the Outlook Blog

A friend and colleague in ministry with whom I share a number of theological and cultural differences recently commented that I was most surely a “liberal” and that we would never agree on certain things that he held of deep value as a “conservative.” He went on to argue that the divisions within the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) seemed beyond bridging the gap from his perspective, and perhaps the best we could do was to acknowledge how we disagree and live as peacefully with one another as possible. He would go so far as to say that this was possible between two friends, but he didn’t see how it was possible with a denomination that has made him more and more cynical.

As I am prone to do at times, I decided to play the part of devil’s advocate and I made a very simple statement. It was this: “I guess I am a ‘liberal,’ but I’m an ‘evangelical liberal.’”

He quickly replied, “That’s an oxymoron if I’ve ever heard one.”

“I don’t think so, “I said. “I believe in telling the Good News of Jesus Christ just as much as you do in both my words and actions. I’m not afraid of using the ‘E’ word at all.”

“But you must mean,“ he insisted, “that you are a ‘liberal evangelical’.”

“No,” I said. “I meant exactly what I said in describing myself.”

He shook his head and sighed. “I guess I just don’t get it.”

For me that says it all. None of us “get it” when we feel we are compelled to use old, outdated, culturally freighted, politically captive, relatively meaningless labels. Setting us up as a nation, or as a denomination of people who are on the “left” or the “right,” or God forbid some of those fence sitters in the middle who can fall either way on a particular issue, only compounds our focusing on single issues that tend to divide us rather than to unite us in the love of Christ.

Now I know this is no new news for any of us Presbyterians. We’ve been tearing ourselves apart piece by piece for over thirty years on the gay and lesbian ordination issue. Underlying that issue though, is a far greater divide that predates the anxious hearts we carry within us as the people of God. It’s a fear lodged in how to agree to disagree in love, not in anger. Our sinful inflexibility seems most obvious when we single out a specific concern on which we passionately disagree. Our basic instinct is to assume that we will not like people with whom we disagree, even if we do not know them well, or for that matter, actually know them at all. The true worry for some of us who have weathered the storms of our church fights over the last several decades is how to learn a new way of falling in love with one another as the church all over again. The times in our history may not reflect many periods of when we have accomplished such a miracle, but there are a few. Certainly the Apostle Paul understood how difficult it is to truly love one another, stay united, still disagree, but to share in common our conviction to follow the Christ who even challenged us to love our enemies.

I believe that one of the ways of following the mandate of Christ’s commandment to love as we have been loved may be found in dispensing with the labels. What would it be like if we suspended looking to the left or right and looked straight forward into God’s future? What would it be like if we trashed all of the labels like “liberal” and “conservative,” and started thinking of ourselves as “disciples”? What would it be like if we suspended our arguments, our amendments, our votes, and simply lived together in peace and harmony?

Yeah. . . yeah. . .I know I sound like a “60’s liberal,” a fool, or an idealist who has his head in the clouds. I get accused of that regularly by my more pragmatic friends, but I can’t quite let it go because I believe the Gospel is about living our way as flawed human creatures into a more ideal world. Heaven come to earth? Realized eschatology? Things here on earth as they are in heaven?

Yes. Glimpsing heaven in our midst with something like the ideals that Calvin must have yearned for in Geneva. No utopia, for Calvin was a realist, but a more perfect world that is modeled on a more perfect community of people joined together in Christ that we call “the Church.”

What purpose do our labels serve? They do not seem to bring us together, but to divide us. They certainly aren’t usually very clear as my discussion with my dear friend indicates. I was not simply playing with words in our conversation, but trying to make a point about how confusing and distorting labeling one another can be. Admittedly it feels nice to us human beings to nest together as “birds of a feather” do. It’s usually more comfortable, less stressful, and even more fun to agree. But is that our calling in a divided world and a divided church to have to agree with one another? Are we not called to bear the burdens of the Gospel that Jesus warned would not be easy? If our labeling serves no good purpose under the mandates of the Gospel, then why do we persist in doing so?

What would it be like if during this season of Advent we tried on some new behaviors and ways of thinking? I am suggesting that every time we catch ourselves thinking,   I really don’t want to be around him or her; I don’t like how they feel and how they think, that we stopped dead in our tracks and said, “Maybe I should get to know them better.” I am also suggesting that every time we mentally feel the restless urge to stick a label on someone that we resist it and don’t make assumptions which we all know “make an ass out of you and me.” I am suggesting that we practice the power of positive thinking, live the adage that if we don’t have something good to say about someone else that we don’t say anything at all, and that we look hard at ourselves in that foggy mirror in which Paul said we could only see dimly. Maybe. . . just maybe. . . as we journey through this holy season we might catch a fainting glimpse of God in a manger stall as clearly as those first shepherds and as wisely as those later visitors, the wise men. Maybe with God’s help we can let the labels go once and for all!

Phil Leftwich

Executive Presbyter

Presbytery of Middle Tennessee

One church in our presbytery has left the denomination and another is threatening to do so.  The bitterness, the suspicion, the anger that often accompanies such a divorce (on both sides) can cause one to wonder how the good news of grace can be preached or heard from Sunday to Sunday in the midst of such rancor and discord. 
            After delivering some lectures at a church this past summer on the fundamentalist-modernist controversy of the early 20th century, someone asked, given the issues over the years of race, ordination of women, divorce, and now the ordination of gays and lesbians, if Presbyterians just liked to fight.  It’s hard to answer that with a no.

            It seems that we have assumed a mindset of argument and suspicion.  At presbytery meetings it’s difficult to look at anyone without wondering where he or she stands, ideologically.  Whose side is she on?  I wonder how he’s a liberal or a conservative.  Our guard is always up.  Some have even said that they intend to stay in the denomination – not out of some commitment to the larger church, but so that their side can win.

            It seems that we can no longer look at someone as a devoted elder, deacon, minister, or member of the church of Jesus Christ.  We have to wonder about what one’s intentions are when a question is asked.  What did he or she really mean by that? 

            Doris Kearns Goodwin did us a wonderful favor by writing her book Team of Rivals which describes Lincoln’s ability to draw into his cabinet the very persons who had opposed his candidacy for president.  Lincoln didn’t let their opposition to him stand in the way of seeing the gifts they might bring to his administration.  It was also an astute political move to have them inside working for him and not outside working against him.

            The choice is whether we will work towards having a big tent in which everyone has a say, but not everyone will get their way, or we will have a small tent in which everyone always agrees.  I vote for the big tent in which it is assumed that everyone’s motives are based on a devotion to Jesus Christ and that we are all involved in the common enterprise of laboring in his kingdom.  If some feel led to become part of another tradition or organization, they are free to go.  But we surely don’t insist that everyone conform to uniformity.  We do assume a commitment to Jesus Christ and the themes of the Reformed tradition.

            Even though some of us may espouse the big tent view, our tent is becoming smaller.  I regret that because grace is getting squeezed out.  Pain and bitterness remain. Those who want their side to win remain.  It doesn’t have to be that way.  It is a sad time when genuine grace and forgiveness no longer have a place.  How strange for the church to find itself in that position!

            National Geographic photographer Dewitt Jones has said that it doesn’t do much good to walk to preach somewhere if our preaching isn’t in our walking.  No one has a corner on the market of righteousness, let alone grace and mercy.  All of us stand in need of the grace and mercy of Jesus Christ.  The sooner all of us remember that, the sooner all of us remember that our preaching needs to be in our walking, the sooner we might resemble the people God intends us to be.  By the way, that last statement is intended as much for me as for anyone.

Jim Currie, Houston, TX (Associate Dean and Director, Austin Seminary’s Houston Extension Program)

I'm stunned by news of the death of reporter Evan Silverstein, a friend and colleague from Presbyterian News Service whom I've known for eight years. Evan died at age 42 at his home in Louisville on Sunday of natural causes, the news service reported today.

We often covered the same events involving the Louisville-based Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). While our employers were different -- his a denominational news service, mine the secular hometown paper -- we shared the goal of reporting thoroughly and fairly about of all sides of the issues.

Less than two weeks ago, I saw him at the ceremony marking the 20th anniversary of the headquarters in Louisville. We talked about the challenges facing our vocation -- the financial struggles of both newspapers and Protestant denominational news services, and the current repercussions for both my employer and his.

Evan told me of how his goal was never to quit in spite of the pressures, and instead to keep doing his job as well as he could as long as he could. And he did -- part of the two-person crew that set a standard for excellence among denominational news services. He won numerous awards. It's fitting that a memorial fund established in his name honors the work he did in helping publicize the struggles of migrant farm workers in Florida for better conditions -- including a boycott of Louisville-based Yum! Brands. His obit notes that Silverstein, although himself Jewish, "displayed a far better understanding of and appreciation for the mission and ministry of the PC(USA) than many Presbyterians."

Now his comments, and that chance encounter, take on deeper meaning. Evan held up his end of the bargain. How tragic that it ended so soon.

(Photo of Evan on assignment in Egypt is from Presbyterian News Service.)

http://www.courier-journal.com/blogs/faith/2008/11/reporters-tragic-death.html

Welcome to my rant!

 I’ve been down this road before, but here we go again.

 A couple of years ago someone did a study which found that Americans do not tend to read or listen to people they disagree with.

 This is on my mind today because I recently read the most wonderful counterpoint to this ideological myopia. The New Yorker published a selection of Norman Mailer’s letters, the best of which were letters to his friend and political rival William F. Buckley, Jr.

 Mailer, in my favorite of these letters, responding to a published appeal from Buckley for donations to help his then struggling magazine, The National Review, said that while he disagreed with pretty nearly everything the magazine said, he wanted to contribute secretly, because good writing should be supported.

 I have confessed before that William F. Buckley, Jr. was one of my youthful heroes, as was Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

 In my view, the rule of whether someone is worth reading and listening to remains, “Do they make me think?” Not, incidentally, “Do I agree with them?” Not, “Do they confirm my worldview or share my perspective?”

 Do they make me think?

 Thomas Sowell, Rebecca Chopp, Christopher Lasch, Marilynne Robinson, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. and John Gray (the British political scholar, not the Mars and Venus guy!), Theodore Zeldin, Toni Morrison, Lewis Coser and Michael Ignatieff: the thing they all have in common is the vigor of their thought.

 Maureen Dowd, David Brooks and Thomas Friedman stimulate me to see things anew, even when I disagree with them. In fact, it’s when I disagree that I am most stimulated.

 I don’t read The Economist each week to have my prejudices confirmed. I read it because of its in-depth analysis and droll prose. So, let me offer a challenge. Every day for the next month, read someone you don’t think you’ll agree with. Let one rule guide you in the selection: Do they make me think?

 Maybe instead of another serving of chicken soup for the soul, we could all use a dose of “Team of Rivals” for the mind!

 

Michael Jinkins is Academic Dean and Professor of Pastoral Theology at Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary. mjinkins@austinseminary.edu

Recently a Catholic friend asked me about the state of the Presbyterian Church. She said that, for her, Presbyterianism has always represented a thinking person’s Protestantism, and that this historic role is more needed today than it has been for a long time.

 Thinking, education, intellectualism, or, as our Reformed forebears put it, the life of the mind in the service of God, are no less under assault today in the Presbyterian Church than in society at large.

 There are many in our society and even in our Church who are frankly suspicious of the life of the mind, who do not value education, and would replace it with indoctrination or reduce it to a kind of training in techniques. There are even some who have outright contempt for scholarship.

 During the coming year we’ll be celebrating the 500th anniversary of the birth of John Calvin, the architect and apologist of Presbyterianism. Calvin is fondly remembered by most Presbyterians as a leader of the evangelical reformation of the Church. And that he was. But he was also a scholar and an educator – and maybe a layperson. He was as relentless in exposing superstition, claptrap and humbug as he was in preaching the Gospel. A Renaissance thinker and a theologian of the first order, Calvin had more in common with Jonathan Edwards, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Kathryn Tanner than he would with the advocates of lowest-common denominator religious sentiment and superficiality in our time. 

 A church doesn’t move forward by running from its past. Every branch of the Reformation, and the children of those branches, all have their distinctive contributions to make to the life and faith of the larger Church. There are elements of their distinctive characteristics that I would hope we share, as I would also hope that they think about what they believe too. But my Catholic friend was right in seeing Presbyterianism as a Protestantism distinctively dedicated to thinking.

 From Scottish Presbyterians establishing the first universal public education program in history, to the founding by Presbyterians of many of the premier colleges, universities and medical centers in the United States, to the historic leadership Presbyterians have given in every field and profession that serves the public good, to our continuing insistence that our pastors be well educated for the practice of ministry: Presbyterians have consistently believed that disciples ought to exercise disciplined minds.

 There’s nothing elitist about trying to be the best educated and best prepared servants we can be. If tomorrow the Presbyterian Church were to abandon its role as “a thinking person’s Protestantism,” I have every confidence that God will raise up another people to carry this torch. And I’ll want to read their books and send my children to their schools.

 Michael Jinkins is Academic Dean and Professor of Pastoral Theology at Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary. mjinkins@austinseminary.edu

David LaMotte sings, "There isn't much you get to keep. Keep the Change."

Change may be good or bad, or good AND bad, but it IS what renews life. The Church Unbound conference at Montreat last week is still rattling around in my bones. It was personally a clarion call to renewal in Christ and re-evaluation of my particular calling in the church. "Busy" is a four letter word I hear all to often.

Photo by Joseph Williams

It's been a long week here at GA; the plenary finally ended last night around 11.45pm and I think commissioners and advisory delegates were very ready to head back to their rooms. Yesterday was the day when we hit all the hot-button issues: gay ordination, same-sex marriage, the Iraq war, Israel-Palestine issues and abortion. While the assembly voted to keep the definition of marriage as it currently stands in the Directory for Worship, the assembly did in fact vote to recommend the deletion of G-6.0106b (though it must be ratified by a majority of the 173 presbyteries) - which, along with the new authoritative interpretation, would allow LGBT folk to be ordained in the PC(USA). For more information on those decisions, check out articles here and here.

Many will leave this GA happy with these decisions; they will feel as though this is a justice issue, and that this vote reflects the church's call to be prophetic and move forward on this issue. On the More Light Presbyterians website, the headline states: "Good news from San Jose! 218th GA votes 54% to 46% to end LGBT discrimination!"

However, many others will leave this GA saddened and confused by these decisions; they will feel as though the church has made just one more step away from orthodox Christianity, what the church has taught for centuries and Jesus commands in the Gospels. Shortly after the vote to recommend deletion of G-6.0106b was passed yesterday, a press release was passed out from the Presbyterian Renewal Network stating that the PC(USA) lies "gravely wounded by the hand of its own General Assembly" and that these decisions place the PC(USA) in "spiritual jeopardy" and "threaten to cut us off from God's ancient law."

Regardless of how people feel about the issues - churches and presbyteries are now going to have to deal with these questions and issues. Some churches and presbyteries were still discussing the PUP report from GA two years ago, but there are now many more complexities added to the discussion. It will be interesting to see how this affects churches and presbyteries - especially those who are more split along the conservative/liberal polarities. There is going to be a lot of energy put into conversations about sexuality; energy that churches might have been spending in other ways. And it's not going to be easy work - this will be hard work. Potentially, hard work for the next two years. But - regardless of where you stand on these issues - it is important work. These are important conversations, whether you think it's because we need full inclusion of LGBT folk or you believe we need to remain faithful to the current standards we have.

Stated Clerk Gradye Parsons addressed the commissioners and advisory delegates this morning during the final business meeting and worship, and he said that it's important to remember that "We came in together - we leave together." As we leave this General Assembly, let us put our trust in God that God was at work this year at GA, and pray that God will continue to help us discern God's will for the Presbyterian Church (USA).

More related news articles:

• Presbyterian Leaders OK gay clergy (LA Times)
• Presbyterian assembly votes to drop gay clergy ban (Associated Press)
• More General Assembly News
• Presbyterian Outlook General Assembly News

The following message is from Jack Haberer, the Presbyterian Outlook's Editor:

"General Assembly is winding down to an end, and now the task of interpreting the actions of it falls upon the shoulders of folks like you.  Friends will be hearing about it from newspaper reports (your email inbox may already be filling up).  I have just put the finishing touches on a bulletin insert that will be made available for purchase on our Web site TODAY by 1PM Pacific time, 4PM eastern time today.  You can purchase a pdf master on the site for $40 and then make two-sided copies and hand out with tomorrow’s bulletins.  In keeping with the Outlook’s reputation, you will find the summary to be succinct, accurate, in context, and at least somewhat reassuring to the folks in your congregation and presbytery.
 
Whether you’re a pastor, an elder, or simply a church member wanting to help keep folks informed and assured of Christ’s leadership in the church, I commend this tool to you for your use.
 
If you can think of any friends and/or colleagues who may appreciate this, please forward this note on to them."

Follow the following link to make the purchase:  http://www.pres-outlook.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7465

Just a quick comment on leaving comments on this website. It is an open forum and we do encourage you to leave comments. However, neither Charis (the other Outlook blogger) or myself have the capabilities to approve the comments. Those belong to the Webmasters of the site - and they are doing their best to get them approved.

I just wanted to make sure readers knew that we weren't censoring or purposely avoiding your comments.

It has been less than three hours since the decision of the general assembly to start the process to allow GLBT ministers to be ordained and already we can see the divisive responses.  People proudly wearing rainbow scarves waited until they were outside the convention hall to start celebrating with hugs and singing.  Soon after, the Presbyterian Renewal Network passed out a press release noting that "This is a day for grieving."  Really though, I do not know how much has actually changed.  173 Presbyteries must ratify this resolution before we change our constitution.  Whether or not it is passed, until we change our methods, this will continue to be a divisive issue.

This is an important issue.  However, in the midst of this, I'd like to highlight some other worthwhile news that is slightly more hopeful.

I am given hope by the general assembly's vote to start the process of adding the Belhar confession to our book of confessions.  Coming out of South Africa, it speaks against racism and for unity.  In the committee of Theological Issues and Institutions, it was refreshing to hear that instead of debating whether racism was important, instead there was discussion of how best to implement the addition of this confession of hope.  In an ironic twist, they then approved a video on the Trinity which featured solely white presenters.  But even there, I was given hope as the committee recognized this and added a comment that in the future more diversity would be honored.

I am given hope because we support diversity in leadership.  I am given hope that an Asian American and an African American teamed up together to lead our General Assembly as moderator and vice moderator.  I am given hope that Union Theological Seminary elected its first African American president, Brian Blount.

I am given hope because we approved a recommendation to give food assistance to those starving in North Korea.

I am given hope by the approval a recommendation to strengthen laws and support systems against human trafficking.

I am given hope by a call to create and disseminate materials on spiritual renewal.

I am given hope by many things and there are issues in which we are coming together to work on.  In the midst of division, let's be thankful for that which we are accomplishing together.