Reader Response :
Dr. Barron is confused about what Mary Naegeli means when she says "end of conversation" in her comment. She does not mean that Christians can no longer discuss any issues because of what it says in the Bible. But she is saying that when God speaks, that's the end of the conversation, unless a person wants to be in open rebellion against God.
The real issue here, then, is not really just whether or not experience is important to consider, even if you place that consideration before listening to Scripture. The real issue is: when we read Scripture, is that God speaking? My guess is that at the Confessing Church, the answer would be "yes." At the More Light Church, the answer would be something along the lines of "not exactly" or "yes, but only with this interpretation that fits the experiences of GLBT people".
Response By :
Deborah Milam Berkley -
November 19, 2008
Reader Response :
In his three part series Dr. Barron has pitted experience and the Bible as competing starting points for ethical discussions. This reminds me of the old contrast of doing theology from above (as with Charles Hodge) or doing theology from below (as with Immanuel Kant). Theology from above begins with God’s revelation. Theology from below begins with human experience. Of course these cannot really be polar opposites because we know our experience affects our interpretation of Scripture. I believe we do theology from “the middle” where we have the Word of God interpreted through a lens of experience. But experience is something that leads us to the truth of Scripture not away from it. Something must provide authority for a community to remain a community. Barron writes, “In our debates in the Presbyterian Church over homosexuality, if we begin with the Bible, we will likely reach a polarized stalemate.” What an amazing statement! We are, in fact, polarized and we certainly did not begin with the Bible. We begin with experience which has resulted in our polarization and the loss of community. To begin with experience as he suggests will only lead us further down this road.
You could see it coming in this series. Dr. Barron’s assessment of our ethical debate over homosexuality has led him to the conclusion that experience trumps Biblical authority. In his article he says, “In ethical discussion, the Bible is important, but personal experience has priority.” That is not consistent with our Reformed theological heritage or our confessions. Scripture has priority!
Reader Response :
It's hard to sit back and listen to all of your comments. But it is interesting. I've been trying to hold my tongue and listen to you.
Just a couple of comments at this point. Some of you are misreading me that I want to LIMIT discussion only to our experience. NO! NO! NO! Scripture is still important. It must be part of all Christian moral discussion. I am not an "experience fundamentalist."
I am simply arguing that we should BEGIN our discussion with experience, not with scripture.
Mary Naegli reinforces my point in her comments. Her interpretation of "God speaking" ends the conversation. She begins with scripture and that ends it for her. So what point is it in discussing anything with her? She cites scripture and "God speaking" as the end of it all. She and I disagree, but we can't debate "God speaking" as she says, even if I don't agree that is what God says. That is exactly what happens too often in these conversations that begin with scripture. Someone insists on "God's word." Then we can't discuss it any more without major divisions.
I do not propose that we stop listening to God's word, I only argue that the only way to hear God's word is through the lens of our experience. We cannot avoid that, and we cannot discount it. Experience is a BEGINNING point for discussing scripture and other sources of authority. I do not propose as Ms. Naegeli seems to suggest that experience holds authority OVER God's word. I simply propose a different beginning place. My sharing my experience with Ms. Naegeli and she sharing hers with me is not conversation-stopping. Whereas declaring what "God says" ends it all.
Finally, a comment to Noel Anderson, my seminary classmate with whom I have had many debates. Your opinion that "homosexuals are defined by a willful and defiant patterned behavior" is your moral opinion, based on I don't know what. But it is proven wrong by all sources of ethical authority of which I know, especially modern science and the experience of the vast majority of homosexual people.
Thanks for the comments, folks, and thanks for listening to my ideas. Let's continue the conversation. It's interesting.
Reader Response :
Mr. Barron says "many people in the Confessing Church had not had day-to-day, ordinary experiences with homosexual people, and their understanding of the Bible was different based on those experiences." He seems to be implying that this is the reason that the members of the Confessing Church believe that homosexual behavior is a sin, unlike the members of the More Light church. But what about the other members of the Confessing Church who do have such day-to-day, ordinary experiences and still hold to their beliefs? For that matter, what about people like me, who have orthodox beliefs and know gay people well, who even love some gay people dearly (I have some beloved gay relatives)? Mr. Barron cannot explain away orthodox theology merely from a lack of experience.
Response By :
Deborah Milam Berkley -
November 18, 2008
Reader Response :
What ends the conversation?
Erwin C. Barron contends that starting with what the Bible says on an ethical subject (in this case, homosexuality) ends the conversation. Dr. Barron views this as an undesirable outcome, but there is ample evidence in Scripture that God’s Word tends to do just that when “it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12).
To illustrate (and where else would I start, but with Scripture?):
When Job shared his experience of losing everything, lamenting and questioning God, his “friends” gave their interpretation of why he was suffering. In chapter 38, the Lord’s voice thunders forth, “Wait just a minute here, who is questioning whom? Where were you when I set the earth’s foundation and created the world?” End of conversation.
When King David sinned with Bathsheba, the prophet Nathan made a house call and told him a story about a rich man taking a neighbor’s ewe lamb (2 Samuel 12). When David fumed against the man, Nathan said to the king, “You are the man! And here’s what the Lord says about your sin.” David acknowledged, “I have sinned against the Lord.” End of conversation.
When the Rich Young Ruler addressed Jesus with a question about what it takes to inherit eternal life (Matthew 19:16-22), Jesus recited the basic commandments, which the ruler said were already a part of his experience, so what more is there? Jesus went on to say, “Well then, there’s still something lacking. Sell all your belongings to benefit the poor, and then come follow me.” When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. End of conversation.
The experiences of Job, David and the young ruler may each have begged an ethical question, but when God speaks, the conversation is over. Our experience has no authority before the One who made the universe, who established and revealed what is right, and whose discipleship costs us our very selves. Confronted with God’s glorious sovereignty, we are invited to find our life not in our experience but in losing our life for Christ’s sake (Matthew 10:37-39).
So I do not think that Dr. Barron is correct to assert that sharing human experience yields a better ethical conclusion than God’s Word fully appropriated in our faith and practice. Imagine telling God, “I think I can handle this on my own by doing what is right in my own eyes.” This approach didn’t work for Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:1-7); it didn’t work for Israel in the time of the Judges (Judges 21:25), and it won’t work for the 21st century Presbyterian Church.
“See to it that you do not refuse the One who speaks” (Hebrews 12:25).
Response By :
(The Rev.) Mary Holder Naegeli -
November 18, 2008
Reader Response :
If we begin our ethical discussions with personal experience, rather than with revealed truth, it would seem that we are using a very rubbery anvil on which to beat out standards to govern our lives and churches and ultimately our position before God. If we say the Scriptures contain God's truth, then we have a logical, and fixed, place to start. If we start from "I feel this..." and "My experience is this..." we have no such foothold for our discussion. Dr. Barron says that there really isn't that much that separates the two congregations, apart from their handling of Scripture. In reality, that difference is enormous and critical. Scripture does divide people. As a person who grew up in liberal Protestantism and never had the gospel of grace through the atoning death of Christ explained to me in twenty years, I have experienced the results of an unwillingness to take Scripture seriously. Believe it or not, the Chinese Cultural Revolution was held up to me as a "peace and justice" value. The comparison between women's ordination and homosexual ordination and practice is very weak. It gets trotted out regularly, but has very little exegetical, theological, or historical support.
Reader Response :
Our friend Erwin is surprised that the response to the ordination of women is not the same as to that of the ordination of practicing homosexuals. Why would they be the same? Women are defined as women by nature and birth, self-avowed practicing homosexuals are defined by a willful and defiant patterned behavior. The juxtaposition is preposterous. No one should expect these separate issues to be dealt with comparably. You might as well express surprise that growing out your fingernails doesn't more closely resemble playing the trombone.
Reader Response :
So, if I'm reading this aright, if we limit discussion to our experiences we will move forward, getting beyond 'old' polarities. If we center our discussion on the Bible, the gap between the two sides will only grow wider, perhaps deeper. It seems, then, the thing that divides us, and keeps dividing us, is scripture.
I think Paul wrote something to Timothy about that tendency.
grace & peace,
dm
Reader Response :
The Calls to Worship in the two congregations speak volumes about who they are and how their understand the nature of Christian faith and the church. One is a celebration of the worshipers (...we gather as people with daylight understandings...), while the other is a quotation of Holy Scripture that calls for the praise of God.
This is at the heart of the differences in all the major theological debates in the PCUSA today.
Reader Response :
William Stacey Johnson brings many good gifts & insights to understanding how the PC(USA) can be more of a welcoming and affirming denomination of LGBT persons & their gospel-reflected relationships.
That being said, I must say that I have never heard a liberal in the denomination begin sexual morality discussions with what Johnson mentions, to wit: "Is this relationship sincere?" I have often heard liberals begin with, "Is this relationship loving and just?" -- but never "sincere".
Maybe this self-confessed liberal has missed it, but I must ask: Where have liberals in the church -- or any other group, for that matter? -- elevated sincerity to such a privileged place in the pantheon of Christian virtues?
At the risk of putting too fine a point on the matter: I think we all understand that Adolf Hitler was sincere.
Response By :
(Rev.) Charles Booker-Hirsch -
November 16, 2008
Reader Response :
That the "tent" is getting smaller is indisputable. The pews are also getting barer. What initiated all this was the "big tent" concept where as a "welcoming" church our denomination would accept into membership, even into ministry, almost any one regardless of their theological or even moral dispositions. Even as the "tent" got larger the pews got barer as conservatives and evangelicals, people who really do believe in specific doctrines and hold that it matters what one believes, left the denomination. Diversity is a good thing in a stock portfolio but it wreaks havoc on faith systems.
The recent spate of gays bashing Christians and Mormans over the passage of Proposition Eight in California is instructive. Not getting their way, various pro-homosexual marriage groups are throwing temper tantrums in an effort to intimidate people who hold a different position. A reent posting on Presbyweb by pro-gay elements contended that even if the vote in the presbyteries is to sustain the current policy of denying ordination to practicing unrepentent homosexuals, they will have accomplished something by "continuing the dialogue."
This reminds me of when my son was fourteen or fifteen and wanted me to let him do something really stupid, something like go on a trip to a beach resort with his teenage friends. When I said, "NO" he would keep coming back with the same request, "But, Dad, listen..." stating the same reasons I had already rejected. "NO." It means we've made up our minds not once, not twice, but three times. We...and least I...do not want a further discussion. There is no way homosexual activity is ever going to be anything but sinful according to the Bible, which is our authority in terms of morality. Additionally, the majority of us think homosexual activity is both sinful and a perversion of God's intent for sexuality. That's right "perverted." So, the discussion is pretty much over.
Earl Tilford
Tuscaloosa, AL
Reader Response :
I was surprised and disappointed when the article ended before giving any substantive comparisons between the conferences. There were only judgmental comparisons based on the tote bags.
Response By :
Deborah Milam Berkley -
November 12, 2008
Reader Response :
I am starved, starved for a thoughtful article, or word that is not loaded up with rhetoric and hyperbole and bias. My reading and listening skills are regularly and relentlessly tested, from denominational sources, seminaries, news papers and national news outlets. The craft and skill of reporting the news seems to have died an ignominious death.
Like a recent blog to this site by , Michael Jinkins , who posted his treatise on why reading those who disagree with you is important and in particular how stimulating it can be caught my attention. The reason it caught my attention is I am so starved for stimulation from what I read. Last night my wife and I decided to cancel our subscription to the Los Angeles Times. A storied publication of many decades, many people I know have done the same thing. Well crafted opinions articulately stated can be quite stimulating, and draw each of us into sharper distinctions of clarity on our own beliefs as we stretched to encompass a cogent response for the lingering weaknesses of our arguments and beliefs.
However, most of what I read these days, from almost all sources, seeks to promote facile, single agenda arguments without going to the trouble of objective research or in any way even scratching the surface of the views of thoughtful or even seemingly thoughtless opponents. I have written to various of these and invariably receive no response, substantive or otherwise. This publication as well has crossed that line egregiously many times in the past in particular the publishers articles that relate to stories of the work of the PUP task force of the PCUSA.
But I digress, in California we are facing a budget shortfall, the L.A. Times mocks the Governor in a news story for not proposing raising taxes sooner, which is the standard line used among those who worship the plundering of wealth over the creation of wealth which frankly too few understand. What the author does not state is that California has seen revenue increase from 71 Billion dollars to over 102 billion dollars since 2004. This is not an obscure fact, it does not take relentless research to uncover, but the lazy writers of today will not do the work of exposing anything other than their own uninformed bias.
Even our own General Assembly would not allow the most respected author on the human sexuality issue to speak from the platform at the last assembly. I had an identical experience as a delegate in 2001, when the leaders of the African Presbyterian churches were denied the right to speak, and I was not even allowed to make a motion to give them a moment of privilege. In this culture of controlled propaganda watching Bill O Riley on Fox news is as close as most of us will get to hearing an honest exchange of ideas. We as a church ought to set the standard for our culture but we appear to be violating it in an even more egregious fashion.
Jim Conner is Lead Pastor of Arcadia Presbyterian Church in Arcadia California; it worships in 5 languages and speaks 21.
Reader Response :
Why I am dropping the L.A. Times.
I am starved, starved for a thoughtful article, or word that is not loaded up with rhetoric and hyperbole and bias. My reading and listening skills are regularly and relentlessly tested, from denominational sources, seminaries, news papers and national news outlets. The craft and skill of reporting the news seems to have died an ignominious death.
Like a recent blog to this site by , Michael Jinkins , who posted his treatise on why reading those who disagree with you is important and in particular how stimulating it can be caught my attention. The reason it caught my attention is I am so starved for stimulation from what I read. Last night my wife and I decided to cancel our subscription to the Los Angeles Times. A storied publication of many decades, many people I know have done the same thing. Well crafted opinions articulately stated can be quite stimulating, and draw each of us into sharper distinctions of clarity on our own beliefs as we stretched to encompass a cogent response for the lingering weaknesses of our arguments and beliefs.
However, most of what I read these days, from almost all sources, seeks to promote facile, single agenda arguments without going to the trouble of objective research or in any way even scratching the surface of the views of thoughtful or even seemingly thoughtless opponents. I have written to various of these and invariably receive no response, substantive or otherwise. This publication as well has crossed that line egregiously many times in the past in particular the publisher’s articles that relate to stories of the work of the PUP task force of the PCUSA.
But I digress, in California we are facing a budget shortfall, the L.A. Times mocks the Governor in a ‘news story’ for not proposing raising taxes sooner, which is the standard line used among those who worship the plundering of wealth over the creation of wealth which frankly too few understand. What the author does not state is that California has seen revenue increase from 71 Billion dollars to over 102 billion dollars since 2004. This is not an obscure fact, it does not take relentless research to uncover, but the lazy writers of today will not do the work of exposing anything other than their own uninformed bias.
Even our own General Assembly would not allow the most respected author on the human sexuality issue to speak from the platform at the last assembly. I had an identical experience as a delegate in 2001, when the leaders of the African Presbyterian churches were denied the right to speak, and I was not even allowed to make a motion to give them a moment of privilege. In this culture of controlled propaganda watching Bill O Riley on Fox news is as close as most of us will get to hearing an honest exchange of ideas. We as a church ought to set the standard for our culture but we appear to be violating it in an even more egregious fashion.
Jim Conner is Lead Pastor of Arcadia Presbyterian Church in Arcadia California; it worships in 5 languages and speaks 21.
Reader Response :
Like others above, I was quite surprised at the conclusion that we've focused too little on experience. One of our greater challenges both in the PC(USA) and in western culture generally is to find means of interpreting our experience, rather than trying to interpret everything else in light of our experience, which would presume we understand that experience in some unmediated form. The things that influence interpretation all fold back on each other in reciprocal fashion, but if there is any factor that has received greater, explicit attention in recent decades it is the shaping influence of our own experience. This is true for evangelical revivalism as well as one of its ironic offshoots, classic Protestant Liberalism, which made human experience a primary source of revelation (and understood the Bible as a record of prior, typically less enlightened human experience).
Two factors that the Christian Tradition has rightly placed great emphasis on, and which can help us interpret Scripture as well as our own experience, not to mention helping us recognize the cultural biases we bring to the interpretive task, are the history of biblical interpretation and the contemporary witness of the global church. What do history and the global church have to teach us about those areas of biblical interpretation about which we are divided? We don't often give much attention to such things, largely because we assume a sort of cultural superiority (relative to the global church) and a sort of chronological snobbery (where more recent ideas or experiences are inherently superior).
In any case, thanks for tackling an important issue. I hope you can give some attention to history and the non-western church and how they might inform our often exclusively western and modern ways of approaching the Scriptures.
Reader Response :
I think Barron's article is fair in representing both viewpoints but I don't think Barron "gets it". Near the end of his article he states, "However, in our debates, we have not focused enough on the role of experience." This is a statement only a progressive would make.
In order to help us most fully understand God's Word I was taught in my seminary classes not only to seek to understand the cultural setting of when the text was written but also to study my own cultural setting and my personal biases I have that can lead me to distort my understanding of God's Word.
The progressive view that lifts up the role of personal experiences in understanding God's Word anew for our time is encouraging that which is discouraged by the orthodox view for interpretation, one that seeks to understand the changeless truths of God's Word once revealed but always true.
As others have already stated, in the discussions and debates I have heard in Presbytery on this topic are heavy in personal experience and lacking in scriptural foundation.
Reader Response :
I appreciate the method Barron used in his study, a good model to follow. Walk in the shoes of someone else to understand their position and point of view. So far so good.
I think the "scripture and experience" dichotomy is too short-sighted. I think the Wesleyans are closer to the evaluative norm with their Quadrilateral: Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience. Barron conveniently leaves out Tradition and Reason as criteria for theological and ethical reflection.
I agree that Scripture and Experience have polarized this particular discussion. But I also wonder whether they are not the culprits. I wonder whether our culture's ability to discuss and debate has become so anemic that we can only resort on the one hand to proof-texting, and on the other hand to experiential anecdotes.
That said, I am looking forward to the followup articles.
Reader Response :
I believe Barron rightly understands the ethical dimensions of our "fighting." On one side we have those wanting to begin and end with Scripture and on the other side we have those want to begin and end with experience. But I disagree with the assessment "We have not focused enough on the role experience." Now that may be a nuanced statement addressing our need to understand the role "experience" plays in interpretation. I will wait to see if that is true with the next installments. But I am convinced we have absolutely focused on experience as the final arbitrator in this “fight.” Our presbyteries "debates" this issue by trading anecdotal sound bytes. Scripture is barely given a glancing pass (much as it is in Barron's article). It is alarmingly rare to see Scripture as the starting point or the final authority.
So I too will look forward to the next two installments.
Reader Response :
I will read Barron's articles with real interest, given the "rules' that he lays out, particularly his assumption that we have not taken "experience" seriously enough in the debate. I am not convinced this assumption is correct. In presbytery debates on this issue I have heard far more appeals to experience than anything else, particularly from the liberal side in the debate.
Given Barron's assumptions about the role of "experience", I will be interested to see whether his "rules" have already determined the outcome.
Reader Response :
In the article on Immigration in the October 6th edition of Outlook, the article is written to give the reader the impression there are people in Rushville, IL that are here illegally. I would like to make it clear that the pastor who Julie Thorne spoke to did not say anything but "I don't know their status" and the rest was an assumption made by Thorne. We are not surrounded by illegals here, and we are working our hardest to make their lives better. We have started a program to help them learn English and as of right now 2 families have become naturalized American citizens. I am not saying anything for or against the Immigration aspects of the article, but the opinions are overstated or written in such a way as to be misleading. This concerns me that everything must be fit in extreme categories. There are many people living in the US who are here legally and striving to become citizens. While this is a topic we should concern ourselves with as Christians, let us also keep it in reality and not make it so sensational. Not everything has to be made into a movie, sometimes life is just life, simple and straight forward.
Response By :
Rev. Steven Akins -
November 10, 2008
Reader Response :
I truly appreciate this post. One of the reasons that I left the evangelical world to become a Presbyterian was because I thought that they were the most intellectually engaged denomination. Yet, too often we think that honoring the past is by replicating it. Let's leave the petticoats in the past. That would be disrespectful to the idea of being a reformed person of faith. Thank you for reminding us that if we abandon what makes us distinct in our society we will be just as syncretistic and shallow as most of American intellectual and popular culture. If we are to be living beatitudes we will use our strongest asset, our reformed understanding of faith. I am convinced that it is what our society is hungering for.
Reader Response :
My great-great-great Grandmother Amelia Potter Russ lies buried in the Pearlington Cemetery and her daughter, my great-great grandmother lies in Logtown Cemetery, just a little north on the Pearl River. I give thanks and continue in prayer for this important ministry of the church
Reader Response :
Does anyone have some wisdom for me on understanding the path to partnership between our own churches that uphold the Reformed tradition and are pledged to our own Book of Confessions, and those churches that uphold and practice faith as described in the Lausanne Covenant of 1974...
"We affirm... both Old and New Testament Scriptures in their entirety as the only written word of God, without error in all that it affirms, and the only infallible rule of faith and practice."
"... as the reigning Lord, he now offers the forgiveness of sins and the liberating gifts of the Spirit to all who repent and believe."
"When people receive Christ they are born again into his kingdom and must seek not only to exhibit but also to spread its righteousness in the midst of an unrighteous world."
"The gospel does no presuppose the superiority of any culture to another, but evaluates all cultures according to its own criteria of truth and righteousness, and insists on moral absolutes in every culture."
Those are just a few snippets to hopefully get some conversation going... anybody have some insight?
Rev. Joel Tolbert
ecatur, GA
Reader Response :
Just think. None of this would have been necessary if the Royal Presbytery believed what the Word of God says VERY PLAINLY! There are not two ways to interpret what the HOLY SCRIPTURES say about behaviors and lifestyles. Yes, we are to LOVE these people AND shepard them, but there is no room or applause for their leadership or to be held in high esteem.
I wasn't raised in this denomination but I attended "The Kirk" for 6 1/2 years. I attend there every time I go to Tulsa to visit. I found no differences where interpreting scripture was concerned. The scripture has always been CLEAR.
Sometimes PEOPLE want to go along with convenience or friends, when that is not, nor ever will be, the intentions of "The Way."
If you were to speak to Paul or JESUS, what would your excuses be?
Reader Response :
Congrats to Limestone Presbyterian Church for leading the way! I have been working with several Presbyterian Churches in Oregon that want to go solar. There is a model that can get the price down much lower than the Delaware Congregation's price tag, but is a bit more complex than what Limestone did. A lot of congregations are reluctant to take out a loan even though the Presbyterian Investment and Loan Fund provides outstanding terms. Given the threats to God's creation from global warming, isn't time that churches lead by example by undertaking projects such as these that have such large ripples, far beyond the congregation. Presbyterians for Restoring Creation would love to know if your congregation is thinking of undertaking a solar project or has completed one. Please get in touch with me. Sincerely, Jenny Holmes, Moderator, Presbyterians for Restoring Creation
Reader Response :
Just as one cannot be somewhat pregnant or only partially dead, neither ought the church be only marginally orthodox or indifferently obedient.
Check out James 4:1-10 if you haven't read it recently. It fits our situation like a glove: "Adulters! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God?"
"Enmity" is an intense and convicting word. As we dally with the world's perverse "values," we give aid to Satan and we work against God. It's not a trifling matter. "Therefore, whoever wishes to become a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God."
"God yearns jealously for the spirit that he has made to dwell in us," we are told. I fail to see how a lackadaisical, laissez faire attitude toward error and rebellion is faithful to God.
Jim Berkley
Bellevue, WA
Reader Response :
The real problem behing this affair is "control". Who controls what, is the real question. If we have a wise, ethical and honest person dealing with news it doesn't matter what kind of policy we have because every policy is susceptible of been interpret in different ways.
Along these years we have seen a consistent and impartial information published by our News Service. The work of Jerry Van Marter has been exceptional and outstanding so, why do we need to fix what is not broken?
Presbytery Executive
Response By :
Jose Luis Casal, Tres Rios General Missioner -
November 4, 2008
Reader Response :
As a young person, I left my home in Minnesota in 1982 to be a part of an urban ministry in Washington, DC. Dr. Evans was then leading the National Presbyterian Church in a partnership with an urban church, Third Street Church of God. The convenant relationship that he and his wife Colleen established with the then pastor, Dr. Sam Hines and his wife Dalenita were truly an inspiration to all of us. Dr. Evans always greeted us with sincere warmth, knew our names, and his voice- that distinquished voice that granted such reassurance when we were discouraged about our work. What an impression he left with me and still does more than 20 years later. He is dancing now with the other dear brothers, also once a part of this work - that went on before him.
Response By :
sherry johnson woods -
November 3, 2008
Reader Response :
Thanks to Mike Loudon for his excellent article, which raises a question: During the 250 years that scrupling was allowed, were there any recorded instances in which a minister was ordained after scrupling a requirement of personal conduct? None is given in the rationale supporting Recommendation 5 of the PUP report.
Also, The Report of the Special Committee on Historic Principles, Conscience, and Church Government (Minutes, 1983, pp. 141-5 indicates that such scrupling was not permitted: (1) The situation regarding the requirements and prohibitions of the Form of Government is different; because polity often requires compliance in behavior, whereas the confessional standards may not. (Ibid., p. 155) (2)The fact that the church permits diversity of theological beliefs but in many areas requires uniformity of practice does not exalt polity over theology.(Ibid., p. 156) (3)Therefore freedom of conscience is not abridged by the requirements of our Constitution.(Ibid., p.15
Going still further back,The Westminster Confession states that the purpose of freedom of conscience is destroyed by those who use it to practice any sin. (6.110)
This is an important question of fact, because the PUP authoritative interpretation (AI), the 2008 AI that nullified the 1978 and 79 interpretations, and the 2008 AI that attempts to over-ride the Bush decision, are all based on it.
Reader Response :
John Henry Cardinal Newman is reported to have said that whenever orthodoxy is made optional, the next step is to proscribe it. Please remember this in any accommodation to progressivism.
Reader Response :
Obama has already had violent threats against his life, and will certainly have more if elected. He must have gone into this election knowing that, and willing to take that risk.
Compared to this reality, Halloween silliness pales in importance. The perpetrators may still repent, even if that takes years from now. But such is the hope held out to us all for a better future.
I do disagree with the claim of "a grotesque throwback to a time when such brutality could be threatened with impunity." In far too much of the world and even in the US, threats can be made and carried out with impunity. I hope we keep working towards that better day.
Reader Response :
The passage of "new B", if it happens, will not establish the ordination of GLBT persons in the PCUSA. And it will not resolve the issue. It will simply remove the constitutional provision intended to prohibit the ordination of GLBT folk. New B will help create the condition for the possibility of just what the Moderator and others are talking about.
Reader Response :
It is with deep sadness that we say goodbye to Louis Evans, Jr. My own memory of Dr. Evans was when he spoke at a Mountain States Wee Kirk Conference several years ago. He was wise, congenial, and a real encouragement to so many. I will use his commentary on the book of Hebrews for many years to come, and I will always hear his voice as I read it. Goodbye, dear brother--you will be missed!
Reader Response :
Agree with the correction; regret the phrasing. Meant to indicate that countries with weak exports sometimes end up losing people in this way.
Reader Response :
In an otherwise excellent article, Chris Iosso writes, "The Assembly spoke well in 2004, calling for an orderly path to citizenship and recognizing the economic factors that push countries to export their own citizens." Unfortunately, this mis-statement furthers the Lou Dobbs fostered myth that governments such as Mexico are somehow "exporting" their own people. In fact, most Mexicans who leave Mexico do so sadly and with heavy hearts. They leave their families and communities because they have no choice, coming to the US in hopes of making money, much of which they ship home to their families. Since these folks tend to be excellent workers and entrepreneurs, the Mexican government wishes they could stay at home and work. Let us be clear: Mexico and other nations don't export their workers to us. They lose them to us. As a result, we are better off; the nations from whence they come are worse off.
Reader Response :
Interestingly enough the situation is very familiar in the South AFrican churches of reformed tradition. I am grappeling with the question of communicating a timeless thruth in 'time-tied' cultures without communicating more than only the truth or less than the truth.
Reader Response :
At the 111th stated meeting of Palo Duro Presbytery. The amendment altering the ordination standards failed by a 29 for, 47 against. The bulk of the Presbyteries across the country will be voting on this in February.
Reader Response :
As a Presbyterian pastor who has read (i.e. graded) the ordination exams (including this year's version), I very much appreciate the faithful work of the PCCEC. While some may dismiss the recent changes as “PC”, I would suggest that, before casting the first stone, they take part in the process and try to understand the complex nature of testing for ordination standards. It is, in many ways, a thankless task that will never please everyone. Much like the standardized tests in education (e.g. SATs), there is no perfect way to test for a candidate’s knowledge and understanding.
To me, the change in the Greek standard is a helpful revision because it allows those of us reading the exams to take the exegetical paper as a whole in deciding on an appropriate grade. For example, the NT text for this year, Matthew 20:1-16, did not have much of substance to discuss from the Greek text. (And realistically, with the plethora of online and computer language programs and resources available today, everyone has access to the details of grammar and syntax of the biblical text).
So, rather than striving to dig up extra Greek material, the better papers made note of the pertinent original language issues and moved on to more substantive discussions. From my experience, it is always very clear in the paper who had a grasp of the language and, more importantly, knew how to critically discuss and apply those understandings. Also, as the letter from Davies and Cargal correctly points out, it is finally the CPMs task to determine Hebrew/Greek competence, and in many ways they are a better position to judge than those of us reading one paper from a candidate.
As for the “principal meaning vs. faithful interpretation” issue, the PCCEC has again listened to those who read exams. This year’s text from Matthew again provides an illustration because it is difficult (and, possibly, exegetically inappropriate) to assign only one, definitive “principal meaning” to the Parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard (or is it the “Parable of the Generous Employer”?). There are a number of different an very defendable ways to interpret this text. What I, as a reader, am looking for is the ability of the candidate to be in conversation with both historical and modern interpreters and traditions while still allowing room for the Spirit’s prompting to preach God’s word in their particular context. From my experience, the papers that pass the exam clearly demonstrate this ability.
My suggestion to those who are concerned about a perceived lowering of standard or “politically correct” behavior is to become involved in the ordination exam process—whether by volunteering to read exams or being a part of your Presbytery’s CPM. A view from inside the process may open your eyes to complexities and nuances that are easily overlooked.
Response By :
Mark Burnham -
Los Gatos , CA - October 20, 2008
Reader Response :
Wow... It is a fantastic blog. I had a different type of experience in this blog. Trust is an important moral character for every person. It is really a different type of blog. Every youth should read this blog. Really fantastic and useful.
---------
Brook
"http://www.sexxat.com/livechat.html"
Reader Response :
I’m no expert or theologian, and I have come to respect Dr. Roberts very much, but I would think there would be plenty of grounds for leaving this denomination on a Confessional basis. I thought I was taught that a mark of the true church is “ecclesiastical discipline uprightly ministered.” Can anybody honestly say that would characterize the current PC(USA) on any level? A reading of the bizarre and Kafkaesque rulings on the conduct of same-sex marriages would only be one example of this massive failure at the highest level of this church.
Reader Response :
Of course, let's not forget what Calvin would have said about our sexuality debate. The historical Calvin was so puritanical, he even condemned excessive lust for one's own wife. It's not that Calvin never considered today's "progressive" sexuality - he explicitly rejected it.
Speaking as a lone Calvinist at a staunchly Lutheran (LCMS) institution, it is obvious to me that our professed adherence to Calvin is only window dressing by comparison. For my colleagues here, "What would Luther say?" is a boundary it is almost impossible to cross.
Response By :
Tom Hobson -
Belleville , Illinois - October 16, 2008
Reader Response :
Erin, thanks for this accurate summary of what I said yesterday. Some of my reasons can be found on my website at http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/whynotleave.htm. Peace.
Reader Response :
The reasoning of the PCCEC is unfortunate. It strikes me as mostly PC. It sounds like we are simply lowering the standards regarding the original languages and changing them when it comes to exegesis. The examples of allegorical interpretation seem weak and have historically been rejected by Reformed Theologians. Examiners can use sensible discretion. To choose some recent trends in biblical scholarship as our new standard is misguided and a manifestation of the relativism of our culture. Each does what is right in their own eyes.
Reader Response :
08-L Con: The Episcopal church is a radical advocate of homosexual sin, including bishops who are publically living in homosexual sin. A closer alignment with a denominational body that is more "progressive" and more apostate than the PC(USA) is hardly advantageous to us.
Reader Response :
Your supposedly journalistically neutral summary of the arguments around amendment B is clearly biased toward the affirmative and creates a strawman of the negative. Try again.
Reader Response :
The report from Leslie Scanlon estimating damage in New Covenant (Presbytery) was correct based on the information we received during the first days post Ike. Unfortunately it is now a far more difficult picture. …
Churches (that) originally reported little damage like First Galveston and First Orange found a very different picture once they got into their buildings to find not only significant flood damage, but significant mold as well. First Orange was just completing repairs to their historic building caused by Hurricane Rita and has welcomed a new pastor to a significantly damaged building and a devastated community. Emmanuel in Galveston had six feet of water in the building. The interior of West Isle has had to be gutted. Several other churches further inland have experienced major roof damage that led to water damage caused by rain.
The article is on target about the resilience of folks. Neighbor is reaching out to neighbor and we have volunteers on the ground. People know how much worse it could have been. We've gathered for special services of healing and wholeness in two of the most affected areas.
Where the devastation really gets significant is in the communities. Thousands of people have become homeless overnight. Work crews will be descending on Sabine Pass near the La. state line this weekend. Where there was once a thriving community, literally the only structures left are the school and the athletic complex. There is nothing left to dig out — it’s a matter of clearing brush and debris so that shelters can be brought in.
Please encourage your readers to pray for the people of coastal Texas and Louisiana. PDA (Presbyterian Disaster Assistance) is doing a wonderful job of helping us prepare for long-term recovery efforts. Updates are available on our presbytery Web site (www.pbyofnewcovenant.org ) and volunteer work crews are being scheduled through the PDA call center at 1-866-732-6121.
Reader Response :
I agree with Mr. Moss. In the re-writing, organization of the F(orm) o(f) (G)overnment, there is great possibilities and opportunities we can pray for the Spirit's presence to see that each congregation is ultimately responsible for the polity above the congregation - they are teaching, reprooving, correcting the next generation of Christians and those who answer God's call to service, ministry, preaching, etc. How are we as a congregation? The Catholic Church in town prayed for 20 years for vocations but did nothing to encourage young men to the priesthood or young women to serve as nuns. Now they have received a priest who is so green the older members have left the parish.
How has your congregation encouraged young men and women into service to God as pastors, elders, deacons, Sunday class leaders, teachers, etc.? Have we just left them out to dry? I say, dig in to the white papers currently circulating, October 2008, around the denomination and in Presbyterys. If the congregations do not take action to know God in their midst, to carry God from their building into the world, Why would we expect the polity above the congregation to make any significant change?
Response By :
Melissa Beal -
Lexington , MO - October 13, 2008
Reader Response :
This kind of reassurance is nice, but I would feel much more confident if the Board of Pensions would be specific with us: what is the exposure to the current crisis, and what is it's impact on the Board's investment results.
Reader Response :
Comment:
Let's get this right. 30 million dollars was raised. Of that, 20 million is under the control of presbyteries or churches. I believe some research has shown that his money was not "new" money but money already held by presbyteries and churches who simply sent it into this fund for investment purpose while they remain in control of the funds. So now we have this fund raising 10 million dollars. The administrative costs were over 4 million dollars so there was about 6 million new dollars raised. I believe the incredible failure of this campaign points out one thing, the very high level of distrust in our denomination. I think trying to make it sound like anything other than what it is will not allow us to honestly face the truth and deal with it.
Response from Linda Valentine, Executive Director of the General Assembly Council:
ear Editor,
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to Mr. Ferguson’s letter.
Just over $30 million in pledges were raised as part of the Mission Initiative: Joining Hearts and Hands campaign. There are many lessons to be learned from this campaign, including a growing tendency of many Presbyterians to fund mission at the most local level. We are proud that many presbyteries and congregations chose to use the Mission Initiative campaign as a means of securing pledges from their members for church growth and international mission personnel, and as a sign of their connectedness to the wider church.
Just a brief note about administrative expenses: The goal of the Mission Initiative: Joining Hearts and Hands wasn’t just about increasing the church’s financial resources, but rather about renewing the church for mission and learning new methods of funds development within congregations, presbyteries, and the General Assembly. For these reasons, the GAC invested $2.3 million into the campaign. As a result, only $2 million of the $30 million raised will go toward the administrative expenses of the campaign. While much of the funds raised will be used by presbyteries and congregations, each of those bodies has committed not only to raise the funds as part of the campaign, but also to use them within the purposes of the campaign. With a portion of the roughly $8 million to be administered by the GAC, we are pleased to have been able to send 34 new mission co-workers into Christ’s service around the world.
For a full discussion of the campaign challenges, campaign successes, and lessons learned, please read the full report: http://www.pcusa.org/gac/business/sept08/P103.pdf.
Blessings,
Linda Bryant Valentine
ecatur, GA 
indicates that such scrupling was not permitted: (1) The situation regarding the requirements and prohibitions of the Form of Government is different; because polity often requires compliance in behavior, whereas the confessional standards may not. (Ibid., p. 155) (2)The fact that the church permits diversity of theological beliefs but in many areas requires uniformity of practice does not exalt polity over theology.(Ibid., p. 156) (3)Therefore freedom of conscience is not abridged by the requirements of our Constitution.(Ibid., p.15