The recent GAPJC decision.

OK ... so now the Book of Confessions can't be trusted by the PC(USA) to tell us what standards should be used when examining people coming up for ordination to church offices.  That throws out half the PC(USA)'s constitution.

Normally, I would have a lot to say on the matter but, as usual, someone else has said it better than I have.  So I direct your attention to this blog post.

OK ... I know that Lark News is a satire site, and yes, it shouldn't be taken seriously, but this post from the archives of Lark News definitely hits the nail on the head, as I fully expect that we're going to find that the membership of the PC(USA) declined below 2 million in 2011.

Presb. Church USA launches ambitious plan to lose only 5% of members

LOUISVILLE — The Presbyterian Church (USA) has launched a campaign to slow the rate of decline to 5 percent, according to the denomination. “People at the grass roots need hope and motivation,” says a spokesman. “This is a positive goal we can all get behind.” The Minus 5 Campaign aims to lower the attrition rate in spite of the denomination’s continued struggle with moral issues, which has led to even greater exodus of members. Instead of losing 12 to 15 percent of members every decade, the group will now “work in great unity and joy to lose only five percent.” “This is the rallying cry we’ve been needing,” says a pastor in Pittsburgh, Pa. “It’s heartening to people at the local level to know we’re determined not to shrink as rapidly.” •

http://www.larknews.com/archives/556

Just another liberal Protestant denomination !!

I'm not going to claim that I found this originally, I did not.   I am going to say that this speaks to many in the PC(USA) who are ready to do what the Book of Order says, that if we can't agree with the decisions of the 'majority' we should peaceably withdraw.      If only the liberals would let us get on with it.

Anyway ... if you change ELCA to PC(USA) and Lutheran to Presbyterian, you'll see this letter speaks for many orthodox Christians in the PC(USA):

[See following open letter (readily available on the Internet) from Lutheran theologian Carl E. Braaten to his bishop, Mark Hanson, in July 2005, regarding the Lutheran Church. He says, in effect, that liberal Protestantism is not Christian.}

The Reverend Dr. Mark Hanson, Bishop
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
8765 West Higgins Road
Chicago, Illinois 60631

Dear Bishop Mark Hanson:

Greetings! I am writing out of a concern I share with others about the theological state of affairs within the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. The situation might be described as one of “brain drain.” Theologians who have served Lutheranism for many years in various capacities have recently left the ELCA and have entered the Roman Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church in America.

Why?

When Jaroslav Pelikan left the ELCA and became a member of the OCA, I felt it was not terribly surprising. After all, he had been reading and writing about the Fathers of Eastern Orthodoxy for so many years, he could quite naturally find himself at home in that tradition, without much explanation. A short time before that Robert Wilken, a leading patristics scholar teaching at the University of Virginia, left the ELCA to become a Roman Catholic. Then other Lutheran theological colleagues began to follow suit. Jay Rochelle, who for many years was my colleague and the chaplain at the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago joined the Orthodox Church. Why? Leonard Klein, pastor of a large Lutheran parish in York, Pennsylvania, and former editor of Lutheran Forum and Forum Letter, last year left the ELCA to study for the Roman Catholic priesthood. Why? This year Bruce Marshall, who taught theology for about fifteen years at St. Olaf College and was a long-standing member of the International Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue, has left the ELCA to enter the Roman Catholic Church. Why? David Fagerberg, formerly professor of religion at Concordia College, although coming from a strong Norwegian Lutheran family, left the ELCA for the Roman Catholic Church, and now teaches at the University of Notre Dame. Reinhard Huetter, a German Lutheran from Erlangen University, came to the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago fifteen years ago to teach theology and ethics, now teaches at Duke Divinity School, and this year became a Roman Catholic. Why? Mickey Mattox, a theologian who recently served at the Lutheran Ecumenical Institute in Strasbourg and now teaches at Marquette University, has recently begun the process of becoming a Roman Catholic.

In all these cases the transition involves spouses and children, making it incredibly more difficult. Why are they doing this? Is there a message in these decisions for those who have ears to hear?
All of these colleagues have given candid explanations of their decisions to their families, colleagues, and friends. While the individuals involved have provided a variety of reasons, there is one thread that runs throughout the stories they tell. It is not merely the pull of Orthodoxy or Catholicism that enchants them, but also the push from the ELCA, as they witness with alarm the drift of their church into the morass of what some have called Liberal Protestantism. They are convinced that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has become just another liberal protestant denomination. Hence, they have decided that they can no longer be a part of that. Especially, they say, they are not willing to raise their children in a church that they believe has lost its moorings in the great tradition of evangelical (small e) and catholic (small c) orthodoxy (small o), which was at the heart of Luther’s reformatory teaching and the Lutheran Confessional Writings. They are saying that the Roman Catholic Church is now more hospitable to confessional Lutheran teaching than the church in which they were baptized and confirmed. Can this possibly be true?

I have decided, without any doubt about it, that I could not re-invent myself to become something else than I was raised to be by my Madagascar missionary parents—an heir of the Lutheran confessing movement. Through theological study and ecumenical engagement I thought I had learned something about what it means to be Lutheran. I have written many books and articles, preached and published many sermons—leaving a long paper trail—over a period of five decades, explaining what it means to be Lutheran. There is nothing in all of those communications that accommodates liberal protestantism, which Karl Barth called a “heresy,” an assessment with which I fully agree. If it is true that the ELCA has become just another liberal protestant denomination, that is a condition tantamount to heresy. The most damning thing in my view that can be charged against the ELCA is that it is just another liberal protestant denomination. Are all these theologians wrong in their assessment of the ELCA?

I wish I could deny it. I have been looking for some convincing evidence to the contrary, because I am not about to cut and run. There is no place I know of where to go. I do know, however, that the kind of Lutheranism that I learned—from Nygren, Aulén, Bring, Pinomaa, Schlink, P. Brunner, Bonhoeffer, Pannenberg, Piepkorn, Quanbeck, Preus, and Lindbeck, not to mention the pious missionary teachers from whom I learned the Bible, the Catechism, and the Christian faith—and taught in a Lutheran parish and seminary for many years is now marginalized to the point of near extinction. In looking for evidence that could convincingly contradict the charge that the ELCA has become just another liberal protestant denomination, it would seem reasonable to examine what is produced by its publishing house, theological schools, magazines, publications, church council resolutions, commission statements, task force recommendations, statements and actions by its bishops. The end result is an embarrassment; there is not much there to refute the charge. As Erik Petersen said about 19h century German Protestantism, all that is left of the Reformation heritage is the aroma from an empty bottle. A lot of the pious piffle remains, but then, so was Adolf von Harnack a pious man. All the heretics of the ancient church were pious men. Our pastors and laity are being deceived by a lot of pietistic aroma, but the bottle is empty. Just ask these fine theologians—all friends and colleagues of mine—who have left the ELCA. They are not stupid people; they don’t tell lies; they don’t make rash decisions. They are all serious Christians. What is happening is nothing less than a tragedy. The ELCA is driving out the best and the brightest theologians of our day, not because it is too Lutheran, but because it has become putatively just another liberal protestant denomination. I would think that this is a situation that ought to concern you immensely as well as all the leadership cadres of the ELCA. But might it also be the case that the very persons who ought to be troubled by this phenomenon will say to themselves (perhaps not out loud), “good riddance, we won’t be bothered by those dissenting voices anymore? We wish more of their ilk would leave.”

I must tell you that I read all your episcopal letters that come across my desk. But I must also tell you that your stated convictions, punctuated by many pious sentiments, are not significantly distinguishable from those that come from the liberal protestant leaders of other American denominations. I do not disagree with your political leaning to the left. I am a life-long political liberal, unlike many of my friends. My wife and I opposed the unjust war against Vietnam in the 60's and 70's, and we have with equal conviction opposed the foolhardy invasion of Iraq by the Bush administration. We also supported the ELCA in its ecumenical actions to re-institute the episcopal office by means of passing the CCM as well as to adopt the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification with the Vatican. But none of that equates with transforming Lutheranism into a liberal protestant denomination, in terms of doctrine, worship, and morality.

When I finished my graduate studies at Harvard and Heidelberg, I was ordained by the ELC and served a parish in North Minneapolis, simultaneously teaching at Luther Seminary. At that time I was instrumental in founding Dialog, a journal of theology, together with Robert Jenson, Roy Harrisville, Kent Knutson, James Burtness, and others, in order to draw midwest Lutheranism into the world-wide orbit of Lutheran theology. We were not ecumenically oriented at the start. At that time no Luther Seminary professors were dealing with the issues posed by Bultmann, Tillich, Bonhoeffer, Barth, Brunner, Aulén, Nygren and many others. Dialog got the reputation of being a journal edited by young upstarts who thought they knew better. It seemed to us then that most of our professors were not very well informed. But they were good Lutherans, not a single heretic among them. Heresy was not the problem at that time. The journal that our group founded in 1961 has now become the voice of a liberal protestant version of Lutheranism. Robert Jenson and I resigned from the journal as its editors in1991 to found a new journal, Pro Ecclesia, a Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology. In the last fourteen years we have published the articles of theologians of all traditions—Lutheran, Anglican, Catholic, Evangelical, and Orthodox—exhibiting the truth that we all share common ground in the Great Tradition.

The same cannot be said of Dialog anymore. It has become a function of the California ethos of religion and morality, nothing seriously Lutheran about it anymore, except the aroma of an empty bottle. Too bad. I was its editor for twenty years and Jenson for ten years, but now in our judgment it has become, perhaps even unwittingly, the very opposite of what we intended. The journal now expresses its belief that to be prophetic is to become the mouthpiece of the denominational bureaucracy, that is, to attack the few dissenting voices in the ELCA.

One day a church historian will write the history of Lutheranism in America. There will be a few paragraphs trying to explain how the self-destruction of confessional orthodox Lutheranism came about around the turn of the millennium and how it underwent a metamorphosis into a liberal protestant denomination. Recently in an issue of the Lutheran Magazine you expressed your hope that Lutherans could some day soon celebrate Holy Communion with Roman Catholics. My instant reaction was: it is becoming less and less likely, as the ELCA is being taken hostage by forces alien to the solid traditions Lutherans share with Roman Catholics. The confessional chasm is actually becoming wider. So much for the JDDJ! The agreement becomes meaningless when Lutheranism embarks on a trajectory that leads to rank antinomianism.

Where do we go from here? I am going nowhere. Meanwhile, I am hearing rumors about a possible schism or something about the formation of a dissenting synod. None of that will redound to the benefit of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church we confess in the Creed. Each person and congregation will do what they deem fitting and appropriate in view of the apostasy that looms on the horizon of our beloved Lutheran Church. My friend Wolfhart Pannenberg has stated that a church that cannot take the Scriptures seriously is no longer a church that belongs to Jesus Christ. That is not an original statement of his or mine, but one said by every orthodox theologian in the Great Tradition, including Athanasius and Augustine, as well as Martin Luther and John Calvin. Does the ELCA take the Scriptures seriously? We will soon find out. Whoever passes the issue off as simply a hermeneutical squabble is not being honest—“we have our interpretation and you have yours.” Who is to judge who is right? The upshot is ecclesiastical anarchy, sometimes called pluralism. To each his own. Chacun son gout!

I am extremely sorry it has come to this doctrinally unstable situation in the church I was ordained to serve almost half a century ago. My father and two of his brothers served this church in Madagascar and China. My brother and sister served this church in the Cameroons and Madagascar. My cousins have served this church as ordained ministers in this country and abroad for decades. Knowing them as well as I do, I am confident in stating their belief that this church in some of its expressions is not remaining truly faithful to the kind of promises they made upon their ordination to the Christian ministry.

Can the situation which I have described in stark terms be remedied? Have we reached the point of no return? Are we now hopelessly mired in what Karl Barth identified as “Kulturprotestantismus?” I know of about half a dozen Lutheran renewal groups desperately trying to call the ELCA back to its foundational texts and traditions. Would they exist if there were no problem that needs to be addressed? How many congregations and pastors have left or are leaving the ELCA for other associations?

One day we will have to answer before the judgment seat of God as to what we have done for and against the Church of Jesus Christ. There will be no one by our side to help us find the words to use in response. All of us will have many things for which to repent and to implore God’s forgiveness. And we will all cry out, “Lord, have mercy!”

Sincerely in Christ our Lord,

Carl E. Braaten

Has it been that long ??

I've not posted in a while, about 4 months or so. Its not because there hasn't been things to comment on, just that others were doing it so much better than I.

However, next week the Fellowship of Presbyterians is having their Convocation Gathering in Orlando. I'll be there, along with 2,000 or so others. Some to hear what is going on, some to make a decision to affiliate/join/whatever with the FoP, and some to sow seeds of dissent and discord.

I'll be going with an open mind, ready to sign on to the FoP as an individual member, however, with the release of the schedule on Monday, Jan 9th, there doesn't seem to be any time set aside for an actual discussion or vote on the Essentials and the Polity.

FWIW ... the Polity paper is really not much of an issue, frankly because there's not much there. Which is a good thing, there is time to add in what is needed as far as any BOO is concerned.

The Essentials and Confessions is the area where there's going to be some contention. There shouldn't be an issue with keeping the Creeds, they are an orthodox declaration of what we believe as Christians. However, there is no need to include all the confessions as currently used by the PC(USA). You would want to keep Westminster along with its Catechisms, Heidelburg as currently written, and maybe the Barmen and Scots; but do away with the rest. All they do is dilute what should be an unequivocal message of belief in Christ, and what the church is supposed to be.

They are allotting 1 hour and 15 minutes for The Theology Project: Confessions, Essentials, and Commitments (with table conversation). That's an interesting description of what the NRB is supposedly going to be based on, and allowing 75 minutes for presentation and conversation, with an additional half-hour for Q&A does not appear to be enough time.

I guess they're assuming that everyone will be happy with what is presented, but will there be a way to introduce an alternative? There is a break-out session that is titled Theology: Going Deeper, presented by the same people who will be leading the main session. Will there be further discussions of a possible alternative, will the leaders be willing to relinquish ownership and allow for changes??

This is a question that will be on many peoples minds starting Wednesday evening. A friend said to me, "If it appears that we're given a take it or leave it proposition, there may be a small riot. Done decently and in order of course !!"

And so it goes ....

Hyposcrisy !!!

Lets contrast the welcoming, inclusive & liberal More Light Presbyterian gathering being held in Rochester NY, with the evangelical Fellowship of Presbyterians gathering in Minneapolis.

Fellowship:

Access for all ?? - check!
All included in table conversations? - check!
Access to any and all seminars, breakouts? - check!


More Light:

Access for all? - no
All included in table conversations? - no
Access to any and all seminars, breakouts? - no


It seems that someone who was attending the Rochester meeting, an evangelical, was barred from workshops by the leadership of that "inclusive, affirming and tolerant" group. It appears that there are secret plans being developed for the next GA that they do not want publicized.

Contrast that with the openness that the Fellowship had in Minneapolis. No secret plans, nope everything that was being planned or talked about was out in the open, available for anyone to read, comment and publish.

And so it goes ...

Thoughts on the Fellowship

Its been a week since the Fellowship of Presbyterians gathering in Minneapolis. There was a lot of information to try to digest via tweets, so I waited for some attendees to put their thoughts together.

Here is a overview of the gathering from an attendee.

The Fellowship gathering was defined by its worship. The first worship, the night before the conference began, had more than a thousand. Each day of the conference began and ended with worship. And the ballroom was packed – for all of them. Vic Pence, who spoke at the final worship, was prepared to make a joke about attendance at final worship as a lead in to his “the power of a remnant” presentation, but had to make a joke about his joke because worship was full. The singing, the prayers, the speakers, were all very powerful, and all focused on Christ. Speakers spoke on “the need to focus on where Jesus is leading”, “What do we need to do to be aligned with what God is doing?”, “Turning anger to grace”, and “the power of a remnant to make a difference”.

Seminars described the possible organizational options within the fellowship, ways to work within presbyteries, in spite of presbyteries, alternative forms of presbyteries, and the New Reformed Body. More on those in a moment. But did I mention the worship? And the general air of laughter, and friends calling out across the room. People meeting friends from seminary, from online, making new connections.

The informational presentations were done via video feed to every conference room in the hotel. Conferees were randomly grouped in tables of 10 (with the exception of EPs and staffers who were randomly grouped with each other, but not the general population). There was time after each briefing for the tables to discuss and provide feedback and questions (via email). A few folks had as their job for the conference, to sort through the emails and consolidate questions and prioritize based on frequency. Q&A times were built into the schedule for the organizers to answer some of these questions. This led to wonderful, meaningful conversations between the elders and pastors attending the conference.

An example table had 4 elders (all from large churches), 6 pastors: two from large churches, 3 from middlesized, and a pastor from a small town church. It helped people to process the information from multiple viewpoints. Some tables had folks who were against all that the Fellowship stood for, and were naysaying all that
they heard, but their influence was limited to the table(s) where they were. All in all it was upbeat, fast-paced, focused on glorifying God, and seeking answers both within and beyond the PCUSA.

The Fellowship seeks to be an order within the PCUSA. The Fellowship will be a covenanted community of churches and individuals who gather around a defined set of essential tenets (to be defined). The focus is on empowering and equipping the congregation: not a congregationalism, but a recognition that the primary agent of ministry is and should be the congregation. Jim Singleton defined a vision for a fellowship that includes Theological Clarity, Missional Passion, Covenantal Commitment to each other, Global Connections, and Leadership in a different way. Under the original Fellowship vision, this would all happen without any PCUSA structural adaptations. It would be much like More Light Presbyterians or the Confessing Churches. But the Fellowship has no interest in playing the politics of the PCUSA – that has gotten us nowhere. The Fellowship wants to renew the PCUSA one church at a time, by engaging in mission.

As mentioned, the Fellowship seeks to be an order within the PCUSA, but also with those in New Reformed Body. The NRB is for those who fear the coming Kenyonization (1) of GLBT ordination and the redefinition of marriage; those for whom the PCUSA has just gone too far afield, or those who are in hostile presbyteries. Although there is the possibility that releasing a church to the NRB will involve less resistance on the part of presbyteries than release to the EPC, there is still great risk here for local congregations, especially depending on the level of antagonism in the presbytery.

Other strategies proposed appealed to churches in different contexts: a congregation in a friendly presbytery who is able to accomplish their mission in an uncompromised way may continue on as they are. This was especially attractive to those in presbyteries such as San Diego and Santa Barbara. In other presbyteries, where it may become difficult to get any candidate through due to close voting habits, it was suggested that presbyteries take advantage of the latitude of nFoG to have more than one CPM/COM. Another alternative was to petition the GA to realign presbyteries or allow the creation of geographic overlapping presbyteries to avoid these stalemates. Obviously these options require the ability to get an overture through the presbytery. Some churches are in openly hostile presbyteries, although the options are presented, unless a national overture is passed and mandated, these churches have no recourse within the PCUSA.

Questions to ask ourselves:

What do we believe? To what extent are we comfortable with the diversity of belief in the PCUSA and to what extent do we believe the PCUSA has erred? Is the difference in theology sufficient to mandate or even warrant action? Should that action be a statement of difference, removal of fellowship, or something else? What should we be/do? Where do we believe God is calling us to mission and to action? To what extent is our mission currently influenced by our membership in the PCUSA – for the positive or negative? What about in the projected future? What are the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats within the current structure for our church and its mission? What are the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats within the various presbytery options or the proposed NRB for our church and its mission?

(1) Rev Kenyon was denied acceptance as a minister because women’s ordination violated his conscience; He was not permitted to declare it a scruple -- effectively making women’s ordination an essential belief.

I plan to have a breakdown of the options posted over the next week.

Fellowship Gathering Hecklers

This week, the Fellowship of Presbyterians are holding their August conference. Many evangelical Presbyterians are trying to follow the meeting by using Twitter. A hashtag was created for the meeting to make it very easy to follow the conversation: #MN2011.

There are some at the conference who are giving a fairly good play by play of the proposals. Very informative, and very exciting proposals.

However, there are a few tweeters who are obviously not happy about the conference. In fact, they're downright offended!! How dare those evangelicals talk about The Word, standards, tenets and 'like mindedness' !!!

So they've made it their mission this week to disrupt the twitter feed from Minneapolis with snarky comments, disparaging speakers, and outright insults. All because the Fellowship insists on following 2,000 years of biblical teachings, and not conforming to the world of today.

Words like ugliness, hate, oppression and schism are bandied about. Heck, they don't even like the way we tweet. There's one person who thinks that we need to be trained to use twitter, this person tweeted through another hashtag: "Quick! I need a guide to Twitter etiquette! A church conference has brought a new crew to Twitter, but they don't how to interact." Another comment was "I pray that pastors and elders behave better with their congregants and colleagues in person than they do with strangers on Twitter." and "It's full of trolls! Trolls!" I wonder if they know where that term came from, probably has no idea what USENET is.

Then there was the one that it seems was reTweeted all over the PCUSA hashtag: "Is anyone surprised that #mn2011 is scheduled during #pcusa ordination exams? Including the voices of future leaders must not be a priority." Of course, the answer to that was because the original conference was for a small group of currently called Pastors. Well, the circumstances changed, as did the size of the group.

Well, many (including yours truly) really don't use Twitter on a daily or even monthly basis. Heck, if you think you can say something really important in 140 characters, then you really don't have much to say.

Most of us on there are trying to follow what's going on, many of us could not attend the conference, but are interested in the proposals that are being brought forth. Yet we are subjected to the intolerance, bigotry and hatred of those who claim that we are the ones who are intolerant, haters and bigotted.

And so it goes ...