Monthly Archives: April 2007

GA of the Church of Scotland: Same-sex relationships report

Leave a reply

With the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland coming up in less than a month the reports are becoming available and the press releases are flowing.  If you want to check out the reports they are available on the General Assembly Reports page and the Online Newsroom is dominated by releases for each of the major reports.

However, the highest profile report appears to be coming from the Mission and Discipleship Council and is titled “A challenge to unity: same-sex relationships as an issue in theology and human sexuality.”  The report is available in MS Word, RTF and Text formats.  You can find all three formats under Mission and Discipleship Council on the Reports web page or if you want you can jump straight to the MS Word format.  The report is 37 pages long and I have barely had a chance to skim through it yet.  I’ll try to read it in more detail tomorrow.  However, looking at the reactions that have come out about it there are a wide variety of reactions and opinions on it.  More on that in a minute.

First, a brief note on the history of this issue and this report.  It is important to remember that the major controversy at last year’s GA came not from this report but what was supposed to be a more routine report from the Legal Questions Committee.  That began not as a theological question as much as a civil legal question in response to the government passing the Civil Partnerships law permitting civil unions.  This year’s report is much more involved in the theology.  There was an earlier report adopted in 1994 and in 2004 the process began to update that report with the 2005 General Assembly commissioning this present two year study.

I have not had a chance to read the report in detail but in scanning it a few things stand out.  One of these is section 4.8 – The Church and Power.  In that section the report says:

But while churches participate in sexuality debates, there is a newer emphasis within the churches that power is exercised through service, according to which the churches align themselves not least with the poor, weak, marginalised and alienated in society and in the world as a whole.  In other words, the church increasingly identifies with people conventionally excluded from power.  Part of this emphasis includes listening to the voices of gays and lesbians, especially gay and lesbian Christians.  Hitherto it has been very difficult for people to speak openly in the church of homosexual desire or orientation, fearing judgment and punishment.  This report plays a small part in developing this process of listening to voices from previously unheard quarters.

Beyond this the study seems to cover the usual ground:  The differing approaches to interpreting scripture, the current scientific and psychological understandings, and how should homosexual persons live in the context of a Christian life.  And maybe the most significant thing about this report, is that it really comes to no conclusion about the issue in the section marked “Conclusion.”  The working group basically says “Here are the issues, we need to be talking about these questions and circumspect about answering them.”  To quote the final part of the conclusion:

Therefore the Mission and Discipleship Council presents this report, prepared by a Group of Christians who shared in debate their own unique perspectives and
convictions, and in so doing represented the wider Church. The report
endeavours to present different approaches to issues in homosexuality
generously and charitably, trying always to avoid caricature.  The unity within the Group – and Christians’ unity more generally – does
not however come simply from courteous debate, listening to all points of view, and attempting to understand the other more deeply, although these are virtues which the Group members tried to exhibit… The Council hopes then that readers of the report will be aided by it as they read it, reflect on it and discuss it together, worship and break bread together and journey on in faith.

I have found no specific recommendations for the church or theological affirmations being put forward in this report.

Now, for the press coverage. 

The one that intrigued me the most was the press release from the Church of Scotland itself.  It is titled “Kirk admits to ‘historic intolerance’ toward gay people.”  That headline is sure to grab interest and raise a few people’s tempers.  Reading through the article the basis for the headline is a line in the article which is taken from a very similarly worded line in the Process section (4.5) of the report: “…and the working group has listened to testimonies which have led members to recognise pastorally insensitive – indeed, sinful – attitudes on the part of the Church towards gay people.”  From a polity standpoint there is a problem here in that this is a report of a committee and it is not until GA adopts it does it speak for the Kirk as the headline suggests.  (Any Church of Scotland polity wonks out there who want to correct this point please let me know.)  However, I am further surprised that a point in the process section of a report that has no real action points would be singled out for the headline.  Finally, there is also the implication in the line that it was some, but not necessarily all, members of the council who were led to recognize the insensitive and sinful attitudes.

The web site Christian Today has an article titled “Kirk Report on Homosexuality a ‘Major Disappointment.'”  The article reports that the liberal group OneKirk welcomes the report as a step to “greater openness” while the evangelical group Forward Together finds the report a “major disappointment” because it says nothing new.

Finally, among some other news articles, is an article in the The Guardian titled “‘Sinful’ Church of Scotland told it must accept gays in its ranks.”  Now, I must admit that I’m not sure where that headline comes from because the article covers the same territory the others do.  Again there seems to be an emphasis on that one line in the process section.  I highlight this article because in the last paragraph there is a comment from Callum Phillips of the gay rights pressure group Stonewall Scotland that the report was a “cop-out”  because it was a theological document and did nothing practical.

This promises to be an interesting item on the docket.

Report of the PCA Ad Interim Study Committee on Federal Vision, New Perspective, and Auburn Avenue Theologies

Leave a reply

The report of the Presbyterian Church in America‘s Ad Interim Study Committee on Federal Vision, New Perspective, and Auburn Avenue Theologies has been released in advance of their upcoming General Assembly.  The report is published in the PCA’s web magazine byFaith online.

The Report

The report is 28 pages long when I print out the printer friendly version, contains a preface that serves as the transmittal letter, six sections including the analysis, declarations, and recommendations, and extensive footnotes.  From an initial scan of the document it looks well written and in general I found it to read well and the analysis and conclusions were understandable.  Not everyone will agree with the conclusions.  The committee was composed of four Teaching Elders (clergy) and three Ruling Elders.

There are nine declarations which the committee unanimously agrees upon.  In each case the decision is that the particular area “is contrary to those [the Westminster] Standards.”  These declarations include the Federal Vision viewpoints of 1) rejecting the bi-covenantal structure of Scripture, 2) that an individual is “elect” by virtue of his membership in the visible church, 3) that Christ does not stand as a representative head, 4) that strikes the language of “merit” from our theological vocabulary, 5) that “union with Christ” renders imputation redundant, 6) that water baptism effects a “covenantal union” with Christ, 7) that one can be “united to Christ” and not receive all the benefits of Christ’s mediation, 8) that some can receive saving benefits of Christ’s mediation…and yet not persevere in those benefits, and 9) that justification is in any way based on our works. (emphasis theirs)

The final content section of the report has five recommendations for the General Assembly.  This includes the usual type that the GA commend the report to the church for careful consideration and study and that the Study Committee be dismissed with thanks.  One recommendation is that the GA reminds the church that while the Westminster documents are subordinate to Scripture, they have still been adopted by the PCA “as standard expositions of the teachings of Scripture in relation to both faith and practice.”   The report also recommends that elders be reminded that they need to make know to their courts where they differ with the standards and the Sessions and Presbyteries responsibility to condemn erroneous opinions.

In a related development, over the weekend Louisiana Presbytery has adopted and issued a Rational For Louisiana Presbytery’s Decision Regarding The Vindication Of TE Steven Wilkins.  (this links to a MS Word file)  This document was prepared for the Standing Judicial Commission of the PCA which is now dealing with Louisiana Presbytery’s examination of Steven Wilkins.  That decision is still pending.

Response

I don’t see a response yet from TE Steve Wilkins or his Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church or the Louisiana Presbytery.  The blogosphere has however come alive, sort of.  So far the posts are mostly just “it’s out,” and one of the more interesting of these is Anglicans Ablaze where the author, Robin G. Jordan, reminds us that one of the developers of the earlier New Perspectives on Paul theology was Anglican Bishop N. T. Wright.  This earlier work is addressed in the report.  Several of these blogs also repeat the Declarations and/or Recommendations and one prints the report in full.  The report was released only about 24 hours ago and I suspect that it will take a day or two for some digestion and critical analysis.  Also, I am expecting comment shortly by Doug Wilson, one of the Federal Vision theologians, on his blog “Blog and Mablog.”  I see nothing posted there today as of my writing this over lunch hour.

I can’t say that I will be able to keep up with all the responses in the blogs but will provide links to any I find especially insightful, particularly those from primary sources or that have significant polity implications.

The passing of Helen Walton

Leave a reply

Helen Robson Walton, a leader in the PC(USA) and the widow of Sam Walton (founder of Wal-Mart), died Thursday evening.  There is much being written of her retailing and philanthropic impact and legacy but, in keeping with the spirit of this blog, would high light just two items related to her leadership in the Presbyterian Church (USA):

She was the first woman to serve as moderator of the Arkansas Presbytery
She served on the Presbyterian Church (USA) foundation including serving as the first vice-chair of the board.

More details on her life and service can be found in numerous news articles currently being published.  I would refer you to the PC(USA) news service article (there was an earlier version of this story that was distributed with the date of her death wrong) and the Wal-Mart press release.

What is appropriate “scripture” for worship

Leave a reply

Let me begin this reflection with this:

From the PC(USA) Book of Order
W-1.4005

a. The minister as pastor has certain responsibilities which are not subject to the authority of the session. In a particular service of worship the pastor is responsible for

(1) the selection of Scripture lessons to be read,
(2) the preparation and preaching of the sermon or exposition of the Word

W-2.2007

The preached Word or sermon is to be based upon the written Word. It is a proclamation of Scripture in the conviction that through the Holy Spirit Jesus Christ is present to the gathered people, offering grace and calling for obedience. Preaching requires diligence and discernment in the study of Scripture, the discipline of daily prayer, cultivated sensitivity to events and issues affecting the lives of the people, and a consistent and personal obedience to Jesus Christ. The sermon should present the gospel with simplicity and clarity, in language which can be understood by the people. [remainder deleted]

I recently attended worship on the Lord’s Day at one of the more progressive churches in the PC(USA) and had a most unusual experience that is informed by the two quotes above from the Book of Order.  The sermon that unfolded would send members of any other American Presbyterian denomination running for their judicial commissions and pastoral examinations.  For some churches within the PC(USA), this is just another Sunday morning.

For this particular service the first scripture lesson was from the Gospel of John.  The second “scripture” lesson, and the one that was favored for the preaching, was from a Gnostic Gospel.  This was lifted up as a parallel, alternative and in some ways better account of a particular story than the Gospel of John presented with the strong implication that the councils that decided the canon were wrong leaving it out.

Now, I have heard many sermons, and their quality and style covers the whole spectrum.  (As a COM liaison to PNC’s I have listened to hundreds of different preachers both live and on tape.)  I have heard children’s books read, I have heard all manner of analogies, allegories and modern parables, and I have heard statements that I believe to be down right wrong.  I have also heard Gnostic Gospels and all manner of ancient and modern literature quoted within the body of the sermon.  But I am sure this is the first time I have heard a Gnostic Gospel not just quoted in the sermon, but portions read as the primary scripture lesson for the day.

I probably should also comment that there was no significant exegesis of either scripture text but they were simply used as a jumping off point for a discussion of current events and the oppression of particular groups.  I can only guess if this reassures you or troubles you even more.

So, what can a pastor preach within the latitude of the Directory for Worship?  While W-1.4005 does provide for latitude, or at least some “academic freedom” I think that both sections are pretty clear that preaching is to be based on the Scriptures, and these are defined by various confessions,  in particular the Westminster Confession.  In addition, that document goes on to say: The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.”  Yes, these Gnostic Gospels while apocryphal are not part of the Apocrypha, but I think this guidance would apply to them as well.  In the case of the sermon I just heard the pastor may disagree with the statement that it was not divinely inspired.

Well the preaching is up to the pastor, guided by the Holy Spirit, but the Book of Order does say it is to be “based on the written Word.”  While I recognize and appreciate the flexibility the Directory for Worship offers, I believe that it also provides boundaries which I see as being crossed in this case.  The reading of Scripture is accorded a particular place of honor in our worship.  To substitute something else in that place, however divinely inspired the preacher may consider it, seems inappropriate and contrary to two millennial of corporate guidance.  Yes, you can use it in the sermon.  But don’t substitute it for Scripture.

News on PC(USA) Book of Order revisions

Leave a reply

There are two current items of interest regarding revision and rewriting of the PC(USA) Book of Order.

The first is the status of Book of Order amendments from the last General Assembly.  The vote tallies were last updated on April 16 and most of the amendments have been approved.  While all of these affect the Book of Order, of particular interest are amendments 06-A and 06-B.1.  Amendment 06-A is a major revision of Chapter G-XIV, the longest chapter in the Form of Government section.  The amendment also includes some related “housekeeping” changes to other sections to match the new sections and words in Chapter XIV.  Amendment 06-B.1 moves the ordination questions and service from Form of Government to Directory for Worship.  The former is currently being approved by a narrow margin and the latter has received enough affirmative votes to assure passage.  The only other amendment whose outcome has not been decided yet is 06-B.2 “Adding Licensure of Candidates–On Amending G-14.0309” which is currently failing by the narrow margin of 60 to 63.  All other amendments have been approved by enough presbyteries.

In the other news, at it’s April 12-14 meeting the Form of Government Task Force, charged with rewriting the whole Form of Government section of the Book of Order, decided not to decide but to leave a structural question up to the 218th General Assembly.  The Form of Government web page has not been updated with the report of this meeting yet, but the PC(USA) news service issued a press release on April 16 reporting on the meeting.  Specifically, the task force had been working on a new version of the “G” section which moved the first four chapters into a new preceding section which would contain the “foundational principles” found in those chapters.  At the meeting last week the task force voted 6-3 to provide two versions to the next GA: One with the new fourth section and one that left the foundational principles in the Form of Government section.

The news article also talks about the underlying theology of the rewrite and how it is built upon “missional polity.”  This is the concept that the church does not have a mission, but rather that mission is its only reason for existence. The news story quotes a supporting document:  “Mission lies at the heart of the Church’s identity. The Church is called into being and is an expression of the mission dei, God’s ongoing engagement with the world to reconcile, transform, and finally fulfill the divine creative intent in it.”  (I thought I saw this document on-line at one time but can not find it again.)

The task force next meets August 16-18.

Brief Comment:  In the PC(USA) news service article four members of the task force and two PC(USA) staff members to the task force were quoted.  All but one staff member (Doska Ross) are identified as clergy!  Are elders involved in this process?  You would not know it from the news story.  The membership list shows that the task force is composed of six clergy and three elders.

Moderator elected at the 47th General Meeting of the Synod of the Presbyterian Church of Trinidad and Tobago

Leave a reply

The 47th General Meeting of the Synod of the Presbyterian Church of Trinidad and Tobago has just concluded and the Rev. Elvis Elahie, 45, was elected Moderator.  The meeting was held at St. Andrews Theological College, Paradise Hill, San Fernando.  Trinidad &Tobago’s Newsday reports that Rev. Elahie was ordained in 1988 and “has worked in several districts around the country.”

In his acceptance speech, Rev. Elahie is quoted as saying:

“Over the ages the Christian community has been
enriched out of the heritage of seers and scholars and saints.  Thus we must engage new insights for our time, by being possessors of the truth of many yesterdays, partakers of God’s thoughts for today and creators with God for a better tomorrow.  One of the areas which I am sure must engage our attention is that of the fusion between education and religion as we aim toward human development.”

In an interesting note on the polity of this denomination, the article says the previous moderator served two two-year terms.  Unlike most presbyterian denominations where a moderator serves a single term, the multiple terms here may indicate a greater role in the ecclesiastical operation of the church.

Coming events

Leave a reply

It has been a bit slow the last couple of months with less Presbyterian news and happenings during Lent and the week following Easter.  But as any GA Junkie knows, GA season is just around the corner.  Here is what I have on my calendar for the next few months:

  • General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, May 19-25, 2007
  • 133rd General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada, June 3-8, 2007
  • General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, June 4-8, 2007
  • 35th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America, June 12-15, 2007
  • 74th General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, June 13-20, 2007
  • 27th General Assembly of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, June 20-23, 2007
  • 71st General Synod of the Bible Presbyterian Church, August 2-7, 2007

Enjoy.  The first is barely a month away.  And they webcast!

Whom do you seek?

Leave a reply

Whom do you seek?  That really is the question of the day on this, or any, resurrection Sunday.  As modern Christians we come to worship this morning “knowing the answer.”  The music this morning in the “regular” service I attended included brass, bagpipes, organ, percussion including timpani, and a full choir.  Even our sunrise service had the brass ensemble.  And the music was glorious!  Well preformed, appropriate for worship, spiritually uplifting.  What more can I say…

Except that as I reflected on Easter this afternoon I had to go back to that pivotal phrase in the scripture lesson from the Gospel of John:  Whom do you seek?

The first resurrection day did not have all of the horns and choirs.  Those announced Jesus’ birth.  Now Jesus was in the tomb, or at least was supposed to be.  As one of my children said when they were very young “Dead is dead.”  And all the disciples knew was death.  We rightly celebrate the resurrection for the joyful event it is, for it also represents the hope of our salvation and our own resurrection.  But we must hold this in the tension of what that first resurrection day held.  None of the disciples expected it no matter how many times Jesus told them otherwise.  Resurrection was, and still is, outside the realm of human experience.  Dead is dead.  So when asked “Whom do you seek?” they were not looking for the living amidst the dead, but the body in the grave yard.  They were expecting the ordinary not the extra-ordinary because that was too far beyond their experience and understanding.

Whom do you seek?  Maybe this is why I am such a fan of Easter sunrise services.  There is something about being out there in the dark and cold that resonates in me and helps me realize that I do seek the living among the dead.  Something that helps me better connect with that first resurrection morn.  Something that makes me realize that in our human existence death is the end but that in God’s order it is only the beginning.  It helps me realize the quiet and loneliness those first disciples felt that morning as they visited the tomb.  As they began, it was an experience of longing.  By the end it was an experience of wonder, if not understanding.

Do we, can we, fully grasp the divine miracle that is embedded in this event and the incredible 180 degree turn it placed in the disciples’ lives?  Does our knowing the story keep us from really grasping how everyday experience and natural laws were so totally violated in Jesus’ resurrection?  What can we do to grasp the significance that we and the disciples are looking for the living among the dead when that question is asked “Whom do you seek?“

Religion Commentary on CNN web site

Leave a reply

In this week where religion stories with some “mass appeal” seem to appear on the cover of every news magazine and evening news broadcast, the CNN web site is carrying a very smart and honest commentary by contributor Roland Martin.  Now, there is a tie-in here since the commentary goes by the same name as a current feature on CNN called “What would Jesus really do?” that, from the description, seems to be a roundtable discussion by the likes of Rick Warren and Jerry Falwell.  (I don’t have cable so I don’t know if I’ll ever see it.)

Mr. Martin takes on the current climate of the (predominantly white) evangelical churches in the US that seem to have their focus on two issues: abortion and homosexuality.  He says: “Ask the nonreligious what being a Christian today means, and based on what we see and read, it’s a good bet they will say that followers of Jesus Christ are preoccupied with those two points.”

But he is even handed here and while he criticizes the religious right for this narrow focus, he also points out the religious left’s liberal attitude about what is sin.  But one of his strongest points is that the predominantly “white” church shares little in common with the priorities of the predominantly African-American church.  If we are all Christians, it would speak well of us to at least understand each other’s perspective and focus.

Yes, this is commentary and his opinion, but he makes a good case and it is a good read which should provoke the reader to some thought. 

Presbyterian Church of Ghana Moderator encourages new sources of denominational funding

Leave a reply

The Myjoyonline web site is reporting that the Rt. Rev. Dr. Yaw Frimpong-Manso, Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Ghana (PCG), has encouraged additional sources of denominational funding.  From the article it appears that he was speaking in a sermon at a worship service to celebrate the “elevation” of the Samreboi sub-district of the PCG to a full district in the Wassa Amenfi District of the Western Region.

Rev. Frimpong-Manso is quoted as saying:

[T]he church could no longer continue to rely solely on assessment payments for the smooth running of the church.

“As a step in this direction”,he stated: “I humbly appeal to you to find ways and means of raising funds from within and outside your congregation for the development of church infrastructure, evangelism and social services”.

and later the article says

The Moderator said the church needed to improve its financial base so as to move away from the ever dependence on the annual assessment, offering and annual harvests, into finding new ways of funding the church, adding: “We need money and this should come out of viable projects and investments”.

From my PC(USA) perspective I would read the “assessment” as something like per-capita and it sounds like the “offering and annual harvests” are like our special offerings.  However, what the moderator seems to be encouraging is not like our additional congregational gifts to higher governing bodies that we call “mission giving” but other sources like revenue from projects and investing in something.

What is clear, from his list of priorities (the development of church infrastructure, evangelism and social services), is that this is for the expansion of the church and its mission, not just the maintenance of the institution.

I also found it interesting the appeal for necessary transportation:

The Resident Pastor appealed to the Head Office of the church to replace the eight-year-old incapacitated Suzuki motorcycle with a strong vehicle, in order to promote evangelism and social services in the hinterland where the road network was in a mess.