individual lives and relate to one another in such a manner as to provide to the broader society a glimpse of what the Kingdom of God will look like in its fullness; and

...to the greatest extent possible, organize itself through a Presbyterian form of government and a committee structure which would allow for the fullest expression of the above standards, ensuring growth toward the above goals and that each and every person at all levels of leadership subscribe to and are supportive of these statements and ministry goals.

I believe...

2010-09-03T21:03:00.001-04:00

…in the sovereign, loving, just, and gracious nature of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in creation, providence, revelation, redemption and final judgment.

… in the divine inspiration of the scriptures and of their complete trustworthiness and supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct.

…in the universal sinfulness and guilt of humanity, making us subject to, and deserving of, God's wrath and condemnation.

…in the substitutionary sacrifice of the incarnate Son of God as the only and all-sufficient ground of redemption from the guilt and power of sin and from its eternal consequences.

…in the justification of the sinner solely by the grace of God through faith in Jesus the Christ who was crucified, died, and was physically raised from the dead.

…in the illuminating, regenerating, indwelling and sanctifying work of God the Holy Spirit.

…in the priesthood of all believers, who form the universal Church, the Body of which Christ is the Head, and under whose authority we are to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them, and teaching them to observe all that which Christ has taught.

…the sacraments of baptism and communion to be the efficacious sign and symbol of God’s grace at work in the Body of Believers.

…in the imminent, personal and visible return of the Lord Jesus Christ in power and glory to judge the nations.

…that I am a redeemed sinner who, by God’s grace, has been called to live and to love in accordance with this statement to the glory of the One by whose grace I have been saved and to do so within the Presbyterian and Reformed tradition known as the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

2010-07-31T19:48:00.001-04:00

After two years of "Wrestling with Wrelevance" I find I'm engaging a figment of my imagination...

"Pastor, what do Presbyterians believe about __________________?"...

2010-07-17T10:09:00.004-04:00

...(fill in the blank with your favorite social issue). It's a common question asked of pastors who are expected to be biblically, theologically, and ecclesiologically conversant on all matters of church business...

As I reflect on that question as it pertains to the current conversation of this blog, my answer is: "I can't really answer for Presbyterians (in general) as to what they believe or don't believe." (Although surveys seem to indicate strong support of a conservative view of the current discussion point regarding sexuality, irrespective of what a minority of Presbyterians may say at any given General Assembly meeting.) But this current conversation isn't really about what people in the pews believe anyway.

The current conversation is addressing those members' personal choices regarding sexual activity, how that relates to qualifications for ordained office in the denomination and how change is being properly or improperly advocated in that conversation/argument. I have attempted to interpret PC(USA) policy before, as it pertains to the current conversation accordingly. But put in a summary and very brief manner:

1. Current policy only directly refers to ordained office (i.e. pastors, elder, deacons) not necessarily membership; and

2. Current policy prohibits any persons engaged in sexual activity outside of heterosexual monogamous marriage from being ordained.

It's a behavioral issue which applies to all members of the denomination being considered for ordained office. It doesn't mean that the policy has been properly or fairly administered. It hasn't. Sexual sin is not particular to gender or orientation. It's an equal opportunity/open source provider. However, this policy is and has been the standard of the Church of Jesus Christ for 2000+ years and before that in the Jewish tradition.

The "church", however one might define it, is a group of people who claim to have accepted the Lordship of Jesus Christ in their lives. This means, among other things, that they willingly accept his standards of behavior as the operating standards for their lives. What his standards are is of some debate at this juncture. My position is that scripture clearly teaches that sexual activity is to be limited to marriage between a man and a woman. Social/Cultural standards do not set the pace here. The word of God does. Our supreme authority is Jesus Christ, as he is revealed in scripture, not the "will of the wisp" varying standards of society.

I am not saying that those whose personal views may be too liberal or too conservative or too anything else should leave the church.

I am saying, however, that those who continue to disrupt this denomination by such an aggressive and largely disruptive attempt to change policy (forcing people to abide by a set of man made rules rather than God's revealed will) ought to move on to those denominations which more closely accord with their own beliefs and choices.

Because this is Jesus' church we look to his standards. There are persons in the church which are disrupting the ministry and mission of the denomination in order to advance their personal socio-political agendas in order to force a change for which there is no scriptural support. I will grant that these folks believe very sincerely that the scriptural standards exist for their position. But I believe that they are sincerely wrong. And therein lies the tension.

My personal opinions and PC(USA) policy may differ at times. My job as a PC(USA) pastor is not to advance my personal agenda, but to advance the cause of Christ in accordance within the declared standards of the PC(USA).

This blog is my personal perspective on those policies as they relate to what I see as God's clearly delineated will for his church. My personal views are always subject to scriptural review - as should those be of anyone who claims the name Christian. If you see something clearly unscriptural, I'm happy to discuss it on that level.

The bottom line on this issue (and any other) is whether or not persons in the church are willing to bring their lives into conformity with the word of God. To the degree to which they are, they are welcome. To the degree to which they want to live by their own rules they need to realize there will be some discomfort and perhaps discipline. And the choices they make may disqualify them from leadership positions. To the degree to which they refuse the authority of Christ and seek disruption as a means to make the church the way they want it to be, departure would be an appropriate choice.

I really want to be done with this issue. The connection to "women's ordination," "slavery," etc. are spurious at best. We have been arguing about this for years and it has sapped the strength of our witness and mission. The way of Christ is clear. I am called to serve in this denomination, and like those before me, will stay and proclaim loudly and clearly the way of Christ, until... well, until I am shown the door. But I will not disrupt the church and force a change upon it which is clearly out of sync with the expressed will of God.

At least now you know what one Presbyterian thinks...

Some may wonder...

2010-07-14T11:15:00.009-04:00

why I get so wound up about these issues. The issue, as I see it, isn't at all about homosexuality - Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered, or Queer (GLBTQ) - but about conformity. Conformity is an ugly word in some circles, but it is a absolute necessity in the Christian walk. It comes down to people's view of the authority of scripture and some will allow scripture an authority, arising from the singular nature of salvation in Jesus Christ that says scripture IS THE word of God, not a word from God.

In this model passages such as "he who loves me will obey my word," "be perfect as I am perfect, says the Lord," "be holy, even as I am holy" take on a new meaning. Conformity to the Word of God (Jesus the Messiah) is essential to one's faith. Just as love is a response to Jesus' atoning work, obedience to his word (which clearly includes heterosexual activity as the only acceptable sexual activity for believers) is indicative of faithfulness.

Note that God does not talk in terms of our being happy, joyful, successful, fulfilled apart from this obedience to his word. By being obedient and conforming our lives to his most perfect will, does the person of faith find his or her happiness, joy, and success. Obedience to the revealed Word of God (Jesus), in the word of God (scripture), is what brings the person of faith to that end of joyful communion with God.

The issue then becomes a question of why are we, as a denomination, continuing to attempt to redefine God's mandated behavior thinking that it will bring us happiness. It is a slippery slope to hedonism, self rule and ultimately our own demise as people of faith. There are many godly GLBTQ persons who are fighting this battle with integrity, who are daily challenged to remain faithful, who are sometimes successful and who sometimes fail, like the rest of us, to live up to the righteous call of obedience.

What disturbs me is the disruption, by those who would attempt to change the policy and therefore God's word on the matter, to the peace, unity, and purity of the church. There are ample denominations out there who have rejected God's word on this matter - The Episcopal Church (ECUSA), the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), the Metropolitan Community Church (MCC), the United Church of Christ (UCC), the Christian Church, Disciples of Christ and others.

Rather than carry this denomination further down the road to certain demise, why not leave the church (whom we have all pledged to advance the cause of Christ in and to maintain the peace, unity and purity thereof) for a denomination that has already declared its intent to define authority in human-centered terms.

I cannot long tolerate the person who enters a denomination (which has a clearly defined understanding of the word of God) and who commits to advancing the peace, unity, and purity of that denomination, who then expends so much time and effort attempting to change it at the expense of that peace, unity, and purity, in the name of "justice." I am left genuinely questioning the integrity of their faith and their purpose in becoming a part of the denomination.

The current argument started at least as long back as the 1973 split in "southern presbyterianism" between the more liberal segment and the more conservative segment which resulted in the founding of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). This battle continued into the northern stream with the joining together of the more liberal southern faction and the northern stream in 1983 to form the PC(USA). And it was about this time that we saw the branching off of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC).

Today we have the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, the Bible Presbyterian Church, the Reformed Presbyterian Church, The Presbyterian Church in America, the Cumberland Presbyterian Church and yes, even our own increasingly marginalized Presbyterian Church (USA). Is there not something we can still celebrate in all of this?

Yes, Mission. Presbyterian denominations of all stripes are still strongly dedicated to sharing the word of God near and far - evangelistically, educationally, medically, and developmentally. If we can resolve the issue of "obedience" missiologically we ought to be able to resolve it ecclesiologically.

Jesus Christ is Lord, the only Lord, the only way to salvation for the entire world. Jesus came as the Jewish Messiah to fulfill the Law, as a vehicle for the inclusion in the kingdom of all persons of all nations, and of all conditions. But it is only through Jesus Christ that this salvation will come. And once one has truly encountered the Living Word, all the other issues fade into the background because obedience to the one who came and died for us that we might have life so strikes a chord of gratitude that we willing give up all aspects of our lives for the all surpassing greatness and joy of knowing Him. Perhaps THAT then is the key - to be born again, truly born again, and conformed into the likeness of the image of one who freely emptied himself (of all that to which he was entitled) for the sake of His church. Can we not do likewise. Give it up children. You will never regret it.

Maranatha! Come, Lord Jesus! Amen.

And so it has begun...

2010-07-11T17:44:00.007-04:00

"Would the First Presbyterian Church of Wellsboro consider joining the Presbyterian Church in America?" began the conversation. I also had another person stop in at the house the other day just after the news had broken and ask "what is going on?"

General Assembly...

GLBTQ ordination... Abortion... Partner Benefits... Local Option...

It happens every two years now. A bunch of wanna be "leaders" are led to believe that with a couple of weeks of reading, a few hours of discussion, and some almost insultingly fake prayers of illumination to the "great being up their, somewhere" anyone can answer intelligently and in a theologically correct manner on some pretty major issues. If we ask God's blessing on our presence then it must be the Lord's will that was done, right?

Councils may err...

The die was cast, however, with all the "inflamed/informed" walking around with rainbow stoles. Few were interested in listening for the Holy Spirit. They'd already heard it. So much for staying in conversation. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see vomit and know somebody got sick.

And I preached on 2 Timothy 2 today...

Gangrenous teachings... keep reminding them...
...gently (that's the hard one)

I also received notice from the bookkeeper that a parishioner had rescinded their pledge card this morning. I heard this right after worship (was the sermon THAT bad?) The Holy Spirit, if that's who did it, moves in mysterious ways. Even though we direct all of our denominational giving to international mission with people we know to be of deep and abiding faith working in evangelical/evangelistic positions, someone obviously needs to send a message. And I don't know whether to laugh or to cry.

As people approach me, I try to explain that General Assembly is only a small group of persons representing different geographic regions (presbyteries) of the PC(USA)...and that the General Assembly will now send these Amendments back to the actual presbyteries basically asking "is this really what you want?" allowing the whole presbytery, but never the actual congregations, to state their opinions. We get to answer yes or no.

Like a dog returning to its vomit...

I try to convey to the caller the heartache that so many of us feel but am not sure I get to the place where I really want the conversation to go. I want to give hope... How do I do that when after 30 years of "no", the questions are still being asked.

Will someone tell the impudent child to shut up. "No" means "No!"

The worst part however, is when my faith is questioned. Am I just saying what I think the caller wants to hear so that they will stay at ""my church." I want to scream - "I pray daily for release from this burden of carrying a congregation which is part of a denomination that seems so set on apostasy, but what can I do." The Lord has called me to this place. I am like Paul wishing to die but knowing it is better that I stay. And Paul speaks up:

"keep reminding them..."

"don't grow weary..."

What does he know? A few beatings, shipwrecks, imprisonment... hmmm. Guess I'd better rest up and get ready for the battle. Guess that's what vacation is for...

God's Timing...

2010-07-09T09:48:00.010-04:00

...always amazes me. Take this Sunday for example. I am scheduled to preach on 2 Timothy 2:14-22. On the same week that the Presbyterian Church (USA)'s General Assembly participants have just narrowly passed a recommendation to the Presbyteries that they abandon the issue of chastity and celibacy for non married persons, I chuckle.

"Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have wandered away from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some. Nevertheless, God's solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: "The Lord knows those who are his,"and, "Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness." In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for noble purposes and some for ignoble. If a man cleanses himself from the latter, he will be an instrument for noble purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work. Flee the evil desires of youth, and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, along with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart."

Am I alone in seeing the amazing humor in this?

God is so amazing - Paul on his death bed, after imprisonment and beatings, shipwrecks and everything else he went through, is still able to encourage Timothy - Keep reminding them... rightly divide the word... gangrenous teachings... wandering from the truth... fleeing the evil desires of youth... pursuing righteousness...

Wow! I love this.

I have no fear about the future of His church - the gates of hell cannot prevail against it... ever!

A Visit from the 16th Century

2010-06-24T07:34:00.002-04:00

Dear Beloved in Christ,

A member of our fellowship was once asked how he could have such peace amidst all the turmoil in the church? Did he not fear the splitting of the church? Did he not worry about his pension? Did he not feel a need to engage the issues of the day on a deeper level? Why was he so silent when so much needed to be said, abortion, homosexuality, ordination, per capita, evangelism, mission, discipline...

He reported to me that for many years now he had developed a practice that provided him such an amazing peace that he could see no good reason to struggle and to fight with issues that were beyond his capability to change. But that in making that in which he engaged each day an act of holiness and worship he found God’s presence transforming and he knew that a God that could transform someone as wretched as him could well handle the other wretches in the church.

He endeavored to put into practice the words of Michael Jackson regarding change beginning with the man in the mirror and that for many years now he had sought to do nothing, to say nothing, to seek nothing which would displease God for no other reason than to love the one that so loved him for he deserved so much more.

He reports that he so experiences God’s presence in every aspect of his life that he can think of no greater fear that to be apart from that presence, for that most certainly would be hell, indeed. As he works in the work to which he has been called, whether he is praying or visiting, caring for family or cutting the lawn, he is in continual conversation with this God of Love.

It was difficult at first, following that encounter when he was forced to ask the question, “how often do I think on God?” And It was in seeing a tree barren from the winter but full of sap well nigh unto bursting forth in those precious small buds that promise life that God’s truth came upon him - that God’s will is to prosper us as certainly as it was to old Israel – though we might experience a lifetime of captivity, 70 years of confinement, there is a promise of deliverance, because God is faithful. For it is God’s plan to prosper us and not to harm us – yet should God choose “to lead us by suffering or by consolation all is equal to the soul truly resigned.”

“Be still and know that I am God!” All of our wrestling with rules and regulations, our gate keeping and fear of the denomination dying, anxiety over who will own the property, is what would distract him from experiencing this peace of God, and when those ugly thoughts invade that peace he may say “My God, here I am all devoted to You,” or “Lord, make me according to Your Heart.”

And when temptation crouches and he fails in his duty to focus his life on God he readily acknowledges it, saying “I am used to so doing and so shall never do otherwise if I am left to myself.” If he doesn’t fall to temptation he immediately gives thanks to God acknowledging that it comes from him.”

So many churches are reported to be leaving the denomination, so many in other congregations seem to think their needs are not being met and leave perhaps to return to an Egypt they once hated but now remember so fondly. He is incapable of stemming the tide and addressing the problems of the world much less the problems of the church. But to enjoy the constant fellowship with God amidst the clamoring noise of the world, this is true peace for our friend.

He says again, let us enter into ourselves. The time presses. There is no room for delay. Our souls are at stake. We need to run only into the monastic cell of our hearts where we can worship and fellowship with Christ constantly and eternally. “It seems to me,” he says, “that you are ill prepared and have not taken effectual measures so you will not be taken by surprise. You have not secured the one thing that is necessary. Those who have the gale of the Holy Spirit go forward even in sleep. If the vessel of our soul is still tossed with winds and storms, let us wake the Lord who reposes in it. He will quickly calm the sea.”

And in joyous peace he says:

Go placidly amid the noise and haste,

and remember what peace there may be in silence.

As far as possible without surrender

be on good terms with all persons.

Speak your truth quietly and clearly;

and listen to others,

even the dull and the ignorant;

they too have their story.

“I have taken the liberty to impart to you these good sentiments that you may compare them with your own. May they serve to re-kindle them, if at any time they may be even a little cooled. Let us recall our first favors and remember our early joys and comforts. And, let us benefit from the example and sentiments of this brother who is little known by the world, but known and extremely caressed by God. I will pray for you. Please pray also for me, as I am yours in our Lord.”

"Brother Lawrence"

General Assembly and the Future

2010-06-19T21:08:00.014-04:00

In the next few weeks history will be made...again. During our denomination's bi-annual General Assembly (national council meeting) we will again consider the issue of the ordination of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered folks. I was discussing this issue with a close friend and fellow missionary pastor just last night. (He has just recently returned from Africa for a few weeks.) Both of us are concerned about the potential change in policy on several levels... but before we get too far, let me explain.

The bottom line, the short story is this - IF the General Assembly passes an "overture" which would allow for such a change in our polity (policy) the individual Presbyteries (regional bodies) would also need to approve the vote by a simple majority. So following such approval, the Presbyteries have approximately one year to weigh in with their approval or disapproval of the actions. If the presbyteries approve of the changes in sufficient numbers, the polity is changed and ordination is allowed. Irrespective of whether or not ordination is allowed or practiced at this point in time, such a change would codify the actions.

As pastors we are deeply concerned about our personal integrity in such a vote:
   1. Can we as believers stay with an organization whose polity
          is so out of synch with what we consider to be a faithful
          biblical witness and 2000 years of clear teaching on this
          matter?
   2. If we choose to stay how do we refrain from participating in
          or giving the appearance of condoning the acts of ordination
          which we consider to be inappropriate?
     3. If we choose to leave the denomination what becomes of the
          many faithful in the pews of the congregations we serve who
          might have similar reservations?
     4. If we feel this policy is such a mistake are we willing to
          circumvent other policies (concerning leading a congregation
          to leave the denomination) in order to provide what we
          consider to be a biblically faithful witness?
     5. If we feel this is "apostasy" would we still be willing to accept
          our retirement funds from such an organization? Just how far
          do our principals extend?
     6. Would my friend resign and return to his presbytery to see
          what decisions they may make (i.e. would the entire
          presbytery pull out from the PC(USA))?
     7. What would those of us currently engaged in pastoral ministry
          do? Would we stay and continue to fight for the cause as
          those on the other side of the issue have done so faithfully
          over the past 30+ years?

Let me clarify by saying this is not a matter of seeing LBGT persons, necessarily, as being the enemy or as being evil, horrible people. Rather it is a question of sexual practice not orientation. It's a question of how do we each bring our sexual proclivities (we all have them) into line with what appears to be a biblical mandate. I cannot imagine how hard that is except through the witness that has been made to me by LGBT persons who struggle with that constantly. And let me add that the heterosexual community has equally as many unacceptable proclivities, including divorce, lust, and fornication (including adultery). This is about a broader issue of qualification for leadership (in which even current leadership has huge issues of greed, avarice, gluttony, etc...)

For many this has nothing whatsoever to do with "equal rights" of access to leadership within the church. It has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not a particular person has the skills to do a certain job. It has everything to do with whether or not we are able to sacrifice those aspects of our lives which are out of line with clear biblical teaching and constrain our behavior to biblical parameters.

Many will argue about the whole "biblical authority" thing and whether or not it has been interpreted correctly or even if there is such a clear history of teaching on the matter, but what this all boils down to for my friend and I is, the following question: "can we stay with a denomination that strays so far from what we consider to be biblically reformed standards of behavior for its leaders?"

Again I pose the question "what do we do?" Is it enough that the congregation we serve might say, "We don't care!" "Worry about the home front", while we continue to provide funding for the broader denomination , presbytery, synod and G.A. which pursues such an agenda through per capita payments and participation in mission funding, or pension/insurance programs? Bewildering questions. I guess about all we can do is pray that God will continue to show, through the votes of presbyteries his clear will in this matter.

Sola Scriptura! Solus Christus! Sola Gratia! Sola Fides! Soli Deo Gloria!

Aretegenic

2010-05-30T18:06:00.052-04:00

One of the strangely enjoyable aspects of doing a Doctor of Ministry degree is the variety of readings involved. There are some surprisingly good choices and equally as many... well, other choices. One of the better ones from this round of classes is a book entitled "By the Renewing of Your Minds" by Ellen Charry.

Professor Charry serves as the Margaret W. Harmon Associate Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology (Episcopalian) at Princeton Theological Seminary.

-- Non-Spoiler alert - I haven't finished the book yet. --

The book begins by clearly setting out a case for the appropriate recovery of an understanding of the initial purpose of creedal language in the church. Just as hymns had a wonderful purpose which we would do well to remember today (the teaching of sound biblical doctrine/theology) so too creeds served in what Professor Charry calls an aretegenic fashion.

I lifted the following off the quintessential source of all truly deep, fully factual, and socially meaningful academic investigation - Wiktionary. Nevertheless, it serves well:

Aretegenic: Coined in 1997 by Ellen T. Charry in "By the Renewing of Your Minds" (ISBN 0195134869), from Greek ἀρετή (aretē), “‘virtue’”) and γεννάω (gennaō), “‘to beget’”)

Literally - "begetting virtue". Ellen makes a compelling argument that the formation of virtue was dependent upon the confessional nature of the Christian faith and that the formation of the creeds was, in the most positive of respects, an attempt to frame the language of faith in order to help produce virtue within the community of believers.

It seems to me, that all too often, pseudo scholars and historians, some with amazing Ivy League credentials, have castigated the concept of "creedal religion" as a manipulative attempt by the powers that be to control the masses, to hide the truth, or some such devious work. I suppose if one is ignorant enough to believe that tripe one might also easily fall victim to the manipulations of such powers that be. And the rejection of creedal Christianity might in and of itself be a manipulation of the masses by the powers and principalities...

And so I ask, is not the time right to reexamine the appropriate use of creeds in the church? In an age where every Tom, Dick and Harry can submit their particular favorite "Confession of Faith" and expect to have it honored, irrespective of the implications, should we not be especially meticulous in our examination as to each statement of faith we are subscribing to?

My own denomination, the Presbyterian Church (USA) is seeking to add the Belhar Confession to an already tiresome Book of Confessions. It seems to me that something as simple as the Apostle's Creed, or in some cases the Nicene Creed, might be sufficient to gather believers without causing undo strain. For hundreds of years the Westminster Confession of Faith was sufficient to teach the faith we hold dear. (Credibility alert - I still confess it to be THE definitive framework for the faith.)

But it seems like the more statements we approve, the less clear we are about what we really believe. And the less clear we are on what we really believe the less likely we are, in my mind, to be producing virtuous character. Hence the state of the church today!!!

And so Ellen Charry's book, so far has been a good read, quite heady with a lot of academic jargon but nevertheless an important part of the ongoing conversation in the Christian church today.

2010-04-07T10:39:00.008-04:00

ARE YOU SENT?

I'm working on a sermon series that arose out of the recent World Mission Initiative Conference at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, obviously the PC(USA)'s new leader in mission education for Seminary level work. With the incredible life shaping experiences seminarians are having through WMI it is only reasonable to assume that at this point, if you want to focus on mission in the PC(USA) there is no other choice for Seminary Education. And I say that as a Princeton Graduate. Mission is more than theological perspective, it is more than experiential engagement, it is a fusion of worldview, personal spiritual formation, theological understanding, and practical engagement. Pastors simply cannot do much of anything of value in the pulpit if they have not first engaged the concept of mission as THE orientation for life, THE work of God, THE purpose for the church's existence. And the church is warned against calling pastors without the experience of intercultural engagement. It proceeds at great risk to its future.

With all the conversation about "missional" going on in the western Christian world today (and I include the WCC in that world because of the HUGE western bias present) I found myself struggling to get past the audacity of thinking that God's people might need to be reminded of their purpose - that it has little to do with programs and everything to do with purpose, little to do with attracting others and everything to do with incarnating Jesus to others, little to do with a building and everything to do with building relationships.

Brother Maynard writes: The missional church is a collection of missional believers acting together in fulfillment of the missio dei (Mission of God). The idea is that God is a God of Mission (he has a purpose). The God of Mission has a church (to advance his cause). The God of Mission's church is the vehicle for advancing that cause and our purpose then, as a congregation is to advance the mission of God - to meet God in our community, to point to him and to join him in his work. It is an honor to help to change this world to look more like the Kingdom.

Michael Frost, keynote speaker at the WMI Conference underscored the idea that we go out into the world to help build the Kingdom. We look around and see what doesn't look like the Kingdom of God and we seek to change it to more closely resemble the Kingdom - culturally, behaviorally, socially, politically, environmentally, relationally, and otherwise, so that we become known not as pew sitters but as Kingdom builders.

This Sunday we'll take a look at Gen 12: 1-4 God's sending Abram and John 20:19-31 Jesus' sending of the disciples as the Father sent him... We'll define God's Missional sending this week and follow it up with God's Missional People next week. We'll end April with God's Missional plan and hope to have a better sense of where God may be leading us as a congregation. Care to join us? See you at 11:00 am in the big conference room (sanctuary) at the Offices of the Mission Sending Agency (First Presbyterian Church), 130 Main Street, Wellsboro, PA 16901.

WHY DO I LOVE PC(USA) MISSION?

2010-04-06T16:35:00.013-04:00

I can't imagine serving with a greater bunch of people - from the offices in Louisville to the members of the congregations, denominations, and organizations we partner with at home and internationally. Are they perfect? Is there absolute transparency? Is everyone above reproach? Absolutely not. But just as there is no perfect church, so too there are no perfect mission settings. Are they committed? Are they looking to do the best they can within their areas of influence? Absolutely!

I can't imagine a better model for mission than our own "partnership model." Does it have weaknesses? Does it sometimes rest too heavily on the partners' interests over that of the mission co-worker? Are there areas that could and should be tweaked? Sure, but there is an increasing "change element" within Presbyterian World Mission that wants to do more, better. Will they be able to make it? Will the necessary changes come about? Only if we steadfastly support the mission efforts of Presbyterian World Mission with our prayers, our dollars, and our people.

I can't imagine a more dedicated group of people supporting our mission co-workers. Do the Co-workers sometimes feel lost, neglected, or ignored? Do the staff in Louisville feel over-worked, wrongly directed, and even at times impotent? Do we need more direct support? Yes! But for someone interested in serving, someone interested in giving, someone interested in getting to know Mission Co-workers and staff alike there is a heart for connection. Will we live up to the call God has laid on our hearts to seek and to save the lost? To clothe the naked? To visit the sick and the imprisoned? To announce the acceptable day of the Lord? That depends on us, each of us.

Presbyterian Mission is one of the major reasons I stay with this denomination. Not the politics, not our theology, not even our polity (although I think it's the best ecclesiology there is). I don't agree on the liberal leaning biases in so many of our pulpits, but I don't have to support that and I have the opportunity to make a difference where I am. I don't agree on some of the insipidly stupid recommendations to change the elements of the Book of Order that guard our faith and witness to our structure and standards as biblical witnesses to our faith, but I have the opportunity to proclaim that loudly and clearly.

And I do have the opportunity to proclaim from the highest roof tops

"WE HAVE A GREAT MISSION EFFORT
WHICH IS WORTHY OF SUPPORT!"

If anyone wants to know why their favorite person interested in mission work is not able to serve through the PC(USA) just take one look at your congregation's level of funding for international mission. Make a difference. Make a change. Dare to be counter-cultural (within the PC(USA)) and support PC(USA) mission.

Find a missionary by country - http://www.pcusa.org/missionconnections/profiles/country-search.htm
Find a missionary by region - http://www.pcusa.org/missionconnections/profiles/region-search.htm
Find a missionary by name - http://www.pcusa.org/missionconnections/profiles/name-search.htm

... but find a missionary, pray for them, support them, visit them, put a bulletin board up in your church about them, write them, call them, skype them, and blog about them. And while your at it, call Doug Welch 502-569-5353 or Hunter Farrell 502-569-8032, or someone else in World Mission and let them know they can count on you!

2010-04-02T09:21:00.004-04:00

God's Friday

Good Friday is always a challenge for me. It's amazing how twisted my memory is that I would remember Good Friday, what I truly believe is God's Friday to be one of darkness. In my twisted memory every Good Friday was warm and sunny until 12:00 noon and then darkness until 3:00pm. Now I know, intellectually that that could hardly be the case, but still there is a sense of darkness and foreboding on this day. As young children we always went to our rooms for those three hours. I'm still not sure that it wasn't also a welcome respite for my mother who birthed four children in 34 months and had three in diapers at the same time...

Nevertheless there is a reverential awe (fear), a sense of dread upon this day that has long captivated me. I know that my redeemer lives. I know of his resurrected glory, but this day... this day when the light seemed to have gone out in the world...

I can't begin to describe how hopeless life would be apart from that Light. And I cannot imagine the pain and anguish, the confusion and anxiety the disciples must have experienced. I do have hope, such great hope. And yet I continue to wrestle with the darkness in the world which is so evident by those whose hope is found in earthly gain, comfort, convenience, whose way is not the way of suffering, whose way is not the way of the cross.

And I love Paul's passion - "

I want to know Christ, and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow to attain to the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained this or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me." (Philippians 3:10-12)

On this God's Friday when God proves that our sense of "good" is all wrong, when death has no sting, when the one that we are to rightly fear, God himself, is a God of love who died for us...

Love so amazing, so divine, demands my soul my life my all...

2010-04-01T13:49:00.013-04:00

The church (community of believers) I dream of exists to:

Proclaim the gospel for the salvation of humankind;

Provide for the shelter, nurture and spiritual fellowship of the children of God;

Maintain worship of the One True God;

Preserve truth;

Promote social righteousness; and

Exhibit the Kingdom of Heaven to the world

In order to accomplish this, it would, without equivocation to the social, political, economic, scholarly, or other worldly pressures surrounding it:

Preach Christ crucified and risen as the only means of salvation;

Ensure that its members’ physical, emotional, and spiritual needs are met through purposeful fellowship and care activities;

Provide for regular, contextually appropriate, and theologically sound worship;

Teach and proclaim the Bible as the final word of authority in all matters of faith and life and God’s absolute and infallible truth, and otherwise provide for the teaching of sound Reformed doctrine;

Actively engage in ministries within the community to provide for the needs of the less fortunate, those without a voice, and the most vulnerable members of society; and

Live their individual lives and relate to one another in such a manner as to provide to the broader society a glimpse of what the Kingdom of God will look like in its fullness;

organizing itself through a presbyterian form of government and a committee structure that would allow for the fullest expression of the above standards to ensure growth toward the above goals ensuring that each and every person at all levels of leadership subscribes to and is supportive of these statements and ministry goals.

2010-03-27T10:18:00.014-04:00

_______________________________________________

Note: The use of the word "imperial" herein is not to be confused with
the currently fashionable but grossly distorted use of the word "Empire"...

_______________________________________________

In "The Prophetic Imagination," Walter Brueggemann writes:

...the possibility of passion is a primary prophetic agenda...

The potential to care, the possibility of the people of God to rise up and become passionate about God's agenda is a primary prophetic agenda!!!

...and that it is precisely what the royal consciousness means to eradicate...

The role of too much of government or perhaps more precisely, the fallen nature of all government makes its goal the control, the eradication, the reduction, at least to a manageable level, of the peoples' passions, cries, hopes and dreams.

...Passion as the capacity and readiness to care, to suffer, to die, and to feel is the enemy of imperial reality...

Except to the extent to which the goals of the government to protect itself might be used as a substitute for the more appropriate passions of God's agenda. And the more the "imperial reality" can assume the place of God's will for the people, or confuse them as to what exactly is the source of God's will for the people, the better it ensures its own survival. But the passion of the people must always be controlled! Lest God's will for humankind break forth and Jesus rule in people's hearts rather than their politics.

...imperial economics is designed to keep people satiated so they do not notice...

The pursuit of a healthy economy advances the complacency, the comfort, and the contentedness of those who possess and allows for the silencing of the cries of the dispossessed and the "have nots", for the sake of "order".

...Its politics is intended to block out the cries of the denied ones...

When political machinations and structures can take precedence over the needs of the oppressed, the controlled, and needy, or when the oppressed and the needy can be viewed (or at least their cries and their passions be viewed) as a threat to the order of society, the role of the imperial government is to silence them for the good of societal order...

...its religion is to be an opiate so that no one discerns misery alive in the hearth of God...

And religion which is acceptable and tolerated is that which denies the fact that God's heart is broken and the Lord Almighty weeps for his people - the suffering and the oppressed as well as those who, in their imperial-gifted comfort and complacency, have drowned out the voices of the very ones God intends to hear and to help... all for the sake of order.

...I believe that the possibility of passion is a primary prophetic agenda and that it is precisely what the royal consciousness means to eradicate...Passion as the capacity and readiness to care, to suffer, to die, and to feel is the enemy of imperial reality. Imperial economics is designed to keep people satisfied so that they do not notice. Its politics is intended to block out the cries of the denied ones. Its religion is to be an opiate so that no one discerns misery alive in the hearth of God...

I see this even and perhaps especially in the "church" in the minds of those who would silence the movement from religious tradition to missional activity. "Religion," it is often thought, should quiet and calm hearts troubled the the state of the world and when that calmness is disturbed by the passions of people within the church to address the great needs of those outside its comfortable walls, or even worse when that "form of religion without the power" is co opted by the government it becomes particularly ugly.

People, persons, members of Christian communities often attempt to "co opt" the church to protect their own comfortably complacent agendas, to gain the power and prestige which they are not otherwise able to obtain in the greater society.

But when the Spirit-driven passions of the people for integrity and honesty (amidst all of our warts and imperfections) are awakened, and through them God begins to take back His church, blood is spilled (even if only figuratively, though often literally) and the Passion of the Christ, which is at the heart of God creates "the capacity and readiness to care, to suffer, to die and to feel." And when that passion is ignited for the lost, for those who have suffered at the hands of "pretend church" the true church breaks forth as the redeemed people of God, the community of the faithful and the Imperial Consciousness within the "pretend church" is seen for what it is.

The church in this instance becomes counter cultural and peace is not the operative milieu as much as the transformation of souls and through the transformation and empowerment of the people is society itself transformed and a vision of the Kingdom of God begins to be revealed. And then we begin to understand Paul's cry:

...I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead. Philippians [3:10-11]

May the people of God be born again unto the passion which makes us ready to care, to suffer, to die, and to feel even as Jesus did in this his last week which we prepare to enter. For if we dare to keep quiet "the stones shall cry out!" [Luke 19:40]

2010-03-14T17:06:00.011-04:00

I received one of those ridiculously childish notes today after worship... the kind that has been slipped under the study door, unsigned, posing a question which is meant to be an accusation...

"Is hearing about our lack of mission the only
focus of our church now? Is there no other
teaching for us as disciples?"

I had preached on Joshua 5 and Luke 11 bringing out the notion that in both cases there was a lack of fulfillment of the covenantal promises - for the Israelites in Joshua's day it was recognition that circumcision and celebration of the Passover had not been provided for and that their reproach in having neglected those responsibilities was removed as they moved back into faithfulness. God in turn celebrates that in the ending of manna and the provision of a harvest from the Promised Land. Party!

For the Prodigal son it was a rejection of the family covenant expecting the benefits of family (the inheritance) while neglecting the responsibility. And, as he comes around, his (earthly) Father indulges him and celebrates.

I asked how we might have failed to live up to our covenantal promises - in financial support of the church or giving of our time to ministry, in supporting organizations which did not advance the cause of Christ or participating in activities that held back the kingdom... Anticipating the joy of our Father's blessings as we prepare to celebrate Resurrection Day.

And then during the offering I shared a thank you card we received from Bruce Whearty for our support of Missionaries Bob and Kristy Rice and said something like "think about this, a one hundred million dollar a year organization sends us a hand written thank you note. Presbyterians do believe in the importance of mission and the folks in Louisville want to make sure we know how important our support is and how much they value us as a part of that team..."

So go figure:

Is hearing about our lack of mission the only
focus of our church now? Is there no other
teaching for us as disciples?

I'm not quite sure where the "lack of mission" was a focus in any of that. Perhaps the person should have sat in a different place to hear a different sermon??? Probably wouldn't have made any difference. I'm not sure that this person heard anything that was said.

Of course not signing the note also prevents me from responding personally to that inquiry but the person couldn't have really wanted a meaningful answer anyway. And had one been given, it probably would not have been received well. My heart breaks for the brokenness this note represents.

Is hearing about our lack of mission the only
focus of our church now? Is there no other
teaching for us as disciples?

So, in answer to that question, through this post, I say quite simply NO! There is no other teaching that you will hear from me or from scripture. The church exists by mission as a fire exists by burning. No burning. No Fire. No mission. No church. The God of Mission has a church not vice versa. Mission (and by inference ministry) is what we do in response to God's work in our lives. When the Spirit moves in our lives we move in God's mission. It's part and parcel of the salvation-sanctification process. It doesn't, necessarily, have to be anywhere outside our family, or our community, or our social circles, although it may extend to the the farthest reaches of the globe. Mission is a sending and the congregation is sent forth each week to engage in their respective ministries and missions to the glory of God.

If the author reads this, please know that I'd love to connect in a healthier fashion, in a way that allows such questions to be addressed in a more meaningful way.

In the meantime, I'm going forth (I have a mission) to tell the Confirmation Class about the Liturgical Year and the Sacraments as means of grace and God's mission - to us, through us, by us, and in spite of us - to His own Glory! Amen!

2010-02-27T16:56:00.003-05:00

I've been thinking I would "fast" from blogging during Lent. But then I read today's "Presbyweb" posting and just couldn't resist.

The LA Daily News has a buffoonery question on whether or not there is room for God in our "Star Trek" future, as if God's existence was dependent upon our opinions, our technology, our television shows, or even our discoveries... Moreover the assumption of the article seems to be that if people from widely varying "spiritual" declensions come together to discuss the "spiritual" implications of some television show then it must be a good thing? And people wonder why the "church" is in the mess it is in... People are more concerned about discussing the "theology" or the "spirituality" of some Hollywood production then about feeding the poor, clothing the naked, or visiting the sick and the imprisoned...

There is also an article about the Swedish Group Sensus which has made the decision to offer people three options to check when declaring their gender: male, female, and "other"... (and maybe that "other" category includes trekkies). XX = female, XY = male, and so we must have YY= "other" on the genetic test? That's REALLY scary!

But there is some light for the day. The Layman has an article entitled "'Presbyterianism' run amuck" where we see some clear, level-headed, common sense thinking regarding the mess the PC(USA) finds itself in this week with regard to issues of sexuality and connectionalism. The article wisely points out that in its approval of self proclaimed actively open, sexually active, gay man Scott Anderson for ordination John Knox Presbytery has broken fellowship with the church of Jesus Christ, rejected the polity and the practice of the Presbyterian Church (USA), and thumbed their noses at the concept of connectionalism.

The Presbyterian Coalition has made it's position known and others have and will continue to make their opinions known, but for all intents and purposes it seems that henceforth ordinations done by the John Knox Presbytery may not have legitimate standing in the PC(USA) anymore, so that those of us on COMs in other presbyteries need to be very careful about the question of whether or not we can receive any pastors from such a Presbytery. The reality is that given the very real violation our Biblical and Constitutional standards by that Presbytery EVERYTHING that is done in connection with that Presbytery must now be suspect.

The PC(USA) is indeed at crossroads. The gauntlet has been thrown down. The only question now is whether or not the Synod PJC and GA PJC will rise to the occasion and do what is necessary or continue play the cowardly role of "political correctness" hiding behind their cloaks of "standing" or "grounds" or other means of avoiding the pertinent issues.

Interestingly enough this comes at the same time as the GAMC announces a recommendation to form a commission with the same authority as G.A. to handle judicatory issues. Hmmm... That could be really good news or very worrisome news...

The times they are a changin' - for better or worse, only the Lord knows.

MISSIONARY ENTERPRISE

2010-01-26T20:45:00.005-05:00

The Church of Jesus Christ as a Missionary Enterprise!

What an exciting thought. What might the church look like if all of it's functions were truly seen as the missionary effort of our God - to educate, to rejoice, to proclaim, to sing, to celebrate, to announce, in every way, both the dynamic presence and the future coming in its fullness of the Kingdom of God!!!

John Mackay, in "The Christian Mission at this Hour" (The Ghana Assembly of the International Missionary Council, 1957) said:

The Church's structure and doctrine, her liturgy and even her sacraments, fulfill their highest function when they prepare the people of God to be the servants of God".

In quoting this, Darrell Likens Guder states further (in his inaugural lecture at Princeton Seminary)

"the formation of the church for mission should be the motivating force that shapes and energizes our theological labors in all their diversity and distinctiveness."

The Church of Jesus Christ is a missionary enterprise at it's core. Emil Bruner makes this even clearer in one of my favorite quotes:

"The Church exists by mission, just as a fire exists by burning."

Without the burning a fire is only a pile of wood. Without mission as it's nature the church is only a gathering of people...

As the Father sent the Son and the Father and the Son sent the Spirit, so the Father, Son and Holy Spirit sends the Church. Mission is not an activity of the Church but an attribute of God (Karl Barth, Emil Bruner, et. al.)

Mission Dei - The Mission of God IS the Church of Jesus Christ! Glory be to God.

2010-01-10T15:12:00.003-05:00

There is no recession in God's Kingdom!

That's a radical statement but I continue to be amazed just how giving a congregation can be when they have a sense that the Lord is in charge of the "church" instead of the session (board) or the preacher. The congregation I serve (which may or may not agree with this blog's content at any given point) is an increasingly amazing fellowship of people. I am surprised most every Sunday by the way in which God is moving in our midst.

Our attendance continues to increase (up a solid 18-20% on average over the past 18 months). Our giving... well we've had to raise the budget several times now in that same amount of time due to receiving more than we had budgeted for. Adult attendance at Sunday School and in Bible studies is up and strong as is attendance at youth and children's Sunday School. There is a spirit of renewal and revival in the air... and I am at a loss as to how to handle that.

And so I've taken the dive. I've made a commitment to return to school and will be working on a Doctor of Ministry degree over the next three years through Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. It will be an attempt to find out what all this nonsense about "emergent church" and "missional church" et cetera is.

What I can't figure out, in this return to ministry in the USA, is why there is such a perceived need to give everything a title. Why everyone is so fearful of being just a plain old congregation, a body of believers on the "Jesus" way. Why the need to tweet, fb, or whatever the silliness is in this new bondage to technology. It seems that whatever we do, it has to be new, bigger, different, techno-saavy... I do realize that blogging is a part of that but anyone who has followed this will more than support my contention that I am anything but addicted. (I don't seem to be able to even keep this up to date on a monthly basis.)

I find myself dancing in circles trying to catch up on all the "lingua franca" of the ministry here in the states. It was easier to understand Thai and even Hausa than it is to try to understand what each individual means when they speak about "church". Everybody, it seems, is an expert on what is meant by______ (fill in the blank with the latest technological term). And the sales of items to support such ministry - "you have to be (doing, buying, producing, whatever) if you want to survive in this culture!"

Nonsense. My sense is that all we have to do is to find Jesus. He's already at work around us as both Henry Blackaby and Andrew Purves remind us in their books. Lasso the Lord and hold on for the ride!

As I sit back after a great worship service - the choir was wonderful, the scripture reading was to be commended, new faces and some returning older faces were enjoyed - I'm just basking in being completely out of control, out of my element, madly in love with the Lord as he continues to bless this fellowship.

I'm struggling with whether I really want to try to "learn" about the do's and don't's, the "future shape of..." et cetera, through the D.Min. program. I don't want to have to manage ministry, I want to continue to just enjoy the amazingly wild ride He gives.

I rejoice that I serve a church which is content to shoot straight, to worship meaningfully and to let the Lord be Lord. I don't know where all this is going, but He does. And He seems to be pleased enough to continue to shower us with blessings. There is no drought in His Kingdom. It's all blessing upon blessing. Thanks, Lord.

Amen

2010-01-10T08:04:00.000-05:00

I really am going to get around to updating this thing soon!!! Please stay tuned.

Glen

2009-10-07T15:53:00.009-04:00

The Presbyterian Coalition has issued the following response to the Special Committee's Report and Covenant to which I responded in my last blog. I have posted the response in its entirety (with permission) as an example of how we ought to be thinking about these issues from a mature Christian faith perspective...

Special Committee Must Not Evade Biblical Decisions on Marriage:
An open letter by the Presbyterian Coalition
“[W]e do not allow all possible interpretations (2 Peter 1:20).”
Book of Confessions, The Second Helvetic Confession, 5.010

Members of the Special Committee on Marriage and Civil Unions disagree on how to interpret Scripture. Thus, their recently released report draws its conclusions based primarily on that failure to agree. And because of that fundamental failure, the committee’s weakened conclusions fail to adequately serve the Church, members of the Church, the world at large, and God’s truth itself, as revealed in Scripture.

A primary obligation of any committee preparing to offer authoritative Christian leadership on a matter of theological and moral importance is to the integrity of the message of Scripture. God has lovingly instructed us through the Word, and our obligation is to heed that clear instruction above all else. In addition, each minister and elder on such a committee has taken a vow to “receive and adopt the essential tenets of the Reformed faith as expressed in the confessions of our church as authentic and reliable expositions of what Scripture leads us to believe and do, and … [to] be instructed and led by those confessions as [they] lead the people of God.” (BOO, W-4.4003c)

Further, it was the express responsibility of this special committee to come to terms with our scriptural understandings of marriage. Precisely because the General Assembly appeared at a loss to make such a decision, it gave the special committee the salutary task of providing clear and decisive recommendations. Thus, the special committee was constituted and funded precisely to come to a difficult decision, not to waver in indecision.

For these reasons, the committee report, as it now stands, fails the church. It draws no solid conclusions. It makes only the feeblest attempt to speak from a scriptural or confessional basis. It reduces a matter of faith and moral practice on which both Scripture and our confessions have spoken clearly to a level of human social consensus, the mere seeking of peaceful co-existence among parties with differing views. In doing so, the committee errs by giving novel, unbiblical, unproved viewpoints equal weight with the settled, biblical, enduring moral practice of the Church.

The biblical and historical witness of the Church throughout history and around the world is clear and unequivocal. It is expressed in the Creation mandate of Genesis 1:27 and 2:24, which was used as the foundation for Jesus’ instruction on marital monogamy and permanence in Matthew 19:4-6 (= Mark 10:6-9): In response he said, “Haven’t you read that the Creator from the beginning made them male and female [Gen 1:27]? And he said, “Because of this a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh [Gen 2:24]. So they are no longer two but one flesh. What then God yoked together, let no person separate.”

Jesus did not merely affirm Genesis 1:27 and 2:24. Rather, he based his limitation of two persons to a valid sexual relationship on the twoness of the sexes. In Romans 1:23-27, Paul intentionally echoed Gen 1:26-27 in rejecting homosexual practice because it was a violation of the male-female prerequisite for sexual relations ordained by the Creator at creation, not because of how well or how badly it was done in his cultural milieu.

Scripture and our confessions alike condemn same-sex sexual relationships and indeed any sexual relationship outside the bond of marriage sinful relationships and behaviors that God seeks to redeem and transform, not accommodate.

We urge the Special Committee on Marriage and Civil Unions to come to terms with the biblical and confessional teachings and to bring to the General Assembly of 2010 a clear, compelling report and recommendations that reflect a profoundly biblical and confessional understanding of marriage. An inchoate and unclear consensus statement that struggles but fails to join irreconcilable opposites would not serve the Church.

We further urge this committee to help the church reach out in ministry to all of us who are in need of the transformation of the Gospel in the expression of our sexuality, that that sexual expression may conform to the Word and the will of God. “The one sufficient revelation of God is Jesus Christ, the Word of God incarnate, to whom the Holy Spirit bears unique and authoritative witness through the Holy Scriptures, which are received and obeyed as the word of God written.” Book of Confessions, The Confession of 1967, 9.26

link to original site

2009-10-01T11:50:00.004-04:00

I finally got the news that my computer was ready to be picked up and made the trip to Williamsport to do so. Took a while (as everything seems to with the Geek Squad at Best Buy) but I have finally returned home and find a great opportunity to spout off again with some more rantings...

The Special Committee to Study Issues of Civil Union and Christian Marriage has submitted the draft of their preliminary report and one is left with a major "Huh?" While the report seems to meet the mandates given the committee by the General Assembly, as I read it I was struck by the glaring omissions, twisted interpretations, and strange assumptions made throughout the document.

1. The paper as a whole seems to base it thoughts and conclusions on misinterpretations of scripture and our confessions. It is therefore, at its core, misguided. Take for instance the statement that the "Old Testament assumes a Semitic understanding of the institution of marriage". This very comment betrays the secular anthropological approach to scripture which seems to have pervaded the committee members' thinking. People of faith have confessed scripture (both OT and NT) to be the word of God for centuries. A more appropriate and confessionally accurate comment would have been that the "Old Testament reveals God's understanding of the institution of marriage to be between a man and a woman..."

2. So too the committee seems to take its stand based more on the social reality in which we live, (and with which the church has wrestled, and to which the church should speak) than on the word of God. The unstated assumption apparently being that if something is happening in culture it must be God moving through culture (God is doing a new thing amongst us mentality); that the social reality in which we live is the basis for our knowledge of God rather than the Word of God revealed to us through the word of God.

3. The other tension is the twisted form of inferred logic contained in such statements as:

We agree that God alone is the source of all blessings. By the grace of God and through the power of God's Spirit, individuals and congregations are able to bless God, receive God's blessings, and praise God's glory. Contrary to popular piety, neither a minister nor the church blesses a person or relationship. When ministers conduct services of blessing, they bear witness to the blessing of God on that couple and testify publicly to that blessing in the congregation of believers.

Note especially the use of the "services of blessing" wording inferring that the services of blessing currently being done with same gender unions are bearing witness to God's blessing of that couple. I argue that such is not, cannot be the case. God cannot bless that which he clearly declares to be sin. Unless , of course, our understanding of God comes to us pantheistically and narcissistically rather than biblically.
Yet one more twist in this document is the covenant which the G.A. is ask to approve implying that they act on behalf of all members of the PC(USA) in stating:

We acknowledge and confess that the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) displays Calvin's marks of the true Church (the gospel is rightly preached and heard, and the sacraments are rightly administered). Christ has chosen each one of us here as has called us to this place. Those whom Christ has joined together, let no one separate.

By the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, with the love of God, and in the communion of the Holy Spirit we covenant together:

to honor the truth that Christ has called and God works through each member;

to listen to one another with openness and respect;

to support and pray for each other and for one another's minsitries;

to earnestly seek and carefully listen to each person's discernment of God's will found in the scriptures;

to struggle together with perseverance to find God's will for us even when the way is difficult;

to love one another even when we disagree, and to commit ourselves to the reconciliation of any broken relationships we have with one another;

to honor who we are as Presbyterians by respecting the fallible discernment of the body bearing in mind that individual conscience cannot be bound.

Now right out of the gate we are binding ourselves to the statement that the PC(USA) bears only two of Calvin's three marks of the true church without even a mention of the third mark - to wit discipline is rightly administered... Wow! What a confession - that while claiming we are a part of the true church we deny it by ignoring one of the very marks which define the true church - right discipline - and isn't that the very core of this issue, the lack of proper church discipline on the persons, congregations and judicatory bodies who are so clearly acting outside of the bounds of reasonable Christian faith?

The first bullet point then claims as truth that Christ has called and God works through every member of the PC(USA). I'm sure I don't agree with that. I think we have a huge number of members who have made the decision, on their own, to "join a church" rather than respond to the call to faith which leads to affiliation with a congregation.

But the stranger bullet point is the last one which commits us: ">to honor who we are as Presbyterians by respecting the fallible discernment of the body bearing in mind that individual conscience cannot be bound. This seems to be an upfront admission and apology to any who on either side of the issue might take offense. But to make a covenant which concludes by saying you don't have to agree and this might be a mistake is very strange... Not to mention that the very act of binding our consciences to this document contradicts the intention of the Book of Order provision which is quoted. Had the entire quote been used here we would have understood the paradox - that God has freed us from binding our consciences to anything which is contrary to his word or beside it in matters of faith and worship. Hence we are not bound to any such statement or position which is contrary to his word.

So General Assembly, be ye warned that this document is indeed flawed, fallible, and inappropriate. We cannot bind what God has left free, and that is our conscience when it is properly guided and informed by his word...