The 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) — Foundation and Empire

The 36th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America — But wait, there’s more

After the debate on the deaconesses concluded, a similar theological issue, with nuances, came up a report or two later. This was in the review of presbytery records.

In particular, the minutes of Northern California Presbytery, in an examination of a TE, (I missed if this was for ordination or membership) the man being examined is recorded to have stated exceptions that “A woman may do anything in worship that a non-ordained man may do.” This means not only reading scripture, but teaching on it by preaching, which would be against the Westminster Standards. Based on this, and other comments, a closely divided commissioner committee led to a minority report that proposed having these records noted with not just exception, but with an exemption that needed to be answered by the presbytery. The rational was that this would have opened the way for dialog with the Presbytery to further investigate the subtleties and specifics of the man’s comments.

The debate was marked by a number of interesting comments. One from a TE from that Presbytery noted the man was no longer in the Presbytery. This was answered by the observation that this was a procedural matter now, not a specific of this examination. There was a comment from TE Tim Keller that many members of the PCA might share this exception relative to letting women preach.

The minority report was defeated and that item was referred, that is recommitted, back to the committee since it was such a close committee vote. The remainder of the Presbytery minutes were approved outside of that item.

Part of the comments in the minutes indicated that the TE being examined would commission men and women as deacons rather than ordain only men. It was noted in the latter part of the debate that while the decision on the deaconess overtures was to work it out at the presbytery level, in this case there was an unsatisfactory exception because the presbytery did work it out at the presbytery level. There was an amendment proposed that the exemption be changed from “unsatisfactory” to “satisfactory” in light of this but the change was defeated.

UPDATE 6/16/08: Thanks to those who have helped me out where I missed, by omission or comission, the details of the debate here. However, TE Lane Keister from the blog Green Baggins delivered the minority report on this one and he has now discussed this part of the GA in a post on his blog. Thanks Lane and now after seeing you on the webcast I can put a face with the name.

The 36th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America — Debate and decision on Deaconesses

3 Replies

The PCA GA has begun debate on the issue of deaconesses and women in the diaconal ministry. There is a commissioner committee report that basically says “the Book of Church Order is clear, a study committee is not needed.” There is a minority report to create the study committee.

The presentation began with a motion to rule the minority report out of order since the BCO is clear on the subject. The Moderator ruled that the minority report was in order, he was challenged on the ruling, and in a counted vote his ruling was sustained by the Assembly 518 to 369.

The committee majority argument is 1) that the BCO is clear about only men serving as officers of the church and 2) creation of a study committee would produce “two strong reports” and would polarize the church. “Now is not the time to raise to a higher pitch another controversy in the PCA.” There has been enough controversy over the last several years. The minority argument is that there are plenty of people on both sides of the issue who want clarity on the subject. Also, the minority report is restrictive that the study committee would be specific to the question of women serving in diaconal ministry and would be pastoral in its recommendations leaving changes to the BCO to presbytery overture.

The presenter of the minority report also complimented the chairman for his leadership of the committee, and commented on how after heated debate there were apologies made by commissioners to one another for conduct during debate.

It is interesting that the first speaker in the debate on the minority report invoked the blogosphere. His point is that this is not about the issue, but how the issue is dealt with — not in e-mail or blogs going back and forth, but gathered together face-to-face. (Strike against the Church Virtual.) Other comments included the idea that just because women can not hold offices they should not be treated as second-class citizens (my phrase). Also that division is sometimes necessary and that all they do is create study committees. At the first extension of debate the Moderator polled those waiting to speak and found many more wanting to speak for the minority report than speaking against it. One of the irony’s of the second vote to extend debate is that it took about as long to count the votes as the time that would have been added to the debate. The moderator did get a laugh when he was informed that he had made a parliamentary blunder and to try to get it correct he said “We’ll have to study that.” Debate was closed by a vote of 420 to 467 and the Moderator acknowledged the time irony.

The minority report failed — it was close enough that a division of the house was necessary, but a counted vote was not. In the debate on the main motion there were a few comments about the future, including the statement that this issue will come back to GA in the future. It was noted that some elders are not against the ordination of women as deacons, but do not practice it due to the prohibitions of the BCO.

The debate on the main motion was not extended and the main motion was quickly passed on a vote using the cards.

I’ll post this now, but there are three more overtures on this topic that will presumably be answered by this action.

Update: Overture 19, to decline to erect a study committee, was answered with comment that BCO changes were not in order in this matter.

Ten-minutes with Bruce

2 Replies

The Rev. Bruce Reyes-Chow, one of the four candidates for Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) offered himself for interviews from bloggers. This was his “10 Minutes with Bruce.”

Well, I came up with only one questions for him and he was gracious enough to reply.

My Question:

The last two moderators seem to me to present a contrast in styles when
it came to some of the conflicts between individual churches and higher
governing bodies in the PC(USA). Rick seemed to get involved in some
of the individual controversies while Joan seems to “float above” the
ongoing disputes.

So, if you are elected moderator…
On a
range from “enforcer” being actively involved in particular disputes,
to “Glinda, Good Witch of the North” who sort of floats above all the
commotion, what do you see as your role as the Moderator of the General
Assembly in these matters? Or, do you see the role of the Moderator as
something on a different continuum?

Bruce’s Response:

I guess it depends on which, if any, superpower I get as “enforcer” or “Glinda”

But
seriously folks . . . I am actually not sure where I would fit on
the continuum because I think those currently engaged in the battles
are missing the point and/or are missing important voices. I would
much more hope to shake up the discourse by being part of a movement
whose voices are heard above and over the current
denominational conflicts. While some entities in the church at all
levels will thrive only in a culture fed by adversarial relationships,
I think there are a whole lot of folks who could easily move beyond
some of the more divisive issues, find levels of appropriate
disagreement and get on with being the church in the world in as may
ways that may exist today. Right now, these folks may be engaged in
local ministry, but see the larger church conflicts as distracting and
irrelevant. So . . . to better answer the question, I think I would be
one who would help to flatten the hierarchy of the discussion so more
voices are part of the whatever decisions lay at the end.

Now do I get a superpower?

Thanks Bruce

Now, the link to the incident Rick was involved in is for context only and not necessarily an endorsement. Also, I realize that some of this is a product of the times in which they serve and may not be representative of the two years ahead.

Finally, while Bruce issued the invitation, if any of the other three moderator candidates wish to have a go at it I’d be glad to also post “Ten Minutes with (Bill|Carl|Roger)”

Evangelicals and Evangelism

Leave a reply

Once again it is the time of year when my family events and teaching duties squeeze out the little time I do have for blogging. I’ve got a bunch of half-written posts in the wings waiting for me to find serious time to finish them. A couple more that are “waiting for the other shoe to drop” running around in my head and will be put down on electronic paper when an anticipated event happens. Similarly, I’ve got a few more that I’m turning over in my mind and sort of waiting for any one of them to reach “critical mass.” (What follows is one of those.) Finally, there are a whole bunch that are just in the idea stage and 90% of them will never see the Publish button. Well, this one finally reached critical mass in my mind…

When the “Evangelical Manifesto” came out on May 7 it was heralded by numerous media articles and blog postings. Now, about a month later, I wanted to add a few comments of my own as well as reflect on a couple other things that have come out.

The Evangelical Manifesto itself is a 20 page document that is sub-titled “A Declaration of Evangelical Identity and Public Commitment.” If you want a summary there is a six page executive summary available. In the third paragraph of the Manifesto they state their purpose:

The two-fold purpose of this declaration is first to address the confusions and corruptions that attend the term Evangelical in the United States and much of the Western world today, and second to clarify where we stand on issues that have caused consternation over Evangelicals in public life.

The italics on “Evangelical” are theirs and the point is made in a footnote that they use this as a proper noun, not as an adjective like in “evangelical Christian.” More on that later.

The Manifesto’s definition of an Evangelical has seven points and covers much of what would be considered the traditional standards of Christian theology, often in general terms. These include the fully dual nature of Jesus and the uniqueness of salvation through Jesus. Salvation by Jesus’ death and resurrection covering our human sinful nature and the saving power being “faith through grace.” New life through spiritual regeneration via the power of the Holy Spirit. The authority of the Bible as “God’s inspired word.” The lordship of Jesus means serving him in every aspect of our lives, including reaching out to those less fortunate. The hope of the “personal return of Jesus” at the end of time. And that followers are called to worship Jesus. In the terms stated it is pretty general, but still basic Christian doctrine a lot of followers could affirm.

From these seven points come seven “defining features.” Among these are the value of creeds and historic Christian faith from the “great ecumenical councils.” But faith is also expressed in worship and deeds as much as in creeds. Third, Evangelicals are not limited to certain churches or movements but can be found across the denominational spectrum. Next, “Evangelicalism must be defined theologically and not politically; confessionally and not culturally.” Also, the good news is “overwhelmingly positive and always positive before it is negative.” The sixth feature is “Evangelicalism should be distinguished from two opposite tendencies to which Protestantism has been prone: liberal revisionism and conservative fundamentalism.” And finally, Evangelicalism looks equally to both to the past and the future. In these defining features there are concepts that more Christians might disagree about.

The Manifesto then goes on to sections on how these points and features force us to “Reform our Own Behavior,” “Rethink our Place in Public Life,” be neither “Privatized Nor Politicized,” be a “Civil rather than Sacred or a Naked public square,” and to look to “The way of Jesus, not Constantine.”

This gives you a flavor for the document which tries to claim public and political life as a response to the call to follow Jesus. It is interesting that the authors have tied each of the seven definitional points to Jesus Christ in their statement of the point. And reading through the Manifesto it is clear certain “typical elements” usually associated with evangelical Christians are missing. Jargon, like “Born Again” is definitely not found in the definition section and it appears that it is nowhere to be found in the whole document. And what is not said is probably telling: The shortest of the definition sections is the one on Scripture. Besides lifting it up as authoritative and the final rule since it is “God’s inspired Word,” it goes no further in discussing the nature of Scripture and avoids any of the inerrancy/infallibility questions. Similarly for the part on the end times, there is no real detailing of the end times and Jesus’ return and in fact makes no mention, either by name or reference, to Heaven, Hell, Satan or the other characters you might expect. And the Manifesto only mentions “an undying kingdom,” but not even a scripturally based description like “new heaven and new earth.” In a similar manner the creation account and the fall of humans to a sinful state is not mentioned. While this may disappoint some people, there is clearly a sense in the document of focusing on life in the here and now and only saying as much as necessary about other features. If you want to go into the document in more detail the group has put together a study guide which is longer than the Manifesto and executive summary combined.

The driving force was a steering committee of nine members including Os Guinness, John Huffman, Rich Mouw, David Neff and Dallas Willard. The comments seem to suggest lead authorship by Mr. Guinness with support by this team.

There were 72 other “Charter Signatories” of the Manifesto and the list of additional signatories now appears to be as much as ten times that. While I will not reprint all 72 names, many did jump out at me for either their celebrity or their Presbyterian connections. These include Kay Arthur, Mark Bailey, Leighton Ford, Jack Hayford, Roberta Hestenes, Max Lucado, Gordon MacDonald, Sam Moffett, John Ortberg, Vic Pentz, Mark Roberts, Marguerite Shuster, Ronald Sider, and Jim Wallis. There are reports that Rick Warren helped draft it but chose not to sign the final product.

From these contributors and Charter Signatories it is clear that there was a presence of members of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) in the development and initial endorsement of this document. And in the additional signatures many more PC(USA) individuals can be found and there are a few who self identify as Evangelical Presbyterian Church, Presbyterian Church in America, and one Reformed Presbyterian. And it should be no surprise that with Rich Mouw on the steering committee there seems to be significant acceptance by individuals from Fuller Seminary and Princeton Seminary faculty and students are also evident.

So, while this is primarily marketed as a document for the American culture at large it might also be seen as a message to the Presbyterian, at least PC(USA), community.

A lot has also been made of the fact that many individuals who are closely associated with the title “Evangelical,” including James Dobson, Charles Colson, and Tony Perkins, were not invited to give input on the docum
ent and have not signed it. And for the most part those in this category have not volunteered opinions or comments and have only issued terse statements when asked for comment. But for a more interesting take on the document you can check out those that Deepak Chopra made on the Washington Post/Newsweek On Faith web site. As you might expect his point-by-point discussion of the seven definitional points moved between new age universalism and references to points now being discounted by liberal Protestantism. He apparently had not read the next section on defining features where this is discussed at length. Well, if the document was too general for some it was too specific for him.

While I discussed the definitions for evangelicals before, and the Barna Group has their own nine-point definition that only a small percentage of Christians actually fulfill, with documents like this the attempt to pin down the term becomes even harder. Among the signers, Rich Mouw, Mark Roberts, and Jim Wallis have talked about the Manifesto in their blogs, and Albert Mohler talks about why he did not sign it. And I would note that a Google search turns up the fact that this was not the first Evangelical Manifesto, there being at least one other by the National Association of Evangelicals in 1996 discussed in a Christianity Today article. While I can not find reference to it on the NAE web site, it has been preserved on the Cephas Library web site. (I should note that the current president of the NAE was one of the charter signatories.)

One interesting tie-in is a recent post on the blog GetReligion. (If you are not familiar with this blog it does a great job analyzing media reporting of religion and how those in the media often do not “Get Religion.” It is a good read.) Anyway, in a recent post they were analyzing an L.A. Times article about a zoning issue for a Chabad Jewish preschool. What the author of the GetReligion article pointed out was that this Jewish Lubavitch sect is know for outreach, often viewed as “evangelizing.”

If the outreach is to bring people back into the church that is probably one thing, but the problem is related to recruiting people to the Jewish religion with its membership usually determined by birth. Also, evangelizing has a bad connotation because of Christian groups trying to convert Jews. And so the author says that the label of “evangelizing” is a “slur” in Jewish culture.

Now, I have made a jump here from “Evangelical” to “evangelizing.” But in our American cultural mindset we so often associate the action of evangelizing with those who are evangelical Christians. Maybe it is just because the words come from the same root. In Europe this association is not necessarily so as demonstrated by the fact that in Germany and some other countries what we call the Lutheran Church is just know as the Evangelical or Evangelical Reformed Church. This is a point that the writers of the Manifesto point out in a general sense.

Returning to the concept of Jews evangelizing, it should also be remembered that frequently in the early church “christian,” that is “little christ,” was used as a pejorative by those outside the church. In the early church the term “Christian” was not a way the believers referred to themselves. (I could not find which book of mine has this in but I’ll post the citation here as soon as I can locate it.)

Finally, there is a parallel mindset here about evangelizing between some of these Jews and some Christians in their view of Calvinism. Just as some Jews believe that membership in God’s chosen people is decided by birth, for some Christians if in election or predestination God has already decided who will be saved why is there a need for evangelizing those outside the church.

Anyway, there is plenty out there on the Evangelical Manifesto, both in the media and in the blogosphere. I decided not to try to pick and chose between the various takes on this that are available but rather just to look at it from my particular blogging niche.

Some fun stuff from Yesterday

General Assembly of the Church of Scotland — Wrap-up 1: General Thoughts and The British PM

4 Replies

The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland concluded their meeting today and while I had hoped to do some live-blogging during the sessions, life and work (pun intended) kept me busy with other things. I will do a couple of wrap-up posts over the next few days since I will have the extended Memorial/Decoration Day holiday weekend to do some blogging.

My first reaction is that it was great to be watching a General Assembly, any GA, again. While some terminology and issues may be unique to the Church of Scotland (CofS), there is much in their deliberations that overlaps with other branches. In particular, the CofS is looking at a reorganization of their most basic constitutional document that has echoes of the PC(USA) Revised Form of Government debate (in structure and approach but not as much content). There were also debates that involved interim ministry, pastoral searches, theological education, and the church in the 21st century. I’ll talk about those debates in later posts, but the feel of the proceedings was very familiar to us GA Junkies.

One of the headline items of the General Assembly was an invited speech on Saturday by British Prime Minister the Right Honorable Gordon Brown MP.

Two items of background are helpful to know to appreciate the context of this speech. The first is that Gordon Brown is a “son of the manse,” his father having been a Church of Scotland minister. In his speech he looks back and comments on growing up and what he learned from his father including:

And all that I was taught then remains with me to this day. Like so
many here today, my father lived on a ministerial stipend. But he also
brought us up to study the great texts, to believe that the size of
your wealth mattered less than the strength of your character; that a
life of joy and fulfillment could be lived in the service of others; and
that to be tested by adversity is not a fate to be feared but a
challenge to be overcome.

The second piece of background is that this is the 20th anniversary of a speech given by then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to the General Assembly. That speech is available from the web site of the Margaret Thatcher Foundation and is considered a key exposition of her moral and religious world view. The Thatcher speech is known in Scotland as the “Sermon on the Mound,” a play on both the scriptural discourse of Jesus and the artificial hill where the Assembly Hall is located. This is a name that the Thatcher Foundation frowns upon saying in the editorial comments with the speech text “Tastelessly, opponents nicknamed the speech ‘the Sermon on the Mound.'” The speech caused an uproar for its proof-texting scripture, worship, and theology to justify her political theories. The Wikipedia page on the speech describes the Moderator’s reply in presenting her with reports on housing and poverty “which was interpreted by the press as a polite rebuke.”

Mr. Brown’s speech politely walked a fine line between Church and State while never really doing much with either. He does deal with the moral responsibility each person has for making the world a better place, the role that the church has for holding up issues and speaking truth to power, and he acknowledge the reports handed to the PM 20 years ago saying:

So just as twenty years ago this weekend the then Prime Minister was
presented with the Church and Nation Committees’ deliberations and
kindly invited to study a report entitled ‘Just Sharing’, I expect
nothing less than for you to ask me and the Scottish Parliament to
study in detail – and reflect upon – today’s report of the Church and
Society Council —- to reflect upon your demands, your priorities,
your call for action on homelessness, on child poverty, on the
shortfalls in the care of older people. And I agree also with what you
say about the misery caused by gambling and drug addiction, and the
scourge of alcohol abuse.

After talking about the human urge to work for justice he then spoke of the potential of cyberspace and its ability to bring together like-minded people even if they are on the opposite sides of the world. His logical conclusion is:

And what I want to argue is that the joining of these two forces –
the information revolution and the human urge to co-operate for justice
– makes possible for the first time in history something we have only
dreamt about: the creation of a truly global society.

A global
society where people anywhere and everywhere can discover their shared
values, communicate with each other and do not need to meet or live
next door to each other to join together with people in other countries
in a single moral universe to bring about change.

As a true politician he did not embrace any distinctive theological issues but spoke of “universal truths” using Christian terms and references and talked of global issues in general terms.

Needless to say, a speech by an important politician received significant coverage in the media and the blogs. There is coverage on the BBC Web Site with an article on the speech and a critical commentary in the Scotsman. On the blogs there is plenty of commentary as well, but I would single out the comments by Alan in Belfast and Puffbox that highlight Brown’s comments about the value of the internet. There is plenty more of both regular media and blogs if you do a web search on these.

OK, enough of the kids that have left home coming back to say “hi.” Next, on to the meatier subjects of reorganization and the Articles Declaratory.

Synod PJC Lets Restoration To Ordained Ministry Stand

2 Replies

A few days ago the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of Lakes and Prairies dismissed the remedial complaint filed against the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area regarding their restoration of the Rev. Paul Capetz to the practice of ordained ministry. The Rev. Capetz is on the faculty of United Theological Seminary, an independent theological institution with a UCC heritage. He had asked to be released in 2000 because he could not agree with Book of Order section G-6.0106b, the “fidelity and chastity” standard. With the passage of the PUP Report he asked to be restored while declaring a scruple. The Presbytery agreed in January and restored Mr. Capetz. The complaint was then filed with the Synod PJC. I’ve held off a couple of days hoping to get official language, but I have not found it yet so I’ll discuss this decision based on what was first reported by the Witherspoon Society.

According to the Witherspoon Society piece, the Synod PJC ruled that the Book of Order and interpretations by previous General Assembly PJC decisions all deal with the ordination process and since Mr. Capetz was previously ordained there was no basis for complaint. I would also note that the Authoritative Interpretation resulting from the PUP report also deals principally with the ordination process, and that another GAPJC decision deals only with a call to employment in a PC(USA) entity. In light of this precedent and case law this is a reasonable decision by the SPJC, even if it seems counter-intuitive based on all these previous decisions. To determine a new interpretation on this particular circumstance will require appeal to the GAPJC or action by the General Assembly.

If you are interested there are a whole series of GAPJC decisions on this which have carved the lines fairly precisely. As I list these I will usually rely on the very brief description found in the Annotated Book of Order. One series of decisions has dealt with the ordination process. The decision in 205-4: Gary J. LeTourneau et al v. Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area in 1993 made clear that a “self-affirmed practicing homosexual” (SAPH) may not be certified ready for ordination. The prohibition on ordination was reaffirmed in 206-3: Hope Church v. Central Church in 1994, and in 218-04: George R. Stewart v. Mission Presbytery in 2008. However, the GAPJC also made clear that if you are celibate you may be ordained based on 212-12: John S. Sheldon, et al., v. the Presbytery of West Jersey. And then in a couple of decisions that bridge between the two extremes, 214-5: Ronald L. Wier v. Session, Second Presbyterian Church of Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, and 215-8: Presbytery of San Joaquin v. The Presbytery of the Redwoods and Edgar T. Hart, Steve Nesheim, Larry Ballenger, Bill McDonald, Merle Wood, Rebecca Jordan-Irwin, and Kent A. Webber v. The Presbytery of the Redwoods, the GAPJC basically reaffirmed that orientation alone is not an impediment to ordination, but if there are reasonable grounds (not rumor) to believe the individual is a SAPH than the ordaining body is obligated to investigate this.

As far as ordination is concerned, these have all been related to the ordination process and the GAPJC has made it clear in 206-3: Hope Church v. Central Church in 1994, and reaffirmed in 211-2: Wier v. Session, Second Presbyterian Church of Fort Lauderdale, Florida that an ordination may not be annulled under these circumstances. And the GAPJC did caution in 215-5: Daniel J. McKittrick v. The Session of the West End Presbyterian Church of Albany, New York not to rush the ordination or installation process to reach this end.

There is one other thread in the GAPJC decisions which is applicable here. While an ordination may not be annulled in these cases, the GAPJC did say in 205-5: Ronald P. Sallade et al v. Presbytery of Genesee Valley in 1993, and reaffirmed in several of these other cases, that a SAPH, if ordained, may not be called to employment in a PC(USA) position that “presumes ordination.” In the case of Mr. Capetz, he is employed by an independent theological institution and the presbytery validated that ministry.

As I skim through these previous decisions, it strikes me that there is no set precedent for restoration to ordained ministry. (I’m sure you will let me know if I missed a paragraph somewhere.) And while it does seem to go against the intent of many of these decisions, and of the recent 218-10: Randall Bush, Wayne Peck, and the Session of East Liberty Presbyterian Church v Presbytery of Pittsburgh, I see no reason under current decisions that the SPJC should not have dismissed it. As I said before, the real test will be the GAPJC if it is appealed. Time will tell.

Thoughts About Natural Disasters

1 Reply

In my day job I am an earthquake geologist working in an academic setting. As part of my religious and spiritual life I obviously spend a lot of time thinking about Reformed theology. So, in a week like this with a major deadly earthquake in China, how do the two halves of my life inform each other?

I have laid this all out, at least to my preliminary satisfaction, in a longer theological discourse that I have presented in multi-week adult education classes at churches. Here is the executive summary:

God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day. [Genesis 1:31]

At the beginning of the Bible we are presented with the situation that when God looked at “all that he had made” he found it to be “very good.” So if we now have a “created order” that has the potential for natural disasters that can cause the loss of tens of thousands of human lives is that still “very good” or did something go wrong? As Christians we believe that within human nature something did go wrong and that is the Fall in Genesis 3. But when humans fell did the created order fall with it? It seems clear to me that the created order was corrupted as well. This is not in the sense that the creation is sinful the way humans are, but in the Fall and humans becoming sinful they had to leave the garden and the world we live in now is not the ideal that God originally created. In the New Testament Paul writes in Romans 8:21 “that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay” and we see that release from bondage in Revelation 21 with a New Heaven and a New Earth, and the New Earth will be the dwelling place of humans with God. Just as we have the image of humans being raised in a perfected form, this echoes the redemption of creation that Paul talks of with the earth being made new for the perfected humans to live in. In a more controversial reading of the Greek, the argument could be made that John 3:16, “For God so loved the world…” could foreshadow this as well since for the word we translate “world” John uses the Greek word kosmos, which can mean the “created order,” rather than using some term specific to human beings such as ethnos.

That is the first part, that the world we live in is corrupted just like us humans are. So are earthquakes a curse in this corrupted world? I’m not sure that they are. While they have been viewed as God’s judgment or His hand upon the world at times through history, in the Bible they sometimes clearly are, and sometimes they are not, sometimes even being neutral phenomenon. In this present world earthquakes are the mechanism by which mountains are built. Mountains are important for providing new fertile soil in their erosion, for producing rain clouds, for renewing the surface of the earth, for providing many important mineral deposits. The argument could probably be made that in a “perfect” world we don’t need mountains, or if we did need them that they could rise and fall aseismically without earthquakes. But in this world it seems to me that we need mountains, and mountains and earthquakes are inseparably linked.

Therefore earthquakes as a class are not a curse or punishment from God, but a functioning part of a created order that was corrupted in the fall. This means that when a large devastating earthquake happens, like the one that just hit southeast China, we are not looking for God’s punishment in it, or for a sign of the end times, but rather as a part of the renewing of the earth, the created order, that can have the unfortunate side effect of causing this destruction and loss of life because the created order is fallen and corrupt.

That is the approach from a natural history perspective. This can also be considered from a human perspective which does more integration of the scriptures and a consideration of modern civilization. That is for another time, but I would note that in times of devastation like this faith-based humanitarian organizations can have more access to otherwise controlled areas to bring in the Gospel, at least the Gospel enacted if not spoken.

I don’t know if this makes sense in an executive summary form. When I do the six hour version people seem to follow me and it holds together. As I said at the onset, this was a necessary formulation for me so that I would be able to understand my profession in the context of my faith. Being in a field where I can work to reduce human suffering is important to me. But at times like this my academic theological explanation only helps slightly when I see the death and destruction in the area of the earthquake and still ask God “why?” or “for how long?” And I think that because of my professional ties to these events my heart aches a bit more for the victims of an earthquake than for any other natural disaster.

Upcoming PCA General Assembly — Role of Women in Ministry

A lot has happened in the last couple of days and my sincere thanks to Marshall for leaving the comments alerting us to the developments in the Presbyterian Church in America during that time.

These relate to the developing discussion over women as deacons, and more generally to the role of women in the church. While I have mentioned this at various points in the past, I have particular posts in January and February that focus on this issue. Up to this week, there were two overtures before the General Assembly asking for a study committee to clarify the scriptural, confessional, and polity basis of deaconesses. The first is Overture 9 from Philadelphia Presbytery and the second is Overture 15 from Western Canada Presbytery.

In the last day four more overtures have been posted to the overtures page. I will only mention that overtures 16 and 18 are matching procedural overtures from Piedmont Triad Presbytery and Western Carolina Presbytery to modify their shared presbytery boundary moving one church from Western Carolina to Piedmont Triad. Overtures 17 and 19 deal with the question of women and ministry, the first to expand the charge of the study committee and the second asks the assembly to decline to establish the study committee.

In Overture 17, from Rocky Mountain Presbytery, the text cites the fact that this issue has not been addressed in this or a similar Presbyterian branch in 20 years. It also notes that this issue has caused churches to leave the denomination, and while not naming names, a recent example is City Presbyterian Church of Denver which recently left (or is in the final stages of the process of leaving) that Presbytery and affiliated with the Reformed Church in America. The overture concurs with overtures 9 and 15 and goes further to ask for clarification on the broader role of women in the church including what roles they may serve in as well as leading in worship and teaching when the group contains both men and women.

At the other end is Overture 19 from Central Georgia Presbytery. Their overture, to paraphrase and summarize, says that 1) Scripture is clear and there is no dispute, 2) that “commissioning” in this case is a way to side-step the polity restrictions on ordination, 3) that titles must be scriptural, 4) that overtures 9 and 15 are challenges to the Westminster Standards and should be defeated, 5) that in the polity the status quo is appropriate, and 6) that sessions are free to appoint Godly men and women to assist the diaconate.

Well, the first two overtures that addressed the current understanding of the ordained offices were already looking to make the Assembly interesting. Now with two more that stretch the discussion in both directions this should make this meeting one that will be talked about for a while, not to mention the Assembly where the Study Committee reports, if such a committee is established.

But it is not just the overtures that have appeared in the last few days. Once again the Bayly Brothers have a blog entry addressing this issue and it also argues for the status quo and better Presbytery oversight and guidance because the church should never have gotten to this point in the first place. As Tim concludes:

We’re repeating the endless error of American Presbyterians who trust
study committees to do nasty work that would better be handled by
loving, local, personal, compassionate, discerning, biblical church
discipline.

In a “variations on a theme” sense, this entry could be written about several of the Presbyterian branches that are debating ordination standards. You could take this entry, fill in the PC(USA) for the church and practicing homosexuals for the group under discussion, and the entry would read like one side of the argument in that debate. And while I can’t cite an example from the other side of the PCA debate right at the moment, the same could be done for that and with some word substitution it would cover the other side. That is one of the reasons that I write this blog: The issues that you see around the world in the church frequently take many variations on the same basic theme. May God Bless Us.

The GA Junkie

The Politics of Presbyterianism