Its been a great few weeks away from semi-retirement. I do have a business which I've talked about here BTW .. I will send a small check for referrals !!
As I mentioned in my previous post, we hit Montreat, then headed further south to see my in-laws, my sisters, and the Mouse. I had a good time with the in-laws and the sisters, but I had FUN in Orlando.
Every time I hit Walt Disney World I'm a kid again. Gotta hit Pirates, get wet at Splash Mountain and do the Kilimanjaro Safaris® at the Animal Kingdom. However, this trip we made a detour over to Universal to visit the Wizarding World of Harry Potter. It really does look like the village of Hogsmead, with Hogwarts Castle towering overhead. Its worth the visit, even though the 'dueling dragons' rollercoaster is the old "Fire and Ice" coaster.
However, aside from Orlando, and the visits with family, there was time to recharge. Away from the Internet, except for email (see first paragraph, customer support is always needed), and for most of the trip, no TV. When I did get a glimpse, it was a political ad. Guess what, the ads I saw in Pennsylvania, were the same in Florida only the names were changed.
Along with the relaxation, came the notice that the last of my friends from PTS was ordained, albeit in a different Presbyterian branch that is much more conservative than the PCUSA. So, I was thinking about how much of the 'anonymity' I need to keep. Not as much as before, so I will reveal to those who haven't figured it out by now, that I'm the spouse of the Pastor at Cannoli Presbyterian Church.
The Preacher's Husband, and I don't play piano nor organ, nor do I teach Sunday School. I did say I would assist where I can around the church, but I drew the line at being the head of the local Presbyterian Women group.
However, based on what the other pastor's husbands and I talked about at the Wee Kirk conference, we've found a 21st century equivalent for male spouses. We run the sound board !! True, of the 5 or 6 male spouses there, we all ran the sound boards for our wife's church.
And so it goes ....
Monday, November 8, 2010
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Wee Kirk
I've just returned from the Wee Kirk conference at Montreat. Over 280 Presbyterian ministers, CLPs, elders and deacons spent a few days in worship, in workshops, and just enjoying the time at Montreat.
Montreat in October is gorgeous, and the temperatures are comfortable during the day, and nicely cool at night. All in all, a great place for a gathering of small steeple leaders to connect, discuss, and commiserate.
There is a movement amongst small churches to band together, to show where the power really is in the church. I pray that this occurs sooner than later, and that this may help renew the PCUSA to faithfulness.
And so it goes ....
Montreat in October is gorgeous, and the temperatures are comfortable during the day, and nicely cool at night. All in all, a great place for a gathering of small steeple leaders to connect, discuss, and commiserate.
There is a movement amongst small churches to band together, to show where the power really is in the church. I pray that this occurs sooner than later, and that this may help renew the PCUSA to faithfulness.
And so it goes ....
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
We're sorry but the page you are looking for cannot be found.
Have you been to the PCUSA website since they unveiled the remodel ??
The site looks great, although the proclamation on the main page I'm proud to be a Presbyterian because we are God-centered is a bit a farcical at this point in time, and shows a bit of hubris. There are other denominations who are Presbyterian also, but that's neither here nor there.
My main problem with the new PCUSA website is that you cannot find a bloody thing on the site. They did away with the old area based menu. You know, the one where you had five general areas of information, which then led you to another page that broke down the area into specifics.
The new site has everything listed by church department or office!!??!! You have to know which part of the bureaucracy oversees what you are looking for!! This is hard for the average Presbyterian to remember, let alone someone who is not a menber of the denomination.
Try looking on the main page for anything concerning Stewardship, you have to guess where it may be. Maybe Per Capita listed under the office of the General Assembly (OGA)?? Nope, it comes to a page listing the rates for the next few years, along with a definition (and justification) why we need to pay it. Maybe under Resources on the submenu on that page?? Nope, again more bureaucratic paperwork: the 2010-2011 budget (in PDF form), a downloadable brochure about Per Capita, where to obtain envelopes to grab, er collect Per Capita, and some opinions on why Per Capita is required, and if a church does not collect it and forwards it, why the Presbytery is required to pay in lieu of that church.
OK ... I get it, the PCUSA is all about the money. However, where is the area concerning STEWARDSHIP??
Its alright to want to get the Per Capita funds, but where is the denominational resources to assist churches in the yearly Stewardship drive ??
There is no where, I repeat NO WHERE you can get any idea of where to find Stewardship information. They list areas of information that may concern the staff in Louisville, but as far as the concerns of the average congregation of 100, not much. I finally had to use the main page's search function to find stewardship information.
Turns out Stewardship is listed under the General Assembly Mission Council (GAMC). Great ... but there is no direct link available on that page, nor is it available on any of the pages directly linked from that GAMC main page.
I hate to say it but you can see by the design where the staff in Louisville has their mindset, and again, its not the same as the church in middle America with under 100 members.
As you can see by this submenu that is on every page, the main mission of the PCUSA, at least according to the staff who assisted in creating the page, is Compassion, Peace and Justice. I'm glad to see that Evangelism & Church Growth is next, but then we get more Social Justice. We finally cover the areas where the church needs to concentrate: Theology, Worship & Education, Vocations, and World Mission.
However, once more, there is nothing for Stewardship, even under those broad topics. I went through every subheader and link on that GAMC main page to try to find something on stewardship. Zilch, Nada, Nothing.
I finally found Stewardship when I selected the Or By Title -> S-Z link. Lo and behold: STEWARDSHIP !! My quest was over, it only took 5 to 10 minutes of frustration. Did anyone talk to people outside of the headquarters on what was the area regularly visited by congregations? Was a website statistics package used to track page views ?? If this was a corporate page, and I were looking for a product, I'd be looking elsewhere.
Now, where did they put those online versions of the Book of Confessions and Book of Order ??
... and so it goes!!
The site looks great, although the proclamation on the main page I'm proud to be a Presbyterian because we are God-centered is a bit a farcical at this point in time, and shows a bit of hubris. There are other denominations who are Presbyterian also, but that's neither here nor there.
My main problem with the new PCUSA website is that you cannot find a bloody thing on the site. They did away with the old area based menu. You know, the one where you had five general areas of information, which then led you to another page that broke down the area into specifics.
The new site has everything listed by church department or office!!??!! You have to know which part of the bureaucracy oversees what you are looking for!! This is hard for the average Presbyterian to remember, let alone someone who is not a menber of the denomination.
Try looking on the main page for anything concerning Stewardship, you have to guess where it may be. Maybe Per Capita listed under the office of the General Assembly (OGA)?? Nope, it comes to a page listing the rates for the next few years, along with a definition (and justification) why we need to pay it. Maybe under Resources on the submenu on that page?? Nope, again more bureaucratic paperwork: the 2010-2011 budget (in PDF form), a downloadable brochure about Per Capita, where to obtain envelopes to grab, er collect Per Capita, and some opinions on why Per Capita is required, and if a church does not collect it and forwards it, why the Presbytery is required to pay in lieu of that church.
OK ... I get it, the PCUSA is all about the money. However, where is the area concerning STEWARDSHIP??
Its alright to want to get the Per Capita funds, but where is the denominational resources to assist churches in the yearly Stewardship drive ??
There is no where, I repeat NO WHERE you can get any idea of where to find Stewardship information. They list areas of information that may concern the staff in Louisville, but as far as the concerns of the average congregation of 100, not much. I finally had to use the main page's search function to find stewardship information.
Turns out Stewardship is listed under the General Assembly Mission Council (GAMC). Great ... but there is no direct link available on that page, nor is it available on any of the pages directly linked from that GAMC main page.
I hate to say it but you can see by the design where the staff in Louisville has their mindset, and again, its not the same as the church in middle America with under 100 members.
As you can see by this submenu that is on every page, the main mission of the PCUSA, at least according to the staff who assisted in creating the page, is Compassion, Peace and Justice. I'm glad to see that Evangelism & Church Growth is next, but then we get more Social Justice. We finally cover the areas where the church needs to concentrate: Theology, Worship & Education, Vocations, and World Mission.
However, once more, there is nothing for Stewardship, even under those broad topics. I went through every subheader and link on that GAMC main page to try to find something on stewardship. Zilch, Nada, Nothing.
I finally found Stewardship when I selected the Or By Title -> S-Z link. Lo and behold: STEWARDSHIP !! My quest was over, it only took 5 to 10 minutes of frustration. Did anyone talk to people outside of the headquarters on what was the area regularly visited by congregations? Was a website statistics package used to track page views ?? If this was a corporate page, and I were looking for a product, I'd be looking elsewhere.
Now, where did they put those online versions of the Book of Confessions and Book of Order ??
... and so it goes!!
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
An interesting GAPJC decision.
The General Assembly PJC just released a decision on a case where a session approved ordination of a elder-elect in a committed same-sex relationship. In the course of the Session's examination of the candidate for elder, he stated that he was fully compliant with the requirements of the BOO paragraph G-6.0106b, commonly known as the Fidelity and Chastity requirement.
In this case the Session took at face value the statement of the person in question, that he and his "partner" lived together, but were chaste and did not engage in any "self-acknowledged" practice the Confessions call sin. The Session did not have any information that was contrary to the statement of the elder-candidate. The GAPJC ruled that the rulings of the lower courts were valid. See full decision here.
This may sound strange coming from this evangelical, but I agree with this ruling. If the candidate was telling the truth, that he and his partner are chaste, reside together as a couple with no sexual element, then he is abiding by G-6.0106b.
If not, and any such activity is well hidden, then the One who is judge over all will pass judgment when he meets his Maker. If such activity is later found to be occurring and such information is brought before that Session, I fully expect the Session to perform its duty under the Book of Order to administer Discipline to bring the elder into compliance, or remove him from office.
... and so it goes !!
In this case the Session took at face value the statement of the person in question, that he and his "partner" lived together, but were chaste and did not engage in any "self-acknowledged" practice the Confessions call sin. The Session did not have any information that was contrary to the statement of the elder-candidate. The GAPJC ruled that the rulings of the lower courts were valid. See full decision here.
This may sound strange coming from this evangelical, but I agree with this ruling. If the candidate was telling the truth, that he and his partner are chaste, reside together as a couple with no sexual element, then he is abiding by G-6.0106b.
If not, and any such activity is well hidden, then the One who is judge over all will pass judgment when he meets his Maker. If such activity is later found to be occurring and such information is brought before that Session, I fully expect the Session to perform its duty under the Book of Order to administer Discipline to bring the elder into compliance, or remove him from office.
... and so it goes !!
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:
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!!
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:
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 !!
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 !!
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 !!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)