Category Archives: Reflection

Calvin 500 Celebration: Thoughts On The Linkage Of Theology And Polity — Part 2: Human Sinfulness And Making Decisions Collectively

Article 4 – Natural Man
We acknowledge man by nature to be blind, darkened in understanding, and full of corruption and perversity of heart, so that of himself he has no power to be able to comprehend the true knowledge of God as is proper, nor to apply himself to good works. But on the contrary, if he is left by God to what he is by nature, he is only able to live in ignorance and to be abandoned to all iniquity. Hence he has need to be illumined by God, so that he come to the right knowledge of his salvation, and thus to be redirected in his affections and reformed to the obedience of the righteousness of God. [1536 Geneva Confession]

(Note: I use the 1536 Geneva Confession extensively in this post and in the other posts as well because of the concise form in which it presents many of these concepts. I should point out that it is believed the Geneva Confession was written by Calvin’s colleague Wilhelm Farel so while not directly attributable to Calvin it almost certainly reflects the thoughts and influence of Calvin.)

While the Sovereignty of God is one side of the coin in Reformed theology, the Sinfulness of Humankind is the opposite side. This is another foundational doctrine on which John Calvin built his theological framework and which influences Presbyterian polity today.

This is also one of the most controversial points of Reformed theology because of the extent to which Calvin considers humans sinful. We do not just do bad things that are wrong and sinful. We are not good at heart and can correct our ways by ourselves. We have been infected by the original sin of Adam and Eve and are born in a sinful condition. And this original sin is such that our sinful condition taints everything that we do.

(While I do not intend to do an exhaustive discussion of our sinful nature I do want to clarify for those not familiar with Calvin’s view of the sinful condition that he does not say the human beings are “totally evil” or can do nothing good under any circumstances. He does say that even the good works we do have at least some self-interest embedded in them and are not done completely out of pure and selfless motivation. As Calvin says in the Institutes of the Christian Religion:

If any are disposed to think more modestly, and concede somewhat to God, that they may not seem to arrogate every thing as their own, still, in making the division, they apportion matters so, that the chief ground of confidence and boasting always remains with themselves. [Inst. 2.1.2]

At least for me that hits a bit close to home.)

It is important to note that Calvin distinguishes between the Natural Man (as in Article 4 above) and the Regenerate Man that has received salvation through Jesus Christ (Article 8 of the Geneva Confession). Yet, while the Natural Man is blinded and “has no power to be able to comprehend the true knowledge of God,” the Regenerate Man is better but still has no hope of complete perfection. As Article 9 begins:

Finally, we acknowledge that this regeneration is so effected in us that, until we slough off this mortal body, there remains always in us much imperfection and infirmity, so that we always remain poor and wretched sinners in the presence of God.

A point here is that confession once does not clear us but we need to be aware of our continuing sinful nature and need for on-going confession and pardon.
And Article 9 also says:

And, however much we ought day by day to increase and grow in God’s righteousness, there will never be plenitude or perfection while we live here.

So as we consider Calvin’s doctrine of the Sinfulness of Humankind, what are the implications for the Church and our polity?

The most significant point from a Presbyterian polity perspective is that because of this continuing taint of sin, this lack of perfection in human beings, a group collectively making decisions will be better able to discern the will of God than a single individual acting alone. It is why Presbyterians always hold power and authority in governing bodies rather than in particular individuals. The wisdom of the group will be better than the wisdom of the one. They hold each other accountable and help to bring out the best in each other. The discernment of the group helps to cancel out individual motives and repress personal ambitions.

Does this always work out? No, for all synods and councils “may err, and many have erred.” (Westminster Confession XXXI.4) but for the most part collective decision making will do better than individual authority.

This does not negate the primacy of a minister of Word and Sacrament having the freedom to preach as they are led by the Spirit. But, within the community there is still the leadership, governance, and discipline of the ruling elders to hold the preacher accountable and assure that the Word is rightly preached. And likewise, it is the congregation’s responsibility to elect those who meet the moral and spiritual standards to be elders over them. And the higher governing bodies have the right and responsibility of review of lower governing bodies, yet are made up of commissioners from the lower bodies. In all things the different parts of the Body of Christ hold each other accountable so that together we may fight against the taint of sin to best work the will of God.

One application of this is for the officers of the church to take seriously their role in discerning the will of God. Realize that the goal and objective of the various procedures of review and approval is to help verify that what is being done is what God would be having us do. It is not to jump through another hoop or for the governing body to “show who is in charge.” It is a collective discernment and each group that is part of the process needs to take its role seriously.

Calvin 500 Celebration: Thoughts On The Linkage Of Theology And Polity — Part 1: The Sovereignty Of God And The Gift Of The Church

2 Replies

I will begin with the Church, into whose bosom God is pleased to collect his children, not only that by her aid and ministry they may be nourished so long as they are babes and children, but may also be guided by her maternal care until they grow up to manhood, and, finally, attain to the perfection of faith. What God has thus joined let not man put asunder (Mark 10:9) to those to whom he is a Father, the Church must also be a mother. This was true not merely under the Law, but even now after the advent of Christ; since Paul declares that we are the children of a new, even a heavenly Jerusalem, (Gal. 4: 26.) [Inst. 4.1.1]

Probably the most frequently cited distinctive of Reformed theology is “The Sovereignty of God.” To put it very simply, God is in charge, we are not, and God has the power and authority to do whatever pleases him in his good and perfect will. To put it another way, God created this world and God allows us to live in it. The Geneva Confession Article on God begins in 2.1 with:

Following, then, the lines laid down in the Holy Scriptures, we acknowledge that there is one only God, whom we are both to worship and serve, and in whom we are to put all our confidence and hope: having this assurance, that in him alone is contained all wisdom, power, justice, goodness and pity.

While this may seem an obvious theological principle of Christianity, in John Calvin’s theological framework the logical consequence of God being in charge leads to the conclusion that God gets to decide who is saved for eternity, the concept of predestination. But that is a very rough and brief statement, it leaves our one important logical step, and is a subject for later in this series.

But as we consider Calvin’s doctrine of the Sovereignty of God, what are the implications for the Church and our polity?

While there are a multitude of implications the one I want to focus on now is the gift of the Church. If God is absolutely sovereign then the Church is not a human institution and does not belong to us. As Chapter 25.6 begins in the Westminster Confession “VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ…” In Calvin’s Geneva Catechism it is similarly expressed:

Master. – You therefore mean nothing more than Paul says, namely, that Christ has been appointed head of the Church, and raised above all principalities, has obtained a name which is above every name. (Eph. i. 22; Phil. ii. 9.)

Scholar. – It is as you say.

And later in the questioning:

Master. – What is the Church?

Scholar. – The body and society of believers whom God hath predestined to eternal life.

So, because the Church belongs to God, God gets to decide who is part of it.

But the other side of this is that God also provides for the Church.

But as our ignorance and sloth (I may add, the vanity of our mind) stand in need of external helps, by which faith may be begotten in us, and may increase and make progress until its consummation, God, in accommodation to our infirmity has added much helps, and secured the effectual preaching of the gospel, by depositing this treasure with the Church. He has appointed pastors and teachers, by whose lips he might edify his people, (Eph. 4: 11) he has invested them with authority, and, in short, omitted nothing that might conduce to holy consent in the faith, and to right order. In particular, he has instituted sacraments, which we feel by experience to be most useful helps in fostering and confirming our faith. Forseeing we are shut up in the prison of the body, and have not yet attained to the rank of angels, God, in accommodation to our capacity,has in his admirable providence provided a method by which, though widely separated, we might still draw near to him. [Inst. 4.1.1]

Specifically, God provides leadership, particularly for the preaching of the Word, and God provides the Sacraments so that “we might still draw near to him.” The leadership and Sacraments are for our benefit and by extension the benefit of The Church.

One application of this is that the officers of the church, teaching and ruling elders as well as deacons, need to see their role as stewards or shepherds. The Church of Jesus Christ is entrusted to us, what are we doing to return that which is entrusted to us back to its true owner in better condition than when we received it?

Revolution and Community

3 Replies

“When in the Course of human events…”

When you think about it the United States’ Declaration of Independence is a really bold and audacious document. It sets out the theory and specific reasons why thirteen colonies should break ties with their mother country and govern themselves. As the lead character in the movie National Treasure says when proposing a toast to the Declaration — “To high treason.”

(And I was recently reminded by an old episode of the TV show History Detectives that not all the colonists wanted to break with the mother country. As Winston Churchill said – “History is written by the victors.” But that is a reflection for another time.)

It is a shame that most people only remember two selected phrases out of a longer sentence in the Declaration — “all men are created equal” and they are endowed with “certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Now there is nothing wrong with these concepts, but rather that they are taken out of the context of the document.

First, between these two phrases comes the reminder that as all humans are created equal they are endowed “by their Creator” with the rights.

Second, the next line says “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”
And so, while the Declaration is frequently thought of as a document that secures my personal right to happiness, it is actually a document that sets forth the role of God, the government, and the community in providing and securing that happiness for us as a society. Yes, the Declaration of Independence is not so much about me as it is about us.

When was the last time that you read the Declaration of Independence? Outside of the opening and closing it gets a bit less interesting. The majority of the document is the enumeration of the “repeated injuries and usurpations” that had been inflicted on the colonies. Have a look.

And after all the “whereases” comes one concluding paragraph:

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor. (emphasis added)

The Declaration concludes as it began, with reliance on God and a mutual pledge to the community on their sacred honor.
This was not about any one of them individually. This was not safe and easy as Benjamin Franklin is quoted pointing out at the signing of the Declaration – “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.” And this example holds for the faith community as well as general society.

Now I will let John Adams have the final word. On July 3, 1776 he wrote to his wife Abigail –

But the Day is past. The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.

You will think me transported with Enthusiasm but I am not. — I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. — Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the Means. And that Posterity will tryumph in that Days Transaction, even altho We should rue it, which I trust in God We shall not.

(Note: In a rare action I am cross-posting this on both my Everything in Moderation and The GA Junkie blogs.)

Honor To Whom Honor Is Due

Leave a reply

As my readers probably know I occasionally drift into the realm of civil politics when something happens that really hits my Reformed theology button, usually when it has to do with Total Depravity. Well as you are probably aware U.S. Senator John Ensign admitted this week to an inappropriate sexual relationship. On the one hand it is easy to attach the label of hypocrite to him after he has previously condemned the inappropriate sexual activities of President Clinton and the alleged sexual improprieties of U.S. Senator Larry Craig. This label is further boosted by his activities with the Promise Keepers para-church organization.

I have not followed this particular story very closely, I have had better things to do with my time this week. I mostly know what I found in the headlines as I really don’t care who he was fooling around with when. It is generally enough to know that once again a politician has confirmed the Reformed doctrine of Total Depravity. That is old news. But after reading the piece on GetReligion I thought I would riff on a couple of their points.

First, one of the major criticisms of the Promise Keepers movement from the Reformed angle is that their theological approach does not take into account the doctrine of Total Depravity. Some see their teaching as “repent and now be good by keeping these seven promises.” That may be a major simplification of their message but as the GetReligion piece points out and I have seen myself there is an emphasis on confession and repentance in Promise Keepers. Concern comes when men have trouble keeping the promises and fell like they have failed. While the doctrine of Total Depravity does not excuse this it does account for it. However, Promise Keepers and the Reformed approach to discipline are both based on repentance and restoration. The news to me in the GetReligion piece was that Sen. Ensign appears to have publicly confessed under the weight of his conscience not under the threat of exposure. Sure, you can attach political motives to it if you like, but it appears he attached the political consequences himself by resigning his Senate leadership position.

I will leave it at that but the GetReligion piece brings out a lot of good, subtle and positive details to the story and Sen. Ensign’s accountability from the religion perspective that not every news source would include.

On to one of his Senate colleagues and “status.”

In preface it is probably useful for me to point out that one of the reasons this really grated on me is because I am not one to stand on formality. Yes, I could attach some letters to the end of my name or titles at the beginning but almost never do. I am grateful when in an appropriate situation someone acknowledges me as “Mr. Moderator” or another title suitable to the setting, which sometimes is “Coach Steve” or “Hey Ref.” But I have numerous stories about comments people have made when they have discovered my academic credentials and reacted with surprise. One of my favorite that has happened multiple times is “You have a degree from that school? You are the most normal person I have met from there.” I like the cliché “People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.” The bottom line is that the title is a means not an end. (Addendum: I’m not perfect at this. Right after posting this whole reflection I went and non-verbally “asserted” my numerical position in an airline boarding queue.)

With that background I turn to the junior U.S. Senator from my state, the Honorable Barbara Boxer. You may have caught this exchange preserved for us on YouTube. In this clip from a Senate hearing she is questioning Brig. Gen. Michael Walsh. Gen. Walsh is responding in a very courteous, professional and military tone and addressing her as “ma’am.” It is not technically correct, and Senator Boxer lets him know by asking him to address her as Senator. OK, I guess that is her right, that is the title of the office she holds, and that by itself does not really bother me. What really got me was the Senator’s next sentence: “I worked so hard to get that title.” She has now moved from the office to the person possessing the office. (The really funny part is that the General responds with “Yes ma’am.” and then catches himself and starts addressing her as “Senator” the next time around.)

One take is that we have here the “self-made woman,” someone displaying the Protestant work ethic. Look where I got myself! It kind of ignores the thousands of people who have worked on campaigns for her.

But on another level we have the religious dimension. Numerous comments could be made. As my post title implies there is the “honor to whom honor is due.” But there is also the it is legal but is it beneficial angle. The last shall be first and the first shall be last. They who are least in the Kingdom shall be the greatest. Glory is not something to be grasp. But since Senator Boxer self-identifies as being Jewish I will leave you with a passage from the Torah, Deut. 8:12-14:

When you have eaten your fill and have built fine houses and live in them, and when your herds and flocks have multiplied, and your silver and gold is multiplied, and all that you have is multiplied, then do not exalt yourself, forgetting the LORD your G_d, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery,

75th Anniversary Of The Theological Declaration Of Barmen

Leave a reply

1. “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the
Father, but by me.” (Jn 14.6) “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does
not enter the sheepfold by the door, but climbs in by another way, that
man is a thief and a robber… I am the door; if anyone enters by me,
he will be saved.” (Jn 10.1, 9)

Jesus Christ, as he is attested for us in holy scripture, is the one
Word of God which we have to hear and which we have to trust and obey
in life and in death.

We reject the false doctrine, as though the church
could and would have to acknowledge as a source of its proclamation,
apart from and besides this one Word of God, still other events and
powers, figures and truths, as God’s revelation.

This past weekend marked the 75th anniversary of the meeting of the Free Synod of Barmen that produced the 1934 Theological Declaration of Barmen. This has to stand as one of the great moments of the Church speaking truth to power in the 20th century.

I have to admit that this anniversary was not really on my mind as I was tracking two simultaneous General Assemblies, the reverberations from one just finished, and the preliminaries to a few more about to start. But a good friend of mine reminded me of this occasion and over the last 24 hours the Spirit kept nudging me until I realized that I really should comment on this theological statement.

I personally hold the Theological Declaration of Barmen in very high regard both for its words as well as for its context. There was a great audacity, chutzpah if you will, in these 138 representatives from Lutheran, Reformed and United churches that came together as the Confessing Church. At their meeting in Barmen from May 29-31, 1934, they produced a statement that clearly, succinctly and forcefully tells the National Socialist government of Germany that the true church belongs to God, and is not an instrument of the state. There are subtleties that are lost in the Declaration by reading it in English, or probably any language other than the original German. Note section 4 in the German:

IV. Jesus Christus spricht: Ihr wisst, dass die Herrscher ihre
Völker niederhalten und die Mächtigen ihnen Gewalt antun. So soll es
nicht sein unter euch; sondern wer unter euch groß sein will, der sei
euer Diener. (Mt 20, 25.26)

Die verschiedenen Ämter in der Kirche begründen keine
Herrschaft der einen über die anderen, sondern die Ausübung des der
ganzen Gemeinde anvertrauten und befohlenen Dienstes.

Wir verwerfen die falsche Lehre, als könne und dürfe sich die Kirche
abseits von diesem Dienst besondere, mit Herrschaftsbefugnissen
ausgestattete Führer geben und geben lassen.

The English translation:

4. “You know that the rulers of the gentiles lord it over them, and
their great men exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among
you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant.” (Mt
20.25,26)

The various offices in the church do not establish a dominion of
some over the others; on the contrary, they are for the exercise of the
ministry entrusted to and enjoined upon the whole congregation.

We reject the false doctrine, as though the church,
apart from this ministry, could and were permitted to give itself, or
allow to be given to it, special leaders vested with ruling powers.

I would call your attention to the fifth word from the end of the German version. What in English is translated “special leaders” is ausgestattete Führer in the original. I understand that there is nothing that of itself that would raise eyebrows in this language. But when the title “leader” or Führer is the title chosen by the head of state, this is a pretty direct confrontation in my opinion.

And standing by this statement was not without consequences. While Karl Barth was Swiss and left Germany, Dietrich Bonhoeffer was executed in a prison camp and Martin Niemöller was also imprisoned in concentration camps and narrowly escaped execution himself. Wikipedia tells us that of the 18,000 Protestant pastors in Germany in 1935, 3000 were strongly adhering to the Confessing Church and of those 700, about one-quarter, were imprisoned at that time.

This is a confessional statement that is very closely tied to its context as much as its content. It is not a “teaching confession” like the Scots Confession or the Westminster Standards. And it is not really a snapshot of where the church was at that time like the Confession of 1967 or the Brief Statement of Faith from the PC(USA). But it’s theological forcefulness at a time of moral crisis has earned it a place in the faith statements of the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand, the Book of Confessions of the PC(USA), and the Evangelical Church in Germany, among others.

The German Confessing Church and the Theological Declaration of Barmen have also produced a modern concept that some consider their theological descendents (one example). While the concept of speaking truth to power is Biblical there is also a sense in which the co-opting of the spirit Barmen Declaration for a range of modern controversies does not honor the original imperative and weight of the situation in 1934 Germany. None the less, there are now several groups that have adopted the “confessing” label and aligned themselves with the tradition of speaking Biblical truth, such as the Confessing Church Movement, The Fellowship of Confessing Churches, the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, and the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans. Likewise the genre of the “we declare/we reject” confessional statement had a revival a few years ago. (Although I may not be old enough to know if there truly was a lull in the interim.) The World Alliance of Reformed Churches’ Accra Confession is written in this form as are a lot of other theological documents you will find if you do a Google search. (Update: There is a good article from Associated Baptist Press that looks into the modern implications and how nicely Barman has “aged.”)

But the interesting twist on this is that in the “we declare”/”we reject” structure the exclusiveness that is implicit in most confessions becomes explicit. The Theological Declaration of Barmen tells us forcefully that if you say “Yes” to something you have to say “No” to something else. What do we say yes and no to in our lives?

6. “Lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” (Mt 28.20) “The word of God is not fettered.” (2 Tim 2.9)

The church’s commission, upon which its freedom is founded, consists
in delivering the message of the free grace of God to all people in
Christ’s stead, and therefore in the ministry of his own Word and work
through sermon and sacrament.

We reject the false doctrine, as though the church
in human arrogance could place the word and work of the Lord in the
service of any arbitrarily chosen desires, purposes, and plans.

The Day Of Resurrection

Leave a reply

Happy Resurrection Sunday for those readers who observe it. And for those for who do not follow a liturgical calendar but celebrate Christ’s resurrection every Lord’s Day, I hope yesterday was as meaningful as always.

I am liturgical. I do find spiritual meaning in the annual rhythm of the church calendar. (If it was good enough for St. Augustine it’s good enough for me. ) My family sometimes jokes that we are C&E (Christmas and Easter) Christians — while we are active in the church and attend worship weekly the Holy Days are a big deal for us with more activities and multiple services per day. In case you wonder where my blogging has been, I sometimes wonder what I’m doing at six worship services in the last four days when I’m not clergy.

The penultimate service was our church’s sunrise service early yesterday. We have to warn the neighbors that there will be a brass quartet outside on the back lawn. For one day a year they are very understanding. And for me there is something very deep and meaningful about worshiping the risen Christ as the sun rises on Resurrection Sunday. Some years when I could not find a sunrise service that fit my theological leanings I have simply had my personal devotions out in the desert (wilderness?) as the sun came up. And while I make it a point on Easter morning to be in worship at the sunrise, I am a morning person and I very frequently have my devotions around the time of sunrise anyway.

Another meaningful part of worship yesterday was having both the sunrise service and the regular worship service close with the hymn “The Day of Resurrection.” Outside of the metrical Psalms this is one of the oldest texts in our hymnal written by John of Damascus in the eighth century. I appreciate and find symbolism in the link across the history of the Church. What comes down to Protestant churches is usually John M. Neale’s 1860’s translation and versification

The day of resurrection,
Earth, tell it out abroad,
The Passover of gladness.
The Passover of God.
From death to life eternal,
From this world to the sky,
Our Christ hath brought us over
With hymns of victory.

It is also used within the Eastern Church and is known as the opening verses of John of Damascus’s Paschal Canon

The day of Resurrection, let us be radiant, O peoples! Pascha, the Lord’s Pascha; for Christ God has brought us over from death to life, and from earth to heaven, as we sing the triumphal song.
[Translation copyright to Archimandrite Ephrem ©]

[It is interesting to note that in Islam there is an eschatological concept of “The Day of Resurrection” similar to the Judeo-Christian concept of the “Day of the Lord” or final judgment, not a “first fruits” resurrection. St. John of Damascus also wrote a Critique of Islam. I have to wonder if his Paschal Canon, with some of this wording, may be a related apologetic work to some small degree.]

So Easter Sunday has come and gone. Is anything different today? This C&E Christian is going back to his regular routine. This coming Sunday will be just another Lord’s Day. I do sometimes wonder if my Reformed brethren that celebrate the resurrection not just once a year but every Sunday may have a better perspective when this coming Sunday rolls around. I will try to maintain that perspective myself.

Reflections On The Amendment 08-B Voting — Preliminary Musings On The Text

6 Replies

While not quite finished, at this time the voting on Amendment 08-B to modify the “fidelity and chastity” section (G-6.0106b) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Book of Order is closing in on the conclusion. Yesterday there was a split vote, San Jose Presbytery voting “Yes” and the Presbytery of South Louisiana voting “No.” This brings the unofficial tally to 65 Yes and 82 No. (Presbyterian Coalition, PresbyWeb)

If you look at the remaining 26 presbyteries, there are five that have solidly voted against “fidelity and chastity,” and another six that have split votes in the last two votes (i.e. voted once for it and once against it). In addition, Boise tied on 01-A and Pacific was one vote away from a tie. Of the remaining 13 that voted no on the last two votes, five presbyteries did overwhelmingly in near or total unanimity. Those five, if they again vote “No”, should give the necessary 87 votes to defeat 08-B. So after yesterday’s results I, and some others (e.g. John Shuck), consider the passage of 08-B somewhere between highly unlikely and miraculous. I won’t say “impossible” because that word is not in God’s vocabulary.

This vote was much closer than I and many of those I talk with initially felt it would be. At the present time 25 presbyteries have changed their votes from 01-A. Why? This question has been rolling around in my head for almost two months now and I’ll give some numerical analysis when the voting concludes. Related to what I talked about a couple of weeks ago, and what I see in the numbers, there is probably no single explanation. Where there is truly a swing in votes why did the votes change? One explanation is a greater “pro-equality” sentiment — that is that commissioners have switched views from “pro-fidelity and chastity” to “pro-equality.” But I want to have a detailed look at something else first: The text of the Amendment.

Looking back at the history of G-6.0106b, and it is laid out in the Annotated Book of Order and Constitutional Musings note 8, you can see that attempts to add fidelity-like wording date back to 1986. The current wording was added from the 208th General Assembly, approved by the presbyteries 97-74. The next year the 209th GA sent out to the presbyteries an “improved” wording that would have left “fidelity and chastity” but removed the “which the confessions call sin” line. At that GA the Advisory Committee on the Constitution advised against making the change. The Assembly approved the change and sent it out to the presbyteries who did not concur by a 57-114 vote. The 213th GA sent out Amendment 01-A to strike G-6.0106b and add a line to the remaining G-6.0106a about suitability for office and the Lordship of Jesus Christ, but that too was not affirmed by the presbyteries, this time 46-127.

So here is my hypothesis: I wonder if Amendment 08-B is having more success because it is more of a compromise text. The previous two attempts to amend dealt with removing all or part of G-6.0106b. Amendment 08-B would replace G-6.0106b with new language:

Those who are called to ordained service in the church, by their assent to the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003), pledge themselves to live lives obedient to Jesus Christ the Head of the Church, striving to follow where he leads through the witness of the Scriptures, and to understand the Scriptures through the instruction of the Confessions. In so doing, they declare their fidelity to the standards of the Church. Each governing body charged with examination for ordination and/or installation (G-14.0240 and G-14.0450) establishes the candidate’s sincere efforts to adhere to these standards.

The new language does have a number of theological points that make it attractive and that are being used by those advocating for 08-B as benefits. These include a pledge to “live lives obedient to Jesus Christ the Head of the Church,” and stating the hierarchy of Jesus, scripture and confessions, in that order. While the opposition argues that this now leaves important standards up for interpretation and heterogeneous application across the denomination, I can see how this would be a more palatable form of standards for many in the church.

So I do have to wonder whether comparing 08-B to 01-A or 97-A is comparing apples to oranges. While it is frequently viewed or portrayed as a battle of “good versus evil” (you define the sides for yourself), when it comes down to the vote by a particular commissioner in a given presbytery if the decision and vote is much more nuanced. How many commissioners have not changed their opinions but have changed their vote because the language has changed? Because the wording changes from one vote to the next do these black and white decisions have many more shades of gray than we want to admit.

Something to think over until my next post on this topic when I’ll put numbers on these shades of gray.

Appointments To PC(USA) Special Committees And Task Forces

Leave a reply

This morning we finished a process that I expected to begin three months ago and take two weeks. Instead, it began two months ago and finished today. That is the appointment and announcement of all the committees and task forces created by the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to be named, at least in part, by the Moderator of the Assembly, the Rev. Bruce Reyes-Chow.

Below I provide a bit of an annotated summary of the appointments. More official versions of the complete list can be found on Bruce’s web site or from the PC(USA) Special Committees page.

So here are the links to the info on the groups. I will not provide commentary on the specific membership but will link to a few places where comments are made. At the end, I’ll make some general, and personal, comments on the composition.

While I expected the announcements to begin shortly after the first of the year, Bruce began this process on February 3, 2009 with an intro video about the process.

Special Committee to Study Issues of Civil Union and Christian Marriage (Feb. 4 announcement)

Moderator Announcement
OGA Press Release
PNS Article
Committee Members’ Biographical Sketches
Committee member resignation and replacement
Assembly Action Item 04-13

This committee has met (March 16-19) and there is an OGA Article and an Outlook Article on the meeting.

Being the first committee named and one of the more controversial there was significant and spirited discussion of the composition. Check out the comments section of Bruce’s announcement. It has also ricocheted around the religious and GLBT news world. (e.g. BaptistPlanet and 365Gay)

Special Committee on Correcting Translation Problems of the Heidelberg Catechism (Feb. 6 announcement)

Moderator Announcement
OGA Press Release
Committee Members’ Biographical Sketches
Assembly Action Item 13-06

According to an OGA Press Release this committee met last week.

Committee to Prepare a Comprehensive Study Focused on Israel/Palestine (Feb. 6 announcement)

Moderator Announcement
OGA Press Release
Committee Members’ Biographical Sketches

Assembly Action Item 11-28

According to an OGA Press Release this committee met this week.

At the time of appointment The Reformed Pastor, David Fischler, shared his anaylsis of the committee composition.

Climate for Change Task Force (Feb. 25 announcement)

Moderator Announcement
OGA Press Release
PNS Article
Task Force Members’ Biographical Sketches
Assembly Action Item 09-16

There was a bit of a discussion in the comments about the balance of this task force.

Special Committee to Consider Amending the Confessional Documents of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to Include the Belhar Confession in The Book of Confessions (Mar. 10 announcement)

Moderator Announcement
OGA Press Release
Committee Members’ Biographical Sketches
Assembly Action Item 13-07

Following the naming of the committee Viola Larson, in her blog Naming His Grace, had some comments about the composition.

Youth Ministries Task Force (Announced today, April 3)

Moderator Announcement
OGA Press Release
Task Force Members’ Biographical Sketches (I will link when it becomes available)
Assembly Action Item 17-3NB and referral of business in Item 17-4NB

Finally, Bruce included a wrap up of the appointment process on his March 10 ModCast. I was in a Presbytery meeting during the ModCast and unfortunately it appears that the archived version is corrupt (I can’t get past 3:07) so I don’t know what he said.

A Few Comments:

I think a lot has been said publicly and privately about the membership of these committees. While I won’t comment on any of the particular individuals named to the committees, I do have a few comments about the balance of the groups.

On the one hand, it is tempting to be a “bean counter” and look to see that all the labels are covered. Civil Unions had good clergy/elder mix and nice male/female balance, but lacked some geographical representation from the northeast (as originally announced) and mid-continent. Heidelberg is 10 clergy versus 5 elders and no southwesterners. Israel/Palestine has two from SoCal, and most of the rest from the Atlantic seaboard, with six clergy and three elders. Climate for Change is mostly easterners with two elders and six clergy. Belhar is eleven clergy and four elders and again dominated by the eastern regions with no one from the northwest. And similar things can be said of the Youth Task force, lacking the inter-mountain west and the northwest.

But at this point I would like to defend Bruce and his work:
1) Having done appointments myself for Presbytery and Synod bodies it is not easy balancing all the different factors. I can’t imagine the task for GA appointments. When I did it I went to work with a preference for certain factors, I’m sure Bruce placed an emphasis on certain things as well so other factors, maybe like geography, suffer.

2) It is tough to get the elder/clergy to balance on these committees because of the time involved. For example, the Civil Unions Committee will require four meetings for a total of 16 days away from home for its members in the next 12 months. In general, clergy are usually in a better position to be away to “do the work of the church” than us elders in secular employment. You have to admire the fact that the Civil Unions committee is balanced clergy versus non-clergy. (7 vs. 6 at the moment)

3) While I know only two or three tales, take my word for it that there must be a lot of “back stories” to these appointments. What Bruce has presented us in the announcements has a lot of twists and turns behind it. Alert readers may realize that I had a good reason for expecting the announcements to begin in early January. I suspect that the one month delay from what I expected has something to do with these twists and turns.

4) Trust the Holy Spirit.
You may have spotted my name on the Special Committee on Civil Unions. I am honored to be asked and fortunately I am in a position in my life that I have the vacation to use and the understanding family to accept the diversion of my time. At the committee’s first meeting I had the wonderful experience of getting to know the twelve other amazing people who are on the committee, as well as the great staff we have. I can assure you that we do not all think alike, but we all are taking this assignment seriously and devoted to working on it together. We all agree that this is a journey where none of us really knows the end point. But we are trusting the Holy Spirit to lead us. Bruce, thanks for the opportunity to be on this journey.

Along these lines, let me conclude with a version of a paragraph that I wrote recently about my journey in Presbyterian leadership and serving on the Civil Unions committee:

I am continually struck that in my journey in the Presbyterian church the service that I have rendered to the church, including serving on this committee, has almost always found me rather than being something that I have gone looking for myself. On the one hand, when I look back and see where God has called me my usual reaction has been “what a long, strange trip it’s been.” On the other hand, I marvel at how God has worked through other people to identify my God-given gifts and where they may be used for the building of the Kingdom. This was brought home to me after I had served two years as the chair of the Committee on Ministry. I had been asked to serve a third year but was resisting because, being Presbyterian, I have an aversion to people becoming too entrenched in a leadership position. Two other members of Presbytery sat down with me for a long talk and laid out who was on the committee and the gifts that God had given them. It was not that my serving as chair was a position of prestige or power, it was just that when you fit all the different people together each had a task on the committee based on how God had gifted each one of them, and with the set of jigsaw puzzle pieces that the committee had that year the best use of my talents was to continue as chair. It is my prayer, and expectation, that God, through Bruce and others in the denominational community, has done the same to bring the range of gifts and talents together for this committee.

Thank you for your work Bruce and may God indeed work through the covenant community of our church in each of these appointed bodies.

Community In Football

2 Replies

I guess there is some football game on Sunday. American football that is. Our small group Bible study is getting together and some of us will watch it. People seem to think that it is something big, but it is nothing compared to what the rest of the world calls football. Just wait until 2010 in South Africa. But I digress…

So once again the United States comes to a halt on a Sunday to watch a sporting event. I reflected on this last year and yesterday a discussion started on the Puritan Board about doing this on a Sunday. It does of course revolve around not just issues of the fourth commandment but the second as well. I found it interesting how that crowd was about evenly split, it seemed to me, between watching and not watching. A while back Ethics Daily had an opinion piece on “Has Sports Become A Religion In America?” (See above about the sport the world is passionate about if you think Americans are the only ones.) On NPR yesterday there was an interview with Pittsburgh Post-Gazette columnist Bob Dvorchak where he said that their football team was more important than religion and how it unites the Pittsburgh diaspora that resulted from the shutdown of the steel mills.

Well, to keep things in perspective I have seen three positive stories about football and community in the last few weeks that I would like to share with you. Only one is explicitly Christian or covenant community, but the others could be as well.

Lions vs. Tornadoes high school football game
(H/T A Reforming Mom) In his Life of Reilly column for ESPN Rick Reilly had a great story a few weeks back about a Texas high school football game between the Lions of Grapevine Faith Christian School and the Tornadoes of Gainesville State School. It is important to understand that the Tornadoes play no home games, have no cheerleaders, and really no spectators cheering for them at games. Gainesville State School is a maximum security youth facility. So Grapevine Faith specifically scheduled a game with them and then shared their crowd with them as well. Half of Grapevine’s cheerleaders and supporters were on Gainesville’s side of the field cheering them on as if they were their own team. In an e-mail to the fans the Grapevine coach wrote: “Here’s the message I want you to send: You are just as valuable as any other person on planet Earth.” And they sent that message. The article quotes one of the Gainesville players in the huddle of both teams at the end of the game as praying “Lord, I don’t know how this happened, so I don’t know how to say thank
You, but I never would’ve known there was so many people in the world
that cared about us.” And the Gainesville coach told the Grapevine coach “You’ll never know what your people did for these kids tonight. You’ll never, ever know.”

Update: Just after posting this and double-checking the links I notice that Rick Reilly has posted an Epilogue to this story today. It turns out that word got around about this, like really around, and the NFL commissioner brought the Grapevine coach to Tampa for the game on Sunday. You have to admire the quote from the coach: “I hate it that this thing that we did is so rare. Everybody views it as such a big deal. Shouldn’t that be the normal?”

Tony Dungy keeping community together
(H/T my friend and fellow soccer ref Jim over at APC Blog) With Tony Dungy’s retirement from coaching ESPN ran an article about his character, and yes about community. It was about the 1997 season when he was coaching at Tampa Bay and after the team had a great start to the season his kicker started missing and costing them a couple of games. While the fans and press were up in arms to replace the kicker, what Dungy knew was that the kicker’s mother was dying of cancer. Dungy stuck with him through the bad games and once called him into his office and simply told him “You’re a Buccaneer. You’re part of our family. You’re our kicker.” That unconditional acceptance was what Michael Husted needed and his kicking returned to form the next game and Tampa Bay made the playoffs.

The touchdown belongs to the whole team
A couple of weeks ago, before the conference championship games, I heard an interesting radio commentary by Diana Nyad about Arizona receiver Larry Fitzgerald. Her observation was that when he scored a touchdown, it was not about celebrating by himself in the end zone in front of the fans, but going back to the other ten players on the field who helped make the touchdown possible and celebrating with them. Again a community ethic and she says that Fitzgerald says his mother wouldn’t want it any other way.

(The one and only pro football game I watched much of this year was the championship game Arizona won and I did get to see Fitzgerald make a couple of great plays and score touchdowns. True to Diana Nyad’s commentary he did not put on a show in the end zone. But he did linger there with arms raised for a few seconds and then, true to form, the TV cut away before I ever saw him jog back to his team mates to celebrate with them. Maybe I’ll see more on Sunday.)

What Is A Presbyterian? — Part 2

Leave a reply

What is a Presbyterian?

Back in Part 1 I posed this question and my eight possible answers:

As a Presbyterian I believe that my, and my church’s, primary responsibility is to:

Glorify God and enjoy Him forever
Proclaim the gospel for the salvation of human kind
Provide shelter, nurture, and spiritual fellowship for the children of God
Provide for the maintenance of divine worship
Preserve the truth
Promote social righteousness
Exhibit the Kingdom of Heaven to the World
Maintain an ecclesiastical government of teaching and ruling elders governing jointly in community

All of this is follow-up to a thought provoking post by Carol Howard Merritt where she had a point that we often hear the criticism of young evangelicals that “Well, they
obviously don’t know what it means to be Presbyterian.” This continuation of my thoughts was equally motivated by listening to a friend of mine a couple of weeks ago using the term Presbyterian in a way I thought was imprecise. (I thought he should know better but I’ll ask him for clarification when I see him again in a couple of days.)

“Being Presbyterian.” What does that mean? To review the source of my eight possible answers above, #1 is confessional from the Westminster Standards, #2-7 are constitutional for the PC(USA) with about a century of tradition behind them, and #8 is polity from a variety of Presbyterian constitutions.

In addition, “Being Presbyterian” is used in a variety of settings these days from a blog by Colin Carmichael for the Presbyterian Church in Canada to a book (On Being Presbyterian) by Sean Michael Lucas. And there are a number of web sites, from churches to denominations, that have their answer to what it means to be Presbyterian.

As I mentioned above, what partly motivates me here is listening to my friend use the following three words interchangeably: Reformed, Calvinism, Presbyterian. While (most of the time) these three words are very closely related, each does have a distinctive meaning. So in this context what makes Presbyterian different? As one of the comments on Part 1 pointed out, it is #8 above, the ecclesiastical government, that makes Presbyterians uniquely Presbyterian. The other seven items could be claimed by a number of other traditions, Reformed or otherwise.

Don’t get me wrong here, there are many different aspects to being Presbyterian, otherwise there would be no need for all the books and web sites. But I suggest that the “Presbyterian distinctive,” the unique identifier, is the manner of church government. (And I should point out that since this form of government has its roots with John Calvin in Geneva, we may call it Presbyterian, but other Reformed churches use it as well.)

It is true that Reformed Theology, Calvinism, and Presbyterianism are very closely linked and historically originated in this order in a very short period of time. (With due recognition that to a certain degree Reformed theology is recovering the theological work of Augustine.) In terms of their most basic theological principle, the sovereignty of God, there is almost complete agreement. And as I have been commenting here on the Presbyterian distinctive, R. Scott Clark has re-posted his series on Who or What gets to define “Reformed.” (Part 1, Part 2, A little more…)

It is unfortunate the term “Calvinism” has come to represent a fairly narrow (five points to be exact) theological concept put together by a Dutch synod 55 years after John Calvin’s death. This loses sight of the richness of the three volume Institutes of the Christian Religion which may be the single most important development of Reformed Theology. However, I am in agreement with my trusty New Dictionary of Theology (Ferguson, Wright and Packer, editors) that to make Calvinism synonymous with Reformed Theology loses sight of the rich history of Reformed Theology before and after Calvin. As the Dictionary says:

Reformed theology is often called ‘Calvinism’ due to the towering impact of John Calvin. However, this is not an entirely satisfactory term. First, owing to the above pluriformity [the Reformation in other cities] Calvin neither could nor did impose his views on others. The autonomy of the various Reformed centers saw to that… Second, it is doubtful whether Calvin’s distinctive theology, rooted in biblical exegesis, was properly grasped by many who came later…

More to the point, what we know as Presbyterianism grew out of Calvin’s theology and church order in Geneva and is evidence of how limited a scope the term ‘Calvinism’ came to represent. We speak of Reformed Baptists and Congregationalists being Calvinistic, but they lack the connectional system typified in most Reformed and Presbyterian branches. So just having Reformed theology does not necessarily imply you are Presbyterian.

It is important to note that in some limited cases being Presbyterian does not imply that you are Reformed. While the Cumberland Presbyterian Church has a clear Presbyterian polity and theology of a covenant community, its 1984 Revision of the 1883 Confession of Faith says, concerning Saving Grace:

When persons repent of sin and in faith embrace
God’s salvation, they receive forgiveness for their sin and experience
acceptance as God’s children. [4.10]

This is one item, and somewhat out of context, but it is a taste of their confession which does not follow the five points of Calvinism.

Now, it is all well and good to rehearse the history and summary theology of Presbyterianism, but what does it mean to be Presbyterian?

My answer is grounded in action and result: The action is with God whose nature and will we try to understand through the witness of Scripture, including the example of the New Testament Church. The result is that Presbyterians live as the Body of Christ into which God has called them, organizing their ecclesiastical government in a way that allows us to discern God’s will in community and hold each other accountable as the Body of Christ.

Practically speaking, our Presbyterian distinctive is the ecclesiastical government which results from the reliance on the covenant community when we recognize that individually we are fallen, imperfect and fallible individuals. And we acknowledge that synods or councils “may err; and many have erred,” but it is better than “going it alone.” You might think of it as the worst way to run a church, except for all the other ways.

Getting back to my original list, all eight of those ideas fall out of the belief in the sovereignty of God and the nature of the covenant community. And therefore, while they can be applied to a wide range of denominations, there is a practical tie to Presbyterianism.

So “being Presbyterian” means a lot of things. It begins with the nature of God and what God as done for us, which leads to the call upon our lives as covenant community and the Presbyterian distinctive of our polity. So when we hear “Well, they
obviously don’t know what it means to be Presbyterian,” the imperative of the covenant community is that if God has called them into it, we accept them as they are and then be in discussion with them about what “being Presbyterian” means.
S.D.G.