Friday, August 27, 2010

You're guilty, but we're sorry you are !!??!!

In a decision that follows the letter of the PCUSA Constitution, but not the Spirit of the Constitution; the PJC of the Redwoods Presbytery has convicted Rev. Jane Spahr of representing a same sex wedding as a ceremony of Christian Marriage, and signing the Certificate of Marriage as the person solemnizing the marriage. This during the period such weddings were legal in California.

However, these ceremonies were in violation of the GAPJC decision that exonerated her a few years ago that stated “…officers of the PCUSA authorized to perform marriages shall not state, imply, or represent that a same sex ceremony is a marriage. Under W4.9001, a same sex ceremony is not and cannot be a marriage."

They also convicted Rev Spahr of performing no fewer than 15 additional Marriages in violation of that same Book of Order paragraph.

Finally, they convicted her as failing to be governed by the polity of the PCUSA , in violation of her ordination vows.

They did not sustain the charge of failing to sustain the peace, unity and purity of the church.

After all that, this PJC gives a full page to why they're sorry they had to do this , but that the Book of Order was wrong, that the laws of the State of California at the time were correct, and that Rev Spahr was acting with faithful compassion in accord with the BOO paragraph W-7.3004.

Trouble is, they overlooked what the BOO says in W-7.3001, A Ministry of Compassion: God sends the church in the power of the Holy Spirit to exercise compassion in the world,

1. feeding the hungry,
2. comforting the grieving,
3. caring for the sick,
4. visiting the prisoners,
5. freeing the captives,
6. sheltering the homeless,
7. befriending the lonely


No where in that list do I see, violate the PCUSA Constitution in doing this.

Now maybe I'm reading this wrong, after all, six Ministers and Elders must know more than this member in the pew, right??

They go on to say that they ...commend Dr. Spahr and give thanks for her prophetic ministry that for 35 years has extended support to “people who seek the dignity, freedom and respect that they have been denied” (W7.4002c), and has sought to redress “wrongs against individuals, groups, and peoples in the church, in this nation, and in the world” (W7.4002h).

They complain that they had to follow the Constitution because the GAPJC decision is authoritative and should be followed until modified, which reading between the lines probably meant that it should have been this past GA and the only reason we're convicting now is because those areas were not addressed.

They then complain that the BOO paragraph W-4.9001 " ... we have inclusive
and broad descriptive language about marriage, “Marriage is a gift God has given to all humankind for the well being of the entire human family.” This sentence is followed immediately by “Marriage is a civil contract between a woman and a man.”


I wonder why they left out this part: For Christians marriage is a covenant through which a man and a woman are called to live out together before God their lives of discipleship. In a service of Christian marriage a lifelong commitment is made by a woman and a man to each other, publicly witnessed and acknowledged by the community of faith. I guess that language is somewhat inconvenient in the context of the "slap on the wrist" they were giving.


But that paragraph goes on: "The language of the second statement draws on our cultural understanding today of marriage that is rooted in equality. But it is not faithful to the Biblical witness in which marriage was a case of property transfer because women were property. Nor does it specifically address same gender marriage."

"Biblical witness in which marriage was a case of property transfer because women were property." I seem to recall this Biblical witness:

Genesis 2:23-24 - The man said,"This is now bone of my bonesand flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man."
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.


Matthew 19:3-12 - Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"


"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."

Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."


Finally, they did not convict on the last charge of violating the peace, unity and purity of the church because they "..we commend Dr. Spahr for helping us realize that peace without justice is no peace."

Wait a sec, in affirming that which the Confessions STILL call sin, this is supporting the purity and unity of the church ?? After 20 or more years of calling those who will not affirm sin, bigots, homophobes, and worse, this is upholding the peace, unity and purity of the church ?? After church upon church, voting with their feet to leave the PCUSA because of the drift to apostasy being pushed by those who see nothing wrong with sin, but everything wrong with faithfully following the Bible, this is upholding the peace, unity and purity of the church??

I don't know, but then again, I'm just a member in the pew, I'm not supposed to understand all this. As someone told me when commenting on a previous blogpost, trust the system.

Seems to me that we conservative Evangelical Presbyterians should rise up and overthrow the system.

... and so it goes!!

Friday, August 6, 2010

Anonymity Redux!

My last post dealt with why I maintain my identity behind my pseudonym. Then I was asked by Church and World if they could link to that post. I was surprised, and flattered that something I wrote would actually have made that compilation of Presbyterian news and opinion.

What I wasn't surprised about was that only two people actually commented on that post. It appears that either people don't care, or just don't believe that there could be discrimination against conservatives in the PCUSA. Yet there is a first person account written by the Rev. Hector Reynoso, who along with being a Commissioner to the GA, was also running as a Vice-Moderator candidate.

I quote:
The time of the plenary came and one by one pretty much all items supported by the GLBT community were approved: continuing with an inclusive translation of the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belhar Confession, new form of Government, the removal of the famous Amendment B, redefining marriage (this one did not pass), Board of Pensions (BoP) benefits for same-sex couples, etc. I was witnessing the church of Christ losing all votes by a landslide. I was compelled to speak at the plenary during the debate for ordination standards for I could no longer remain silent. Speaking at plenary immediately made me receive the cold shoulder from many, but also the love and support of a few Biblically-faithful, Christ-centered Presbyterians.


He goes on to state that during the next plenary session, he twice rose to speak, and both times someone called the question. Was there a coordinated effort to stifle debate, to block conservative speakers from stating their views ??

Amidst all the talk of proper representation on committees and commissions, the one commissioner overture that would require proper theological representation was not even debated (as far as I can tell).

Could this be the newest elephant in the room, that the vaunted social justice machine of the PCUSA, will not even give justice to those who want to point out that the church was given the task to conform the world to the Word, not the other way around ??

... and so it goes !!

Saturday, July 31, 2010

Anonymity

Recently I was asked why I maintain my anonymity on this blog. After all, it's not as if I'm a widely read blogger! This may sound trite, but I stay anonymous to protect my friends.

I often speak of people I know who are (or were) in the process of becoming a Minister of the Word and Sacrament. As many Presbyterians know, this is not an easy process. Every step of the way you are evaluated, tested, and evaluated again. Psychological tests, Bible Knowledge and Ordination exams, written statements of faith; the testing requirements go on and on.

Then there are the evaluations and meetings with the Committee on Preparation for Ministry, or CPM. Members of the CPM are drawn from the elders and ministers of the Presbytery, and they all bring to the table their personal perspectives and beliefs. All the previous tests taken on route to be ordained are objective, unfortunately the CPM can be a hotbed of subjectivity.

In the ideal world, candidates would be judged on their fitness to pastor, their ability to preach, and their belief in the saving power of Christ. In the real world, it's often based on if you use enough inclusive language in your statement of faith, how P.C. you are in your beliefs about inclusion, and whether or not you're male or female.

Now, enough with the background for my reasoning to stay anonymous, let me talk of myself and the friends I protect.

I make no bones about the fact that I am conservative. I'm not as conservative as some, no posts about the Regulative Principle of Worship from me; but I'm more conservative than most, again no posts about affirming non-celibate LGBT ministers here either. I am a Five Solas Presbyterian, one who believes that Christ shed His blood, died, and rose to redeem us from our sins. Unlike some who are ministers in the PCUSA, I believe the Resurrection happened, that the Apostles saw the risen Lord, and that He ascended to sit at the right hand of the Father. The Nicene Creed is more than just words on a page, it is the bedrock of my faith.

The problem is that if I reveal who I am, I can accidentally tar those whom I write about with the brush some would use to paint my beliefs; and this could submarine those friends who are in the process. It is a shame that this could happen, but I know of at least two people who have had their conservative views cause problems for them; and these are women candidates.

One had a Session that was fully supportive of her starting the process by becoming an Inquirer, however the pastor at that church was dead set against letting this conservative woman proceed.

Another had views that were diametrically opposite those of the E.P. at her presbytery. The E.P. had some influence on who would be on the various committees, and used it to stack the CPM with like minded individuals. This CPM consistently caused problems for my friend, and her children, who were also in the process.

Another female friend in a very liberal presbytery luckily had a CPM advisor who was a conservative and who provided advice on how to make it through the CPM without getting 'flagged'.

Now I trust that there are non-celibate inquirers/candidates who also try to stay below the radar at conservative presbyteries. FWIW, from what I can tell, they usually move to a more liberal presbytery where they wouldn't have to stay below the radar. However, they are trying to hide their inability to resist their sinful nature, rather than hide their faithfulness to the scriptures.

Which is worse?? I leave that to the reader, but I suggest failing to recognize and repent of sin is a pretty good indicator.

More than likely I will be trashed by those come across this blog, and disagree with that statement. They will call me homophobic, backward, traditionalist, and (horror of horrors) that epithet of last resort Evangelical.

I have no problem with that, because they're MY beliefs, and I'd say so overtly, but I've a duty to my friends. Perhaps, in a year or two when everyone has been granted leave to circulate their PIFs, I'll reveal who I am.

... and so it goes !!

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Blog Problem

I've been notified by a reader that since I've gone to the new template, they've been unable to cut and paste from my blog.

This tended to astonish me, as I was amazed that I blogged about anything that someone would WANT to copy ;)

That said, I just tested the copy function in IE8, Firefox and Opera, and it does work in all the browsers. That said, IE8 does tend to be somewhat strange both in highlighting the text, and accessing the Copy function. You can't right click on the highlighted text to copy it, you must go to the EDIT menu on the standard toolbar and select COPY.

On all the others, the right click properly brings up the menu so you can select copy from there.

Hope this helps those who are having a hard time.

... and so it goes!

Sola Scriptura

Thanks to Church and World, I was able to read the comments of our new Vice Moderator of the General Assembly on Bill Tammeus' blog about how Sola Scriptura is dead in most places ... so where do we lodge the authority of our faith?.

Coming to the Reformed faith late in life, after growing up Catholic, my knowledge of the Bible was sorely lacking. Oh sure, we got a dose of the OT and the NT at Mass, but not an in-depth study. Perhaps it has gotten better, but in the 50's and 60's, you just didn't get that in a Catholic school.

Anyway, in my membership class at Treeburn Presbyterian back in 'Nother Completely different Presbytery, concepts like Total Depravity, and the Solas were introduced into my consciousness. I did some additional reading, really started getting into small group Bible studies, found out what the Solas meant, and what Calvin said about Christianity and humanity.

While I always understood the Bible was the inspired Word, I came to understand what Sola Scriptura really meant. While I don't take the Bible completely literally; there is some allegory in Genesis after all, the laws as enumerated in the Old and New Testaments are clear, non-allegorical, and obviously meant to be followed. I also realized that my old denomination, the Catholic Church, while having a fairly direct lineage from the early Church through Peter, had lost its way through the manipulations of ritual and rules by the hierarchy.

The Reformers said Sola Scriptura, that anything outside the Scriptures is the work of mankind, and not that of God; and we should not follow such. Is that statement being rejected by our new Vice-Moderator?? Evidently so!

Others have commented on this here, here, here, here, and here, much better than I could. Many of my original thoughts were confirmed by those listed posts. However, I'm not capable enough to respond with the kind of theological argument that would refute that statement.

What I can say is that for many Presbyterians in the Pew his declaration could be construed as a call to schism. What he is saying is that if the Bible does not agree with what he wants, we just do away with the Bible as the authority for the church. In effect, he is calling for a split in the PCUSA of those who believe in Sola Scriptura, that is, conform the world to the will of God; and those who want to find a different authority, to conform the church to the world.

Many will say that split is already here, and those who believe in the authority of the Bible are voting with their feet. I tend to agree, the PCUSA shrunk by 60k this past year alone. Not all left with churches moving to another denomination, I'm not sure of the breakdown, but I don't believe the rest all passed on to join the Church Triumphant.

I won't be leaving, its too easy to walk away and give up the PCUSA. I won't leave, not when there are those in countries being persecuted for their faith in Christ. Can I not do the same in a denomination that is becoming less faithful to Christ and His Word?? A pastor friend of mine said to me, As long as I can preach Christ, and Him crucified I will stay!. As one who believes that the Word was made flesh, and that we can only learn about Him through the Word, I will stay and be faithful.

... and so it goes!

Friday, July 9, 2010

I like this priest !!



Once you get past the stuff about the flowers, it does get very interesting. See how an ecumenical advisory delegate perceives the PCUSA's GA deliberations.

Thursday, July 8, 2010

There is hope!!

At this weeks Christian Life Conference, the morning inspiration speaker talked about Lamentations, and how in Lamentations there was an underlying theme of hope. At that conference, there were prayers offered up for the commissioners at the GA, prayers that those attending would have the Holy Spirit move them to preserve the traditional teachings of the church.

Today, the GA voted on the overture to remove the fidelity and chastity provision of the PCUSA Book of Order. The vote was 53% to 47% for, 373 to 323 with 4 abstentions. This vote was far less than what was final at the 218th GA on the same question.

UPDATE: Later in the session, the GA approved a motion to include both the majority and the minority report on marriage in the study to be sent to churches. Then after a vote to disapprove three separate overtures that asked the GA to restate the traditional PCUSA view of marriage, a motion was made to use the approved minority and majority studies to answer the rest of the overtures under committee 12. Those overtures had been recommended for a floor vote as amended, and would have opened the door for authorized same-sex ceremonies.

The rational for using the action on the study to answer all remaining overtures was that the GA had just recommended this paper to the entire church with recommendations for its use, and to try to pass overtures which then affect the entire church and make the study moot, is illogical.

I suspect that there was rejoicing in some areas, and gnashing of teeth in others.

There is Hope !!