Next Steps
Tuesday, July 1st, 2008 • Related • Filed Under
So now an emergent Presbyterian is the moderator of the General Assembly. We can say, yay Bruce, and marvel that he now has his very own page on Wikipedia.
After we get done celebrating, though, we have to ask ourselves: what does this mean for Presbymergent? In what ways will this impact the conversations we’ve been having here and will be having here?
What do you think?
Comment by Jan on 1 July 2008:
After our Presbytery meeting tonight, we clearly have a long way to go. We are still so deeply entrenched in old models; I just hope it doesn’t crush Bruce’s spirit.
Comment by Bruce Reyes-Chow on 2 July 2008:
Jan - If this were just about me, my spirit would be easily crushed, bu since I hope to play my part in the movement AND if people keep showing up, all will be good. For good or bad, I enjoy and can play “the game” with the best of ‘em.
Comment by David Williams on 2 July 2008:
Jan: When we’re calling the question on an amendment to an amendment to a second reading of an operations manual, we’ve reached an almost zen-like state of parlimentary absurdity. I found it amusing…because the geist on the floor of presbytery was fully aware of how insane it had become. The presbyters weren’t “into it.” They were smiling, whispering, shaking their heads. It was so flagrantly *not* working that it affirms the necessity of finding a different way of being and doing church.
Comment by Chester Waverly on 2 July 2008:
This was a devastating GA for me (long distance). I don’t know what to do or where to go. My denomination has effectively chosen culture over Scripture, and that is just wrong.
Emergent mod or not, I’m pretty depressed right now.
Comment by David Williams on 2 July 2008:
Chester: Choosing Bruce was choosing culture over Scripture? Would you feel better if he hadn’t worn jeans?
Seriously, though, I know what you’re referring to, and I’m sorry you feel harmed and estranged by the decision. I’d gently contend that this is not, in fact, what GA has done. As it’s tangential to this post, feel free to quibble with me here:
pastorstrangelove.blogspot.com
Comment by Jason Tucker on 2 July 2008:
Chester: I feel your pain. But I don’t know if bailing from the PC(USA) is necessarily the next step for those of us who disagree with some of the G.A.’s decisions. I think jumping to conclusions so quickly is a bit hasty. Let’s just sit with these issues for awhile, and agree to take a fresh theological look at the issues involved. Let the Presbyteries have their say…perhaps you can be a part of that conversation. Try and understand the rationale and theology behind these decisions and then re-assess.
The last thing we need is a knee-jerk reaction to such complicated issues. But, after the dust settles, if these are non-negotiables for you in the PC(USA) and you find no way to coexist, then perhaps a different denomination would be appropriate.
Although I found some of the decisions to be alarming and against my own theological perspective, if I am truly Reformed, I must admit that my own depravity clouds my theology. It is imperfect. I must therefore carefully and prayerfully discern God’s voice in the voice of this chaos.
Good luck, brother.
Comment by Chester Waverly on 2 July 2008:
Hello friends,
Sorry about the verbose response to follow:
Jason: “jumping to conclusions so quickly”? “a bit hasty”? Bro, this isn’t something just started at GA 2008. The denomination has been heading into dangerous waters since before I entered seminary over ten years ago. I’ve had family members leave the PCUSA over issues like this, and I decided to stay way back when because it is my denomination, too, and I didn’t feel like I was being led to jump ship. The thing I am weighing is whether or not these latest actions at GA will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.
However, I may be too stubborn, because my inclination is to not abandon ship. One of the reasons I didn’t leave ten years ago was because God led me to meet some amazing, rock-solid, Biblically-minded Christians in the denomination. And since that time, I have met more and more. It challenged me and encouraged me to stay.
This is one of the things that grates me about these decisions. I don’t believe that GA speaks for the majority of the church. It might over time, because so many people who disagree have left and will leave, but I think that is a mistake.
And I don’t have a problem with someone having a differing theological perspective. However, when that perspective runs counter to the Word, and it becomes the “law of the land”, that’s when I get nervous.
David wrote:
“Choosing Bruce was choosing culture over Scripture? Would you feel better if he hadn’t worn jeans?”
Are you kidding me? I am a die-hard fan of the late Rich Mullins. Bruce could have come out barefoot and it would have been fine with me. Don’t get me wrong about Bruce - I am very excited to have someone my age in the position of moderator, and I am excited to have someone who is involved in the Emergent Church in the position.
My concern with Bruce is more along the lines of my concern with the Emergent Church in general - and it is something I am not yet decided upon. I really like much of what the EC stands for - the idea of being the church of the 21st Century, not the 1950’s. I was challenged reading “A New Kind of Christian”, and am excited by the idea of connecting to the church’s ancient past. I like the idea of seeking out how to be relevant to the society at large.
But, I do get worried when our “generous orthodoxy” runs counter to very basic Scriptural imperatives, or denies timeless truths of the Gospel. Does Bruce’s theology do this? I don’t know yet, because I don’t know Bruce nor am I yet familiar with this theological perspectives on these issues. I assume that over time as I read his blog, things will become more clear.
Thanks for the invite to your blog. You might see me there.
Chester
Comment by Bruce Reyes-Chow on 2 July 2008:
Chester - Since you are talking about me . . . I think the funniest thing about the whole conversation about the e/E mergent church is that depending on who you talk to I am very emergent or not at all. Around homosexuality, you may disagree with me, but on issues of ancient ritual and holding on to some traditions that give us foundation we may be able to find common ground. I hope I hold on to timeless truths, but then again, what may be mine may not be yours. Thank you though for your thoughtful response to being part of a family that right now is working through some tough stuff. Later all.
Comment by David Williams on 3 July 2008:
Chester: When you hit that blog…or bloglet, as it’s really just a clearinghouse for my scriptural and theological musings on that issue…you’ll see that I would contend that “very basic Scriptural imperatives” are not violated by the GA decision.
It is not possible, and I will freely admit this, to approach scripture from a literalist standpoint and make the GA decision. But it is possible to honor and respect scripture, to proclaim it as holy, to use it as the rule of life and faith, and still affirm what GA has proposed.
Bruce: This may be a harbinger conversation. I realize it’s not very pomo of me, but I’d be reluctant to let go of the sharing of timeless truths with those who oppose the GA decision. If we do that, we have no basis for our conversation, and the conversation dies.
Comment by Tom Robinson on 3 July 2008:
Congrats, Bruce. I was really tickled- though not surprised- that you were elected. You were/are definitely the right person for the task.
Excuse me for sounding contrary to earlier posts, but I for one was very pleased with some of the actions taken by GA. Sure, the parliamentary stuff gets old, and Roberts Rules have had their day. But excluding a significant part of our brothers and sisters over 5 or 6 verse has never been a good way to go. To me that was caving into culture by using the Bible as a defense. We need to remember that we are all sinners who have been reclaimed by God through Christ, to be witnesses of God’s love to all people.
Comment by Tom on 3 July 2008:
It’s so modern to identify oneself with a particular movement, even if it’s “Emergent,” so I’ll remain postmodern here and say I’m just who I am, like it or leave it. The GA218 decisions clarify for me that we have a church that’s becoming less connected nationally speaking, and more grounded within regions be it geographically or ideologically.
I will not change my position on the particular ideologies I’ve developed through rearing and education (welcome to the 40’s) and I know that others who have been as thoughtful as I have in their own development by this age will not be prone to change their’s. No one will be able to force me to abide by a principle that I find untenable scripturally, nor will I allow session to be arm twisted in doing so. If that were to happen, in other words, if the judicial branch of our denomination enforces a decision upon me or upon a session that scripture unequivocally speaks against (even if it is a theme developed by a limited number of verses), then that will be the levee buster for many people I’m sure, and that would be tragic for the church.
In response to Tom Robinson, of course we are all sinners. I’m not aware of anyone who has said anything contrary to that. However, grace is not the only issue for Christians, and never has been. Obedience is the other side of the grace coin, which is developed extensively through the prophets, covenant (yes that is a major tenant of the Reformed tradition), and even Christ verified this with words “Your sins are forgiven. Go and sin no more.” See, I didn’t even need to resort to the Paulines, whether deutero- or otherwise.
Sticking with the denomination will be an adventure for all sides, that’s for sure!
Comment by Tom Robinson on 3 July 2008:
Thanks Tom, I completely agree - as long as “Go and sin no more” also applies to those who bash someone else without taking the time and energy to get to know them.
Comment by Tom on 3 July 2008:
Tom, I hope we can recognize that the bashing has gone both ways. I personally haven’t participated in such bashing overtly. In my 20’s I confess I did in my quieter and more arrogant conversations, in my 30’s much less so, but then I was too busy with a Ph.D. My 40’s and some life trauma to my daughter have produced a greater sense of humility that the Holy Spirit has used in my life quite powerfully. Yet, despite the humility, I cannot let go of the overarching worldview within scripture that maintains grace and obedience held in tension as a covenant people. Oh that things were easy!
Prophetic ministry is never easy, and must be done with the greatest of care, while not compromising on authority.
Well, for me, one good thing that has come out of GA218 is that I’ve launched into blogs. How cool for this 80’s video game and music video lover!
Comment by Chester Waverly on 3 July 2008:
First, thanks to Bruce for the comment, especially right after GA. I hope you know that we’re all rooting for you and praying for you.
Tom Robinson: This comment was significant, and not in a good way:
“But excluding a significant part of our brothers and sisters over 5 or 6 verse has never been a good way to go.”
Now, understand that I am not a “basher”. I’ve been involved in professional theater as an actor and director for the last 15 years. While involved in that work I’ve made many homosexual friends. I’ve had several interesting conversations with these friends over the years, and they have helped me to become very sympathetic to their needs, wants, concerns… and bottom line? I want those persons to know and love Jesus, and to know that Jesus loves them, and died on the cross for them and their sins.
But the only reason I know that Jesus loves them (or me) is because of the words of Scripture. The only reason I know that we are under a New Covenant of Grace is because of Scripture. Those “5 or 6 verses” are Scripture, and so we can’t just ignore them because they challenge us culturally or theologically.
And let me add that I know that David has made an in-depth study of those “5 or 6 verses”, and I haven’t had time to give his study a detailed reading. I plan to.
But, I should add that the homosexual aspect of potentially altering the constitution isn’t my sole concern. I am also bugged because I felt like that the current wording is good for encouraging all ordained persons to be faithful, sexually - hetero or homo. I don’t want to sit under a pastor who does not observe fidelity in marriage or chastity in singleness. And I say this as a person whose church was, about ten years ago, nearly split apart by a married male pastor father of two who committed adultery while serving as pastor.
Comment by Bob Pearson on 4 July 2008:
Chester, in response to your comment “But, I do get worried when our “generous orthodoxy” runs counter to very basic Scriptural imperatives, or denies timeless truths of the Gospel.”
I have seen a recent sermon (available at http://www.svpc.us/harrington2008.06.29.html) that uses the Acts text of Peter and his vision of the sheet and the animals, that led to the change of Christianity from a purely Jewish sect to a universal faith including the previously unclean gentiles. This was against the standard interpretation of scripture that they had at the time. This was against all that they had been raised to believe. The Spirit led them to make this change in their view of a group that had been previously called sinners and excluded based upon scripture.
God’s grace was shown to be much bigger and the arms of Jesus much wider than previously thought.
Could we be in the same situation today?
Comment by Chester Waverly on 4 July 2008:
Hi Bob,
Thanks for the comments.
I don’t disagree at all with the statement that “God’s grace was shown to be much bigger and the arms of Jesus much wider than previously thought.” I applaud, hold up, and cling to that idea, because without that Truth, we would all be screwed.
Here’s the problem I have with the suggestion that God is changing His mind on this issue:
What was the major sign that the early church experienced that proved that God was doing something different? Acts 2:47 “And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.” We find this said in different ways throughout that book.
In the case of the PCUSA, it is the exact opposite. In fact, if the Recent History of the PCUSA was written, it might say, “And the Lord took away from their number daily for decades.” Dittos with the other mainline churches that are becoming so inclusive as to suggest that Scripture is mistaken. That, to me, is a huge issue to overcome.
Not to mention that the churches that ARE experiencing growth, generally speaking, would oppose the actions by our recent GA. Not just regarding issues of sexuality, but also interfaith issues. God is adding to their number.
Which brings me to another PCUSA issue. Why are we so anti-evangelism - in practice if not in words? I grew up in a PCUSA church, and never heard anyone talk about sharing our Christian faith with people who don’t know Jesus, except occasionally from the pulpit. Is this because we are so wrapped up in Calvin that we think we have nothing to do in job of sharing Christ? I realize that this is another subject, but the idea of our shrinking numbers was bubbling in my head and EV popped up.
Comment by David Williams on 4 July 2008:
Chester: Watching your frustrating but beloved denomination bleed to death is certainly not much fun. But I think there’s much more at play here than the stock Layman line about decline being a result of our failure to be anal-retentively ultra-orthodox. The Southern Baptist Convention took that route, and they, too, are waning.
Where have we seen explosive growth? Well…the “Word Faith” prosperity pentecostals are rocking out and packing ‘em in. Have you ever been to one of Osteen’s worships? Or…read his books? Would you say that material and visible growth is a sign of God’s blessings on a movement for it’s orthodoxy? I would say no. Growth can be a sign, but it can also be powerfully correlated to conformity to the expectations of culture.
I think your final point is more salient. Liberal and moderate Christians are generally crappy at evangelism. We talk amongst ourselves. We serve others. But we don’t tell that old old story of Jesus and his Love, because we think it’s unseemly. We have to get over that.
Comment by Chester Waverly on 4 July 2008:
David,
You make a great point. Growth of a church doesn’t necessarily reflect that the church is orthodox. I almost put in a disclaimer about that in my other post, but didn’t.
However, I think the point still stands, considering what I was responding to. Bob was asking if we could possibly be seeing a 21st Century version of what happened in the Book of Acts. And you can’t get away from the fact that the early church “rocked out and packed ‘em in” - 1st Century style.
Incidentally, you cite the Southern Baptists… I’d hardly say they are “waning”. How have they been hurting? A declining GROWTH RATE. On the flip side, we’ve just been declining. I think they have the more enviable problem.
But let’s turn back to the other issue - why are liberals and moderates so “crappy at evangelism”? Methinks it goes beyond our thinking it unseemly. Is EV even taught in PCUSA seminaries? Do we ever get challenged to share our faith (beyond service - which is great - but actual discussion with the hope of helping another person find Jesus) in our PCUSA publications? Heck, the last thing Jesus told his followers before ascending to heaven was to go into the world and make disciples. Why don’t we get more challenge from Louisville to do that?
Personally, I think if we took the PCUSA commitment to social justice and wed it with a New Testament attitude towards evangelism and sharing The Good News (not just “good news”), we’d find things turning around. It might be a simplistic idea, but it seems a better formula than the one we’ve been feeding off for the past couple of decades.
Comment by Tom on 4 July 2008:
I’m simply commenting here on the stream regarding evangelism and social justice.
I attended seminary at a Mennonite based college, Regent, in Vancouver. It was interesting to me that to graduate from the MDiv I had to participate in an evangelism outreach from set up, preparation, running the program, to follow up. I also did a radical ministry among youth of parents who were on an island community and fully into the swing lifestyle. The outreach was to bring the gospel and bring the youth to Christ, not do social justice.
When I attended PTS for a ThM there was nothing of the sort required by the MDiv graduates. I’m not suggesting that my experience was the case for each person graduating from a PC(USA) seminary, but social justice is markedly different than evangelism. Typical mainline denominations did a great job to raise the flag on social justice. What has been lost in the process, that has evolved over 30 years now, is the distinction between social justice and proclamation and the expectation that Jesus is the only Lord and Savior, and that there is grace AND obedience. The early Christians represented within the New Testament understood this, and I wonder why can’t we?
The gospel holds in tension the concept of social justice and grace with obedience, maintaining that none of us are “good” and all need to be forgiven and called to holiness. That’s good enough for me, and it pretty much defines my preaching ministry and call to the church to be holy in its social justice. If we simply let the gospel lead us, both where it comforts and speaks prophetically to us, I think we’ll be OK at the end of the day.
Comment by Bob Pearson on 4 July 2008:
I think this tension between social justice and Jesus centric evangelism is at the core of the emerging church opportunity in the PCUSA. As to the question if a more open ordination process would lead to church growth in the PCUSA, WE HAVE NOT TRIED IT YET. We have been debating it for 30 years and this turmoil has sapped the energy out of our denomination.
I have had many great conversations with my more conservative friends on why a liberal CHRISTIAN would even have a heart for evangelism. The primary driving force for conservative evangelism is to save souls from the torment of hell. This is a very powerful motivator for many churches. Liberals need to develop a passion for evangelism based on our liberal perspectives. Brian McLaren has been very helpful to me in this perspective. Only the future of humanity on earth is at stake.
I hope that if/when the PCUSA truly adopts an open, loving, welcoming, serving and disciple/kingdom living centric vision, that we can be very proactive in our new evangelism efforts. I see some signs of this beginning to take hold. Look at Pittsburgh, with many new churches in the past few years, look at Atlanta with a new emerging church development committee, look at Cascades Presbytery with a new Director of New church development. Things are beginning to change, but the decline will continue due to the 30 years of neglect in the outreach/NCD realm. But hope is growing and Presbymergent is a major place for that hope to grow even more.
Comment by Tom on 4 July 2008:
Bob, you almost had it! I disagree that the “primary driving force” for conservative evangelism is to save souls from the torment of hell. And if it were there’s no way I’d be able to be conciliatory toward that ideology. My experience with thoughtful evangelicals is that the driving force is as Paul writes in Philippians 3:1-11, to view all things as loss for the sake of gaining Christ. It’s not about avoiding hell, but about gaining true life!
As for Jesus-centric evangelism, what other evangelism is there? Doesn’t scripture clearly affirm that good news is the result of both proclamation of Christ and action of love? I suppose the Unitarian woman I sat next to last night and spoke to while drinking wine might add that there is more than Jesus-centered evangelism, but I wouldn’t expect that coming from someone within the Reformed tradition.
Comment by Bob Pearson on 5 July 2008:
Tom,
Thanks for the reminder that my choice of phrase was ill considered.
I think what I meant was that some evangelicals think that their work stops
when someone comes forward to an alter call, or says the prayer that confirms their
commitment to love and follow Jesus, or makes a confession of their sinful life and pledge
to follow Jesus.
I think Tony Jones said that this process is a great place to start but a terrible place to stop.
Making Disciples of Jesus is more than this, IMHO, it is about changing how people live and interact with others as much as their just loving Jesus. Making the Kingdom of God and God’s will done on Earth as real as in heaven as we pray weekly in most Christian churches is the real work of Kingdom livers and followers of Jesus. We may disagree on how to make this happen but it is our calling none the less.
Comment by Chester Waverly on 5 July 2008:
Hi Bob,
Some evangelicals might believe that the work stops at people coming to faith, but I think most don’t. It has been my experience that most evangelicals place a very high premium on helping a new believer grow in that new faith.
It is interesting for me to see how this isn’t so much the case for PCUSA churches (BIG generalization - sorry about that). Again, speaking from my experience, in my nearly 40 years I don’t recall hearing the word “discipleship” spoken in any PCUSA church to any great extent, except if the word came up in the context of a sermon. I was never taught how to disciple a new believer, personally, in any PCUSA church, nor do I recall churches having programs to train people how to disciple new believers. But of course, when you aren’t out evangelizing, you don’t typically have new believers who need to be discipled.
Now certainly there are churches out there that do this, but is there anything that comes down from the top? Does Louisville publish discipleship-themed works? These aren’t rhetorical questions, btw. I’m really curious to know.
- chester
Comment by Carol Howard Merritt on 10 July 2008:
I’m coming in late to the discussion… but as far as next steps go, I hope that the denomination can get together some talented and bright minds to begin to do some strategic thinking about
• the fact that we have so many empty pulpits
• the fact that we have so many seminary students who don’t have a place to go
• how to support and nurture new energy for starting new churches and communities effectively
• how to encourage alternative churches within existing churches
• how to begin making sure that we don’t starve our new pastors during their first call
• thinking strategically about pastors who are more geographically bound due to spouse’s employment.
In other words, this is an extremely important time, and we have incredibly talented clergy whose vitality is not being used effectively, or it’s not being used at all.
I think of Strauss and Howe’s research that says that Gen X is the most innovative generation that this nation has ever seen. We can see the inventiveness in movements like Presbymergent. Now, imagine if our church began to encourage (unbind, if you will…) that creativity.
I would love to see a gathering of people who began to think strategically about how to harness the Gen X innovative energy. Or any generation’s vitality! I just look around, and see a lot of our most important resource–our church leaders–being wasted.
Comment by Carol Howard Merritt on 10 July 2008:
Just wondering if I used the term “strategic thinking” enough in that comment.
Comment by Chester Waverly on 10 July 2008:
If it is preceded by “fervent prayer” and followed up with “effective action”, I don’t think you can ever say “strategic thinking” too much.
Good word, Carol.
Comment by Susan Phillips on 10 July 2008:
The other sign of growth in the nascent church was the Spirit poured out — young women and men prophecying and old men dreaming dreams. Folks could see the fruits of the Spirit in the lives of those who followed Jesus and later, his teachings. One of the main reasons I was encouraged by the actions of the 218th GA, rather than disappointed, is that I have witnessed the faithful fruits of the spirit poured out in the lives of Christian men and women who happen to be LGBT. I have been blessed by the Word proclaimed. I have been gifted by their pastoral care. I have been convicted of my timid faith and their deeply G-d-centered ones. I believe that bearing witness to the Spirit at work in the lives of these friends is biblically faithful of me — not in opposition to Scripture.
Ordination is not a right to be conferred. It is a calling which can be acknowledged by the one called and the community into which G-d is calling the one. Not everyone, regardless of their sexuality, is called — and, unfortunately, not everyone who is called is acknowledged.
Chester, I do struggle with certain passages of Scripture. I wouldn’t say that I ignore them, but I do have to do some extra work to make sense of them given the relationship I have with Jesus. Sometimes a passage does not seem to reflect the Jesus I know — time to study and pray harder. Paul’s lines about women being quiet in church are frequently used against me and my ministry by pastoral colleagues in this small, rural, conservative town. They believe I”m going to hell for usurping the place of men in church. I have decided, after prayer and study, that Paul didn’t mean all women for all time should never speak in worship, but my neighbors think that’s what it means.
Re: numerical decline: anybody see the Presbyterians Today stats this past year that spelled out the sociological data and revealed that 70% of our decline is a result of lower birthrates that RC, Pentecostals, Baptists…?
Evangelism: I have been talking with Pres folks here that this medium six congregation has got to get over being the best kept theological secret in town. Some feel intimidated by two 3,000 member churches in a town of 8,000. Some are shy. Some do a great job of inviting others. Our membership numbers have held steady (that’s ahead of the curve), but our attendance has declined because Troy doesn’t attend as regularly as Dorothy did before she died.
I felt a sense of the Spirit at GA and, possibly, witnessed some of the relation building that PUP recommended. I believe G-d is at work reconciling us, but I think we are resisting that work if we are not willing to talk and listen and pray and work together. Thank you Jesus for loving us still.
Comment by Tom on 10 July 2008:
Susan, I’m simply going to respond to the reference you’ve made to 1 Tim 2:12, which must come with its context in v. 8. This is a parallel construction in which both men and women are commended to quiet in different ways. Men should lift up holy hands rather than fisted, angry hands. Women should be quiet (in spirit) rather than loud. Both were issues in the ancient Near East and could distract from worship. The noun hesuchos (2:12) means more than physical quietness, but it’s meaning includes quietness of spirit. Evidently the author of 1 Timothy was dealing with an issue of controvery in that setting that wasn’t allowing people to focus on the heart of worship, so it was back to basics time both for men and women (1 Cor 14:40).
I realize this won’t help your colleagues who are likely stuck in their own traditions, but I couldn’t help but to comment. By the way, I wonder how your colleagues deal with 1 Cor 11, in which Paul assumes it is fitting for a woman to prophecy over men in worship.
Comment by Tom on 11 July 2008:
Susan, while you were blessed by the LBTG folk, I was amazed and humbled at the courage of those who once were, and spoke out with dignity about being healed. I’m sure that people mocked them for their statements, too. I simply had to make that statement.
As for the growth comments of the PT, the emporer has no clothes on and to examine the issue as one of lower birth rates among Presbyterians simply deflects the larger issue. I certainly don’t pretend to have the answer about our decline, but I’m sure it’s multi-faceted and this includes moving away from the basics of faith and being in a culture where religion on the whole is on decline. How many “faithful” would yield their lives on account of their faith, if required, at gunpoint? How do we explain the stunning growth of the church in China, which for years was forced underground?
I, for one, think it’s time to acknowledge our need for humility and look to our brothers and sisters in areas of persecution who’ve survived amazingly hard times and tests of faith that most of us have never met, learning from them rather than trying to be missionaries to them. Have we considered financing Christian missionaries from other countries to come teach us faith? Just a thought in the larger stream of ideas.
Comment by Susan Phillips on 11 July 2008:
I was a GA Commissioner and the one person I remember telling is story of “repenting and being saved from the demon of homosexuality” (his words) sat 2 rows in front of me. He and I were also on the same GA theo issues committee. In committee he told his story in even greater depth — he was not mocked. He was heard and his story respected. But his story is not necessarily anyone else’s. I give thanks that he was healed from something that haunted him. I also give thanks that others hear their call and find fulfillment. It is a false dichotomy to think we have to choose between these different experiences. We can respect and find blessing in all the ways G-d might be moving through our lives.
A parallel: Orthodox Jewish men pray a morning prayer “Thank you G-d for not making me a woman.” This may be their faithful prayer, but it doesn’t make me want to change my gender.
Epilogue: The man making the testimony on the plenary floor and I had 2 conversations that amounted to expressing our appreciation for one another’s presence in this church and for one another’s journey of faith. I believe we can disagree and love each other, but only if we have taken the time to truly listen and love and Jesus loves us.
Comment by Tom on 11 July 2008:
Susan, thanks for your perspective. I didn’t mean to suggest that others at GA mocked him. I’ve been to GA myself and such attitudes may exist outside the floor and outside committe, but are not encouraged in the Assembly itself. I’ve heard such mockery expressed in other settings, however, and it goes both ways.
I disagree with your parallel simply because scripture never claims that gender is moral issue. That notion becomes apparent from socio-anthropological and socio-linguistical analyses of culture through myth, folklore, laws, etc. The issue of sexuality, however, is, according to scripture, a moral issue. Apples and oranges; hence, our dilemma.
Thre are clearly ways to respect one another’s perspective on issues of morality. This doesn’t mean, however, that a foundation comprised of conflicting ideological authorities will stand (i.e., th culture/scripture debate). We had a great discussion on this point while I was on faculty at Loyola U in Chicago. There it was generally agreed that once common authority dissipates dialogue ceases, and in its place can emerge mutual respect, which is what you’ve indicated has happened. The problem this raises for one denomination in a protestant church, and which even the North American catholic church is facing, is that a church is charged with more than viewing people with mutual respect. It attempts to build and organize around a common mission from a common foundation of authority. This was a significant factor in the development of post-reformational denominations. So we are confronted right now with a rather important question: can our PC(USA) foundation hold when the ideological foundation of authority is no longer a common bond between opposing groups?
We’ll see, but I hope neither group condemns the other to hell and works instead to come up with creatives approaches to the dilemma.
Comment by Susan Phillips on 11 July 2008:
Tom, you sound like a really smart guy. Thanks for giving us language and background that connects this thread with larger discourse. That said, I guess I’m trying to suggest a more personal response than an academic one (please no one read an either / or into this statement).
Presfolks may not think that gender is a moral issue, but ordination of women is very much a moral issue for some of our sisters and brothers — and we were discussing ordination with G6. Just a quick peek at the Anglicans threatening schism over last week’s decision to allow women into the House of Bishops is a good example. My colleagues in small town Ammerica definitely think my ordination and ministry violates Scripture. As a denomination, we’ve come to see it differently — that’s my point.
I don’t know about the context of the Loyola discussion (I probably would have enjoyed it), but what I do know is that in every instance when I have been able to make real progress in conversation and faithful exchange with folks who disagree with me it is because we have shared a deep concern, love, for each other. I live in an interfaith family. This is possible only because of our love for one another and respect for each other’s traditions. The same has been true for the friendships I’ve nurtured with church folks across theological divides: we have be able to offer faithful ministry together because we were lead by our love for each other in Christ.
I know loving each other despite our differences sounds naive, but I believe it is deeply faithful, scriptural, and ethically binding in a way no impersonal discourse can be. If we were to discuss “essentials,” I think loving others as G-d loves us should be one of our highest priorities — least that’s what Jesus said.
I simply don’t accept that this is a scriptural v cultural. We all claim the authority of scripture, but we certainly read the Bible differently. I do not accept the authority of culture over scripture and I think the suggestion that any of us are less biblically-based than the other leads us in uncharitable directions.
Comment by Tom on 11 July 2008:
Today’s a day off and here I sit talking church.
Susan, unfortunately whether you accept the dialogue as culture v scripture isn’t really the issue. Each person has a personal story behind their perspective, and respecting that perspective is important. Unfortunately, experience and perspective aren’t the foundations for debate that leads to decisions for larger groups. That’s where postmodernism is misleading, at some point there must be a decision for the larger whole, at least when it boils down to ideology. I point you to a great resource that can help called “Christ and Culture.” The author presents a good discussion on the four ways Christians disagree over the relationship between culture and scripture. What we’re enmeshed in is a classic example of one of those ways.
Yes, many of us taut the authority of scripture. Most of us, if not all of us, are selective! In this case, one group claims that on issues where the text is unequivocal on morality there is no other perspective adoptable. On the contrary, and I was embroiled in this discussion in the early ’90’s, another group claims that on issues where culture and scripture disagree, with respect to morality, the voice of culture/science outweighs the voice of scripture. That issue is close to the heart of the matter for people on what we may call the more evangelical/conservative side of the debate, which those on the progressive/liberal side dispute. For this latter group the issue typically is couched in terms of “love” and “grace,” or even “ethics,” as if those in the first group don’t believe in those things. People on both sides of the aisle have hearts for the Lord and others, but the ideologies that lay at some of their core faith beliefs are very much in opposition. Consequence: even though we use the same language, we talk over each other, and that, I think, is what our new moderator was seeing occur at GA218.
And when we talk over each other, regardless of our perspective, beliefs, values, language, etc, we make little progress. I hope we can make it through all this because as dismissive as the comments were about those who wanted to leave the denomination, in the end, our failure to hold together will be catastrophic for both sides. I’m praying that if reconciliation is not possible that the Spirit infuses people with sanctified creativity to allow a solution that will give us each room to be where we are in faith yet not destroy the mission and Great Commission to which the church is called supremely.
Comment by Brian Merritt on 11 July 2008:
So what did we decide? What does it mean to be Presbymergent?
Comment by Susan Phillips on 12 July 2008:
My impression has been that emergent folks / churches have been about recovering spiritual practices, combining them with interactive worship and hands-on mission to create spaces where folks (regardless of their religious background) might experience a deepened relationship with G-d — how did I do?
I disagree with Tom’s diagnosis of our current divisions, although I would bet that lots of folks on either side of the divide would concur with him. Maybe part of our divisiveness is how we’ve defined the problem. Therefore, as others have been saying, “we talk past each other.”
What I’ve been trying to do here is not talk past others, but engage in a personal conversation. I’m testifying to my experience of G-d in my life and more specifically at GA; to share moments of the deepening of my faith. This is where the ? of emergent church comes in. Can I get a witness?
Come on Tom, work with me man. Get out of your head and tell me about how Jesus’ love has been revealed to you in another person.
Anybody: where have you seen Jesus lately? Are you willing to have the conversations with someone on another side and listen hard enough to their story to fall in love with their spirit and love them the way G-d loves you? I’m not “couching.” I’m looking for real stories of real people’s faith. What do you say?
I hear that love and the experience we have of G-d is no basis for an institution — I wonder, can the church be based on anything less? I personally have very little interested in serving a church of ideology no matter how many folks agree, or how well thought out it is, or frankly which ideology it is.
Comment by Tom on 12 July 2008:
Susan you’ve highlighted the divide better than I could’ve.
As far as experience is concerned, I’m deeply in love with my Lord and am utterly convinced beyond any shadow of a doubt of the Lord of the Universe’s providence in life. No, that doesn’t come from the perspective of a privileged man who has seen little to no pain in life. But, to hear the stories that have led me to that conclusion is not for this forum. Perhaps another time.