A two year hiatus ....

Its been a little over two years since I posted my last, and since that time a lot has happened.

1.  The Remedial Case talked about in my blogpost of 09/12/2014 was thrown out as being 'moot', again the PJC did what the ACC did and totally avoided the fact that the AI as passed should have been ruled out of order as it violated a bunch of normal parliamentary rules.   However, the final reasoning was that at the time the case was heard, more than enough presbyteries had voted the Amendment that authorized SSM, so the case was ruled moot.    Nevermind the parliamentary issues that the case was really about, those on the PJC 'knew" (wink wink) what it was really about - SSM.   Even though the main actor in the case was on the pro-SSM side, he knew that the parliamentary rule violation was a slippery slope.    Didn't matter to the PJC.

2.  Upon returning home after the 2014 GA, I didn't want to even talk about my experience.  However, the EP of 'Crimson-Rock Presbytery' asked that I talk at the next Presbytery meeting, and visit some of the churches to give my overview of the GA.     Suffice it to say that there were some 'stony' looking faces at Presbytery, and at some of the churches I was called 'bigot' and 'homophobe' for having a Biblical view of sexuality.

3.  The Session of the church where I'm a member asked a lot of questions about my experiences at the GA, and after many months of prayer and study, voted to enter the Crimson-Rock Presbytery's Dismissal Process which would allow the congregation to leave and join EPC.

4.  The entry into the process started around October 2014.   The Session met with the Presbytery's team a number of times, and the team also had a congregational discussion one Sunday after Worship.   The questions from the Congregation were really good, and to the point.     One question in particular nailed the issue:   " I teach our kids about the truth of the Bible, yet the PCUSA is saying that the Bible is wrong.   Why should I stay?".   The member of the team who was asked that question had no convincing answer, and many of the Congregation understood that.

In February 2015 we had our Congregational vote, and of our members present, the vote was 74 to leave, 0 to stay.    At the next Presbytery meeting in May, we were dismissed (after paying a ransom), and was accepted into the EPC as a transistional member of the "Presbytery of the Eastern Mountains."

5.   The Pastor and Session then studied for a good year the EPC Book of Order, as well as the Westminster Confession of Faith and catechisms, in preparation for the examination of the Session by the Presbytery.    The members of the presbytery committee were very impressed by the training and knowledge of the Session, who said it was all due to the detailed preparation by the Pastor.

The Pastor was examined at the May 2015 Presbytery meeting, and having met all the requirements the Congregation was accepted into full membership of the EPC, which then allowed us to attend the 2016 General Assembly of the EPC as voting members.    One of the hallmarks of the EPC is that every church has the right to send three people to the General Assembly.   One Teaching Elder (TE) and two Ruling Elders (RE).    This two to one ratio is a requirement for every 'council' of the denomination, as the number of REs must always exceed the number of TEs.

6.   I attended the GA as an observer and was instantly impressed by the lack of politics and politicking at the Assembly.     Everything opened with prayer, and there was a prayer team praying over the GA the entire time.

As the EPC has a list of Essentials that all must adhere to, there was no need to try and discern if what the person was saying was a veneer hiding an agenda underneath.     However, habits learned in the previous denomination are hard to drop, so some who came from the PCUSA were confused when confronted with the fact that what the person said was what they REALLY meant.

It was a breath of fresh air.    I think I remarked on my notes on the 2014 PCUSA General Assembly that there was, to me at least, an overall feeling of dread or malice when I walked into that convention center in Detroit.   There was NO such feeling at the EPC GA.    It felt like the Spirit was flowing throughout the halls of the hosting church.  

We had come home!    Which means I will probably change the name of the blog to A Reformed Catholic formerly in the PCUSA.

... and so it goes!!

A Remedial Case Against the ACC.

In case you are wondering if this blogpost is going to be about college football, the ACC in this instance refers to the General Assembly's Advisory Committee on the Constitution.

The Remedial Complaint, refers to the complaint that was just filed against the ACC by Cherokee Presbytery, three churches in Michigan, and one from Wisconsin.    The complaint is about this (all quotes in orange are from the remedial complaint itself):

That the ACC acted to instruct Assembly Committee 10 and then the plenary of the 221st General Assembly (2014) that the General Assembly had the authority to make an authoritative interpretation that effectively changes the plain and ordinary meaning the Directory of Worship and took other irregular actions after having previously instructed the General Assembly in writing that changes of that type cannot be done.  The outcome of the advice given by the ACC was that Assembly Committee 10 and General Assembly approved an authoritative interpretation that was and is in conflict with the provision of the Constitution being interpreted.

What that paragraph says is that the ACC reversed itself from the time it gave written guidance about the AI overture, to the time it was asked about the constitutionality of such a move at the Committee and at Plenary.

OK, so you're asking yourself why not just go after the AI if its felt to be unconstitutional.   Well, you see there's a slight problem.     There is no way to bring a remedial case against the General Assembly except by bringing one up to the NEXT General Assembly.    

That's right, there is no higher body to appeal to, unlike the US Government, where there's always the Supreme Court to go to in case the Legislative Branch overreaches when it writes a law.   In the Presbyterian System, the General Assembly is the final council/judiciary.     However, you may say, what about the GA Permanent Judicial Commission?    Ah yes .. what about it?      Note the very last work of the name of the GAPJC - Commission .    The GAPJC is, of itself, a commission of the General Assembly.    It, therefore, has no authority over the Assembly that created it.     It does have authority over the other commissions and committees that are created by the General Assembly, such as the Advisory Committee on the Constitution.

The complaint has a number of points, or irregularities, I'll cover two :

• The actions of the ACC, that included and/or resulted in, the giving certain oral advice mentioned (previously in the complaint) to the Assembly Committee and/or plenary of the 221st General Assembly (2014) on item 10-03 constitued an irregularity.    Actions of the ACC that are alleged to be erroneous are proper subject for judicial review -- See Exhibit C1 - PJC 2008, 303, 218-03, Session of Palos Park v. ACC ("the propriety of the ACC's actions ... if alleged to be erroneous, are subject to judicial review by this Commission.") Alleged irregularities in Constitutionally mandated process are also proper subjects for judicial review. Id.
  Basically says that any meetings that may have occurred after the issuance of the written advice on the overture to the GA and before the oral advice given at the GA are irregular.  
• The ACC committed irregularit(ies) when it acted to provide advice to the Assembly Committee and/or plenary of the 221st General Assembly (2014) on item 10-03 (and related items) that was contrary to existing Authoritative Interpretations and/or the sound and important principles of Church polity recited by the Report(s) of the Swearingen Commission (Exhibit A).  The ACC, for example, determined that the text of statements in the Constitution were "clear and unambiguous".  The ACC was also required by an existing AI to "exercise great care  to ensure that any interpretation remains true to the plain meaning and context of the provision interpreted."  See Exhibit I.  And, the ACC advised the Assembly Committee and plenary of the General Assembly that the Assembly may adopt an AI contrary to the "clear and unambiguous" meaning of the text.  Under such circumstances, the ACC's advice is a proper subject for judicial review.   To permit the ACC to act otherwise is tantamount to allowing the ACC to advocate for an amendment by indirection of the organic law of the Church.   Actions of the ACC that are alleged to be erroneous are proper subjects for judicial review. .... 
  
  What they're saying here is that the ACC violated an AI that required it to issue advice based on the existing text of the Constitution.  It also alleges that this also violated Presbyterian polity that had been in place for decades, and reiterated in the 1925 Swearingen Report.

There's a lot more to the complaint, and I can't include it all here.  Especially since its protected from standard cut and paste procedures.  I will be adding more information in later blog posts.    The full complaint text can be found here on ChurchandWorld.com.

Suffice it to say that this complaint covers what I was talking about here when I wrote my blog post about the voting on the AI at the General Assembly, and what the Stated Clerk of the Presbytery of Detroit, Ed Koster, had to say about it here.

I'll continue this on the next rock.

... and so it goes!

Day 7 at GA

This was a very long day, which ended just before midnight.    We caught up on some business that was postponed on day 5 & 6, but only after the afternoon session on the Middle East overtures for divestment, etc.

Let me just say that there was an overt bias to the entire day.  

The ecumenical delegate or visitor allowed to bring greetings, was from the church of Syria & Lebanon, and while not mentioning the persecution of Christians in Syria, did mention the poor Palestinians.

Later on, some of the discussions were tilted with some speakers allowed to finish their talks while out of time, and questions from the floor that turned out more like advocacy speeches than questions.

The final straw was after the advisory vote from the YAADs, TSAD, MADS, and EADs, the Moderator called for us to gather around in a group and pray and say out loud the name of a Palestinian who was hurt because of the issues in the Middle East, and a Jewish friend who was hurt.

After that the vote was taken, and divestiture passed by only 7 votes.   A body of over 620 or so, and it only passed by 7 votes.    This says that the church is not of one mind on this at all.

After this passed the rest was anticlimatic, except for one overture which asked the PMA to create a study on the safety of children of both sides in Israel & Palestine.

The overture asked that the PMA, in association with the IPMN,  create this study.   The same IPMN who created the Zionism Unchained study that reeked of falsehoods, innuendo and outright anti-Semitism.       The same commissioner that rose up on the marriage AI, rose up with an amendment to strike any mention of the IPMN from that overture.    His rational was basically, we've already put a knife in our Jewish friends, why do we want to twist it too.    This amendment passed overwhelmingly.

The rest of the evening was spent tweaking a lot of stuff on social justice and polity, but I was fried by that time, and two days later, would rather concentrate on recovering from the daily push and spiritual warfare of the GA.

.... and so it goes!!

Day 5 & 6 at the GA

It has been a very busy week, marked by long days and nights, and a profound sadness.

I left off the blog at Day 4, Tuesday, but without listing most of the details.     Suffice it to say that we were not able to sidetrack the Authoritative Interpretation, but were surprised at the gracious conscience clause that was added to the Book of Order amendment by someone who did not agree with our stance.   While it did not change our minds about the amendment, it may make it easier for some to stay in the PC(USA) a bit longer.

The work against the AI was based on the fact that:

1.   The AI is contrary to everything on marriage that is currently in the Book of Order, and
2.   As such, should have been ruled out of order under Robert's Rules by the Stated Clerk before it even reached the committee, then
3.  Since it did reach the committee, it should have been ruled out of order there. 

The fact is that Robert's Rules say that no motion is in order if that motion goes against the body's governing rules, constitution, etc.    If any such motion is not ruled out of order and is passed, the fact is, the motion is still against the rules, and as such is Null and Void!

The ACC representative to the committee kept trying to point to the fact that the 'body' needs to fix the tension, or in other words, the fact it contradicts the constitution, while the point of order was based on the ACC's own comments in the overture that the motion contradicts the constitution, and as such is, in of itself, out of order.

That point was conveniently glossed over.

Day 5 began with the continuation of the Plenary meetings.    Lots of business was not done, as we saw plenty of rah-rah videos and features that were obviously biased to how great we are as a denomination.    It appeared, at least to this  GA commissioner, that it was all playing to the Internet live-stream viewers.     We had started the day thinking that the Committee 10 business would be brought up on Friday morning.   At the beginning of the afternoon session (I believe) Bills and Overtures moved it to Thursday afternoon.

Didn't help those who were trying to craft a minority report, but they got it done for Thursday.  The rest of the day was spent on other committees, but some business was then postponed to Friday, as there wasn't enough time for commissioners to instruct themselves on some of the details brought before them.

Day 6 began with more of the same, a few more things were pushed to Friday evening, Friday afternoon would be the great divestiture debate.

I'm going to skip to the real meet of the day, the Marriage issues.     When the committee business was brought forward, the minority report was put out as an answer to the rest of the overtures.     The matter was discussed, back and forth, and a vote taken, based on that vote, I knew that the votes to defeat any marriage overture was not there.

There was no mushy middle any longer, or at least not at this GA.


When the AI overture was brought up, the same commissioner on cmte 10 who raised the point of order there, brought it up again hoping to get a better answer.   Unfortunately the same ACC resource person gave the same answer as in committee.     The commissioner pressed that this was not a point of order on the constitutionality of the overture, that the ACC had already pointed this out in its advice on the overture, but again, that was glossed over.   He asked for vote to overturn the ruling, soundly defeated.     The point of order tactic was done.

The same commissioner came back to the mic speaking against the motion on the AI, talking about how he joined the PC(USA) because of its bottom up approach to polity, and this was something new, a top down instruction that what it says in the BOO is not what it says it does.

The AI was overwhelmingly approved, probably due to the feeling of the commissioners who, as one YAAD said, felt we were sent here to do something.   

And here I thought we were sent here to listen, understand, consult Scripture, and listen for the Holy Spirit, not do something.     Doing nothing is doing something ...

After that there wasn't a reason to keep on bringing motions in opposition, the commissioner kept the session moving by calling the question on each of the others if and when necessary.   The votes weren't there, some people had drunk the Kool-Aid.  

The funny part of all this is after the AI passed, another commissioner stood up on Point of Order to make sure that the Moderator only calls on a commissioner once on a motion, saying that one commissioner had risen to speak three times on a motion. 

In reality the commissioner had risen once to raise the Point of Order, once to question the ruling and ask for a vote on overturning the ruling, then once to the actual motion.   

This was just one of many incidents that show that many commissioners did not understand how Robert's Rules actually works.

... and so it goes!!

Special Report from GA

On an article about the GA actions on the Marriage & Civil Union committee, the Stated Clerk of the Presbytery of Detroit had this to say.


In both cases the Moderator asked for the opinion of the Stated Clerk, who referred the matter to the Advisory Committee on the Constitution. The ACC said that the General Assembly itself has the authority to determine what the Constitution says, and that therefore the point of order was not well taken. The Stated Clerk deferred to the opinion of ACC, and the Moderator declared the objection was overruled. On appeal, the Moderator’s decision was sustained by the Assembly.
This was a significant and momentous event. We have covenants that lay out how we shall govern ourselves. The Constitution gives authority of the General Assembly (by resolution or judicial decision) to interpret what our governing documents say. But that authority was predicated on the notion that an interpretation would be necessary because of an ambiguity. (A 2004 AI approved by the GA says: “The process of authoritative interpretation should be used sparingly, and for the purpose of defining potentially ambiguous words or phrases in the Book of Order, rather than for setting forth detailed procedures or advice as to how the provisions of our Constitution should be administered.) The ACC, Moderator, Stated Clerk, and the Assembly itself today declared that the General Assembly has the power to say that the plain words of our governing documents (Book of Order and Book of Confessions) can be “interpreted” to say things that they do not in fact say.
This action constitutes a significant shift away from the notion that we are a church governed according to the covenant we have adopted. In this covenant, the only rules that apply to the entire church are contained in the Book of Order. The GA has used its power to interpret to make a rule that is not in the Book of Order. And where trust in the authority structure of our denomination is a significant problem, this adds one more bit of evidence for those who claim the “GA” cannot be trusted to follow the rules.


You can read the entire comment here.

Day 4 at GA

We started off the day with Worship and Communion.  Mark Labberton preached a great Sermon, unlike the previous day's sermon which was reported in the daily GA paper as "Post Christendom is cool, says UCC pastor", or some such.

Had to be in committee by 9:30am, however, at 9:20am I was still at Worship, and had to leave as the TE leading the Communion liturgy was talking as if she was giving a eulogy.    Luckily,  by the time I reached the back of the hall, the servers were ready so I was able to partake.

The rest of the day was somewhat of a disappointment.   Over the years it appears that the conservatives do not do well in committee, but when they reach the plenary, things change.

I'll go give details tomorrow, but suffice it to say, there are a few minority reports from the orthodox side being brought forward.   On committee 10, we had our heads handed to us, but very respectfully.   Evidently at the 220th, there was some bad feelings at that committee, this year everyone understood that any change will cause pain, and potential loss.

However, right now I'm heading for bed, I'm fried and I need to get up at 6am to attend the PFR/Fellowship breakfast.

... and so it goes!

Day 3 at GA

Today began bright and sunny. Skipped worship as it was going to be led by a UCC minister, who turns out, preached about (tada) how the UCC handled when it went to approve same-sex marriage.  Surprise, surprise.     Luckily, Mark Labberton is preaching tomorrow so I'll be able to begin the day in Worship.     And trust me, as an evangelical at this GA, spiritual renewal is a requirement.

Today we started with Open Hearings, with most of the testimony being based on personal experiences, a lots of emotional tugs at the heartstrings.   One person, a PR executive, looks at this issue as the PC(USA) brand is being sullied because of the ban on SSM.  However, there was testimony from a young man who turned his life over to Christ, and that helped him work through his SS attraction, and who is now engaged to a very nice young woman.

Then came the Overture Advocates for amending the Book of Worship.  Again, many personal stories, no biblical support.  We even had one pastor claim that nothing in Scripture stood in the way of SSM.    Another claims that 40% of homeless youth are LGBQT with no supporting documentation.    The Advocates we heard after lunch for the AI, didn't have much more Scriptural support, only that Pastors are not able to be pastoral because they can't perform SSM.

After all the testimony, the Moderator asked to go around the room and have the commissioners give us an idea of where they are standing.       It was sad to hear some of the justifications given for where some of the RE commissioners stood.    I'm sure they are good people, and they are only using the information that they have been taught, but it was more eisegesis than exegesis.     Lots of the 'Jesus I know' type of theology.

One REC stood up and told how he came into the Presbyterian church, that he studied and learned about the doctrine of total depravity, about the Authority of Scripture, how the Book of Order & Book of Confessions both came second to what the Word said about sin.   

There were a few orthodox commissioners there besides this elder.   A TEC told of how we're forgetting the elephant in the room, the fact that an passing an AI would cause pain for many, many others.  He told of how the first church he pastored 30 or 40 years ago moved to the EPC.  How 7 churches left his Presbytery in the past 12 months.    That many more start the process if an AI or redefinition of marriage is passed.

Another TEC told of presbyteries he was in, having to merge as churches left to another, more conservative Reformed denomination.   And so it went down the line... there doesn't seem to be much chance that something will not be passed this time around.    

Tomorrow we start the deliberations.

... and so it goes!

Day 2 at GA

I was going to do this day by day, but the realities of GA have hit.    I'm not as young as I was, and by midnight on the 15th, I was totally beat.   Then I wake up at 6am today, the 16th.

Hopefully I'll catch up on this to add my thoughts.    One thing I will say, commissioners need to keep their wits about them.  We were never notified about a vote on a standing rule change for this GA.  It was brought up for a vote, half the commissioners were voting for it even though we had not gotten an electronic copy of the motion other than that which was displayed on the overhead screens for about 30 seconds or so.

By the time I awoke to what was going on, the vote was over, and all I could do was raise a Point of Order.   The answer was not to my liking, so I asked for a Division of the House, which will force a poll of the commissioners.    That said, research afterwards shows that this change is a debatable motion,  that should have had someone speaking to it and against it.     I have to say, the way this was brought up smells of smokey rooms, good ole boys, and back-room politics.

It may be too late to do anything about it unless I can find someone who voted for it, to request a Motion to Reconsider.    I'll add more about this rule change later, along with the rest of the day in a few hours, I hope.

.... and so it goes!

Day 1 at GA

Friday -  Jun 13th

After a 5 1/2 hour trip from Cannoli, PA, we arrived at Detroit.  The first issue was trying to figure out where you pull in to unload your car at the hotel.    Once that was discovered, we had to wait until 3PM as that was the scheduled check-in time.    OK, we got to the room, got the size bed we wanted, but then discovered if I wanted a tub or a larger shower, I should have asked for that too.

Oh yeah, one more thing.   To those who are interior designers/decorators ... it is NOT a good idea to put a clear glass window in the door to the bathroom.   I don't care if the glass is wavy or is extruded to look like glass piping, you can still see through it.     I have a thing about privacy when I'm, um, on the throne.   That said, the room was "OK", could have had more drawer space, and a fridge.  

Arrived at COBO Hall amidst the hustle and bustle of hundreds of Presbyterians.   There are people of all ages here, however most of those I've seen are a bit older.    One lady I met in the elevator at the hotel was overwhelmed with it all, and she hadn't even gone over to the COBO center to register yet, it was her first GA.    It appeared that it may have been her first trip anywhere without family.  

Got checked in at the registration table, and went to visit some friends.   Stopped by the Layman booth, along with the PFR, Presbyterians Pro-Life and One-by-One booths.   Saw people I know in person, and finally met in person some I know from online.

The interesting part is that across from these booths, are the CovNet, Voice of Justice, and other liberal groups.   Nice juxtaposition!     The good news is that there are people who, while disagreeing, are otherwise great friends on both sides of that aisle.

Yet I have heard from one person manning the PPL booth that not all reactions to their being there was sweetness and light.   

The first plenary meeting Saturday evening was devoted to orientation, and testing of the ethernet and WiFi internet connections.     Sad to say, it did not go well.   PC-Biz (the online repository of data for the commissioners) was down for a while, and both the wireless and wired networks were overwhelmed.    I could say more about this, but someone who is here as an observer tells it much better here.     As you can see on that page, technical issues abounded.   They should have called in Cisco Systems at the beginning.

After dinner, we came back to see about the next order of business, electing a moderator.    Again, I refer back to that previous link for more specifics.    As a geek, all I can do is shake my head.  Having been to conferences in my previous job position of computer programmer, I know that 1,000 people trying to use wire/wireless networks normally do not cause this type of problem.    Then again, these are geek conferences, and they know who to use to setup their infrastructure.    It could all boil down to the COBO Center not having the trunk capacity to handle this many.    Yet, that answer doesn't explain what happened in 2012 at Pittsburgh.     That said, the OGA staff had to go to plan B, the voting 'clicker'.    There were a few tests, and not everyone was satisfied that the votes were reliably taken.    It was determined to move on.

The three moderator candidates were brought up and asked questions by many commissioners for about 45 minutes.  FWIW ... this year there wasn't a conservative candidate, I'm guessing that anyone who was willing to serve, just didn't feel that  they'd have a chance.     Two of the candidates did not impress me at all,  both partisan on the left.  One candidate was, at one time, on the board of one of the left's coalitions, the other is the pastor at a More Light church.

Heath Rada, who won the election came across as someone who respects the opinions of those on the conservative side.  He may not agree, but he knows that conservatives are a needed voice at the table.   What was more interesting, was that the Young Advisory Delegates (YADs) voted 3/5s in favor of Mr. Rada.  I heard later that a friend asked one of the YADs about that, and that the YAD said that there seemed to be a consensus that having someone who is not so partisan was needed in that office.

Oh, forgot to mention.  The aforementioned vote had to be done on paper ballots.     Yep, even the clickers were not working as advertised.    The YADs had to hold up their cards to reflect their advice, and the commissioners had to write down the name of their choice on paper.   OY !!!

They have said it should be working by Wednesday !!

.... and so it goes!

2014 Overtures on marriage

This year the elephant in the room is so obvious that no one will be able to ignore it.     One overture requests  to change the Directory of Worship to remove presiding over a legal marriage but leaves the definition including man and woman:

OVT-011 On Amending W-4.9000 Concerning the Church’s Role in Legal Marriage and Services of Christian Covenant—From the Presbytery of Lehigh.

Another wants to change the same paragraph to replace man and woman and substitute two people: 

OVT-021 On Amending W-4.9000, Marriage—From the Presbytery of the Cascades.

Then you have one that will just change the paragraph to add that Sessions and Presbyteries can change their own definition of marriage as a civil contract according to the local state law:

OVT-033 On Amending W-4.9001, Christian Marriage—From the Presbytery of Midwest Hanmi.

My thoughts on these overtures are that while I may not agree with some of the rationale, I will respect the thoughts of those who are bringing them forward for possible referral to the presbyteries for approval.


However, the overtures that are calling for an Authoritative Interpretation (AI) to impose a total revision of what the church considers as marriage are outside of the normal polity of any Presbyterian church.     If its one thing that the Westminster Confession recognizes is that councils ERR.   This is why overtures passed at GA are sent to the lower councils for debate and approval/rejection.      An AI bypasses all these checks and balances, and imposes an interpretation of the Constitution on the denomination that would force many to rethink their affiliation, and result in the loss of many more members and congregations.

This one replaces the existing AIs on marriage, with one that says that a Teaching Elder can perform a marriage for any couple, not mentioning gender.

OVT-024 On Issuing an Authoritative Interpretation of W-4.9000 to Affirm Pastoral Discretion in Performing Marriage Ceremonies—From the Presbytery of Heartland.

This overture requests an AI that basically does the same as above, but in different language: 

OVT-027 On Issuing an Authoritative Interpretation of W-4.9000 to Affirm Pastoral Discretion in Performing Marriage Ceremonies—From the Presbytery of East Iowa.

This one just wants to remove the entire 1991 AI that currently exists on SSM:OVT-036 On Rescinding the 1991 Authoritative Interpretation Concerning Teaching Elders Performing Marriages for Same-Gender Couples and Sessions Permitting Such Ceremonies in their Facilities—From the Presbytery of New Castle.

The problem with the rationale in this overture is that is says this:

The United States Supreme Court, in United States v. Windsor, ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, which allowed states where same-gender marriage was illegal to discriminate against such persons, was unconstitutional.

The reality is that the ruling held that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT  must recognize the validity of SSM performed in states where such marriages are legal, it does not state that other states must recognize those marriages.  The key part of the ruling is this:

Justice Kennedy noted that regulation of domestic relations is within states’ traditional authority, and that the sweeping nature of DOMA as applying to all federal laws had the purpose and necessary effect of treating differently a relationship that the state treated the same. This “demeans” the married couple that is treated differently. In concluding, the Court made it clear that “[t]his opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages” under state law.

Will this legal nitpick hold any sway when this overture is debated in committee, I seriously doubt it.

I don't believe I missed  any, but then again I may have.      This year there will be another concerted effort at electioneering during the GA.  Commissioners will be offered swag that will signal a preference towards a certain point of view, those who refuse such things may then be intimidated to go with the flow.

While I believe that any such indicators from any interest group should be banned from the hall, I don't see that happening as some may yell about free speech.     I see it as the elimination of any external influences from the prayerful consideration of the work of the GA from any group left or right.

My previous thoughts on this issue are a matter of record, I see this is going to be an issue that keeps coming back again and again until those who are convinced that the traditional definition of marriage is correct either capitulate or have left the denomination.

.... and so it goes!

Update 05/16/2014:

PLEASE NOTE:  these thoughts were written way before I knew where I would be serving at GA.

Long Time No Blog !!

OK .. I haven't posted in a LONG, LONG time.    Why ... good question.  Its not as if there hasn't been anything to blog about.    There have been many, many things occurring in today's culture that are forcing those who believe in the authority of Scripture into defensive postures.

• Can't affirm same-sex marriage?   You're a hater, bigot or homophobe * !!
• Don't want to take pictures or bake a cake for a SSM?  Be prepared to be brought before a Civil Rights Commission and/or be sued for pain and suffering
• Believe that if Jesus didn't talk about it in the New Testament, its only because He already said His piece in the Old Testament?   You're a bibliolater, one having excessive reverence for the letter of the Bible.
• Believe that the PC(USA) Constitution's two parts, the Book of Confessions and Book of Order, are equal in authority, and second only to Scripture?   You're wrong, we can change anything with an AI, and we will.

So, why haven't I been busy writing about it?   Well, part of the reason is that there are those with a better grasp of apologetics who can say it better than I can.    I can write, be sarcastic but that is not what is needed to refute those who play fast and loose with Scripture, those want to affirm behavior that is declared sin by God, as God given.  

However, its another General Assembly year, and the number of overtures sent to GA this year has been limited by the requirements to have two Presbyteries concur on the overture.    This new requirement may have reduced the workload of a few committees by half.  

Then again, there are about 7 or 8 different overtures to change the Book of Order's definition of marriage.  If the committee thinks it over correctly, they can combine overtures into one.      However, we also have a push to have the GA create an Authoritative Interpretation (AI) to change the definition of marriage  If this gains traction it could cause a major uproar in the denomination, and the PC(USA) would see more departures, both by individuals as well as entire congregations.  

Why ?   Because an AI would bypass the normal way to change the Constitution by eliminating the voting by the presbyteries.    This would force the will of a minority, a mere 340 or so commissioners, on the entire denomination of 1.8 million.    But, but, but .. the regressives in the denomination would point out that one of the basis of our polity is that the Holy Spirit works in our councils.   The problem is, the Westminster Confession (part of that pesky Constitution) also says that councils do ERR!!!

This is why an overture passed by the GA is sent to the presbyteries for approval, so that other councils can pray, think and say YEA or NAY on the overture.   It provides a second chance for the Spirit to work to confirm or correct the action of the GA.

Over the next few weeks, I'll be going over the most controversial of this years crop of overtures.

Now .... for something completely different.

A few years ago, after a blog post where I copied a friend's Alternate Universe News Report, a comment was left that said:

Why do you refer to yourself as a "reformed Catholic"? Why don't you just address yourself as a Presbyterian? As a Catholic, I find apostates like yourself hold on to the term "Catholic" as a means of currying favor with the world. It is always "recovering Catholic" or "lapsed Catholic", never a complete divorce from the Church. Is there any justification for the tag line "reformed Catholic"? Just be a Presbyterian, which is completely irreconcilable to Catholicism.

I answered with this 

Good question.

Why do I use the term, because, as many of the Reformers were, I was brought up Roman Catholic, and lost the faith.

I returned to Christianity as a whole, the church Catholic, when I started attending a Reformed church, a PC(USA)church.

I have no quarrel with Roman Catholicism, only with the man-made rules that were added after the period of the Church Fathers, starting around 900 AD.

In our basic beliefs, there is nothing that I believe that is different from the Roman Catholic. We both pray and believe in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds, as do most of Christianity.

And as far as you calling me apostate, there are two definitions for that term:

Definition of APOSTASY
1: renunciation of a religious faith
2: abandonment of a previous loyalty : defection

I do not recognize the first definition as applying, as I have not abandoned my faith in the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. There is only one way to the Father, and that is in Christ Jesus.

As far as the second definition, yes, I have abandoned my previous loyalty to the institution of the Roman Catholic Church, I'm not all that loyal to the PC(USA) for that matter.

There is only one loyalty I hold to, and that is my faith in my Savior.

Sola Scriptura
Sola Fide
Sola Gratia
Sola Christus
Soli Deo Gloria

And this is why I call myself the Reformed Catholic.

.... and so it goes!

Disappointed, but not surprised.

I haven't blogged in a year, some would say that's a good thing.    But after the 2012 GA I had decided why bother, the PC(USA) is going to hell in a handbasket, and nothing I say or type or gripe about will change the eventual demise.  Evangelical friends are leaving, either by walking from their current congregation, or by moving with the congregation to the EPC or ECO.

As more and move evangelicals leave, the PC(USA) is becoming a mirror of the UCC.   Proclamation of the Gospel takes second (or third) place to proclamation of the gospel of political correctness.      Presbyteries are more interested in rooting out "schismatics", then in rooting out those Teaching Elders who proudly proclaim that Jesus did not rise from the dead, never ascended, and was basically a good person who had good ideas;  kinda like a Jewish Confucius or Buddha.

Then there was the Pittsburgh GA.  It wasn't all bad; there weren't any huge puppets at worship.   However, there was the ruling that the BOO does not need to agree with the BOC, and the push for authorization of same sex marriage (SSM).     

As I watched the live streaming from the Pittsburgh GA last year, I was wondering where most of the YADs (Young Adult Delegates) picked up their version of theology; today I was given a glimpse of one possible source.

A pastor friend received a text from a youth director who had taken a group of kids to one of the PC(USA) camps:

"Interesting day today. Started with some good old fashioned heresy. Worship leader told us it was ok to use the word "she" for Jesus in the song we were going to sing. That was followed with an adult male "coming out" in (our youth's) encounter group." (coming out to 12 and 13 year old's mind you!)

 I'm disappointed, but not surprised about this as I keep informed about what is going on in the PC(USA), but will this be a wake up call for any moderates??   Or for those evangelical institutionalists who believe that their staying in the denomination will act as a moderating force?    That only works when you have access to actually do some moderation, and I don't see that happening real soon.      

 ... and so it goes!

An alternate universe news report??

I copied this from an online friend who originally wrote it.     He opened it with this: 

Please tolerate my foolishness please .... a weird news report:

Jesus of Nazareth's controversial stance in favor of traditional marriage has ignited a storm, leading to him and his followers being banned from municipalities across the nation.

The controversy centers around his hyper-conservative and narrow-minded view of marriage (quoted in Matthew 19:1-6) as between one man and one woman. Civic and religious leaders are up in arms as a result.

Mayor Thomas Menino of Boston banned, Dan Cathy, the CEO and founder of Chick-fil-A restaurants, due to his agreement with Jesus of Nazareth. "The guy is a homophobe," commented Menino. "Even his own religion and fellow citizens can't stand Jesus and his followers! Like us, they are trying to silence him too. No wonder: they act like he is God, or something. We can define morality, just fine, without Jesus of Nazareth."

Mayor Rahm Immanuel of Chicago has weighed in. Recently, he banned Chic-fil-A restaurants, due to their founder's affirmation of Jesus' conservative view of marriage between one man and one woman: "I may not be able to do anything about street murders in my city (Chicago has a higher murder rate than that of Afghanistan), but I sure can keep Jesus and his followers from entering this fair city."

Citing their policy on freedom of expression, Facebook shut down Mike Huckabee's forum for freedom of religion and speech for evangelicals and catholics who believe the teachings of Jesus. "Even though I make billions of dollars, and control millions of people's opinions, I am one of the 99%," said Mark Zuckerberg, founder of the social media juggernaut, Facebook, "In our attempts to foster open debate, we will censor evangelicals and catholics who believe such hate speech as espoused by Jesus of Nazareth."

We called Emperor Caesar's Homeland Security for their opinion of Jesus and his followers. An official released this prepared statement, "Jesus and his followers are very dangerous. They refuse to adopt the morality of their culture. We applaud your efforts to stifle them. We are working on a final solution for them, and know that, together, we will save the world from these people and their subversive views."

"I swear, I do not know the man!" emoted Neo-Oprah-dox theologian, Bishop Bubu of the Church of the Couch. "Jesus used to be the cool kid who cared for the poor and powerless, and stood against abusive civil power and religious hypocrisy. But now, he clearly stands against us. As you know, we Progressives are ever-evolving in its view of everything. Jesus is going the other way - back to Creation - to define marriage between one man and one woman. I may not believe much anymore, but one thing I can tell you with conviction: Jesus is no Progressive."

The Presbyterian Church's Committee on Tolerance and Diversity has also taken a strong stance. We caught up with the chairperson, while attending a seminar, "Tickling Our Ears." He solemnly remarked, "After much weeping and gnashing of teeth, we decided to delete Jesus and his writings from any influential position in our church. Sadly, the only just and loving way to protect our freedom of conscience and behavior was to remove Jesus from our midst. We cannot, yea we must not, tolerate his diversity. But, we continue to pray for more light to shine upon his heart and mind."

The PCUSA is presently in federal court, suing Jesus for ownership rights to the Kingdom of God. If they prevail, they will rename it: "Rainbow Realm of Pan-Gender Deity."

Watching the PC(USA) GA

Like many Presbyterian polity geeks, I'm sitting home watching the PC(USA)'s 220th General Assembly via streaming video.

You may have heard of a few things going on:  Israeli Divestment, same sex marriages.    I"m not going to review them here, except to say they both lost, and your local paper may not have the full information, nor the expertise to understand what our polity is all about.

No, this blog entry is about the overall BLOAT of the General Assembly docket, as well as the bloat of the number of advisory committees that give orders advice to the various committees that review the overtures sent in by the presbyteries.

These advisory committees weigh in on almost every overture that comes in, and it makes you wonder what some of them are doing putting out an opinion on an overture that really has no relationship to the area they are supposed to be advising on.

Today, I watched as the discussion of same sex marriage started three hours late.  This was due to the battle over divestment the night before.   The GA plenary schedule was already 3 or 4 hours behind by the time they started the SSM deliberations.   In the middle of all of it, they had to break for dinner.

They came back, and went for another two hours.    As I finished watching for the night at around 12 midnight, they were still going over another committee's report.    OK, I get it, every GA commissioner has a right to express an opinion, and to propose amendments, but good grief .. please be prepared.       Then you have the commissioners who ask for some clarification by calling on the resource  person from an advisory committee.   Oh great, lets just have the staffers do the testimony, deliberation and decisions then.

Then you have the Young Adult Advisory Delegates ... !!  Yes, I realize that its good to have the voices of youth at the GA, but how are these kids selected?  Most have no grounding on Scripture (a lot of what I heard is of the well, the Jesus I know'  type of response), and hardly any Polity knowledge.     These kids are the ones most easily swayed by the personal feeling types of arguments used by many of the liberals.

Even so .. none of this would be an issue, if it weren't for the sheer number of these overtures coming from the Presbyteries.  The number of overtures for the Social Justice committee is staggering, then you have the others change in Polity .. Church Orders .. and so on.

Which is why, over the past three or four GAs that I've watched, the last night of the GA always lasts way past midnight so that all the business can get accomplished.  And for what .. pronouncements by the PC(USA) to tell Iran to play nice with its neighbors.    Oh yeah, I can just imagine the Ayatollah saying to himself Gee, the Presbyterians of the PC(USA) are upset with what we're doing, I'll have to fix that right away." !!      Hey guys .. GET A CLUE .. the days when people paid attention to what the PC(USA) said are long gone.  In fact, they were way before the PC(USA) was born during the merger.

Looking at the GAs of the EPC, PCA .. even our spiritual cousins, the Church of Scotland, and Free Kirk of Scotland.     They don't have these late night sessions, they don't even have staffs 1/4 the size of ours.      Yet they get things done, decently and in order.  and, in the case of the Church of Scotland, actually get ahead of themselves so they can call a free afternoon in the middle of a GA.

But I guess that's what happens when a denomination gets more worked up about calling on parents to stop spanking their kids, than spreading the life changing Word of God to a nation, a world that is looking for the Truth.

Then again, this GA affirmed that the denomination has many interpretations of Scripture, so no one should prevail.    As Pilate said .. What is truth?   In the PC(USA) we don't have the ONE any more.

... and so it goes.

PC(USA) Membership Declines Again !!!

The PC(USA) released on Friday, latest tally of denominational statistics.  For those who have been following the numbers of evangelicals leaving the PC(USA) its not a surprise.

From the article on the PC(USA) website:

The total membership of the PC(USA) at the end of 2011 was 1,952,287, compared to 2,016,091 in 2010, which is a decline of 63,804 members.  

The rest of the report is also discouraging: 

Eighteen new churches were organized in 2011. Seventy-five were dissolved, compared to 77 in 2010. Twenty-one congregations were dismissed to other denominations, five fewer than the previous year.

75 churches dissolved, probably due to lack of new members.  Why is that, is the PC(USA) becoming even less relevant than before??   21 dismissed .. only 21 ??  What about those who just said we're outa here.     Based on the survey of EPs done by the Presbyterian Outlook, there are over 800 more churches that are either in the process of dismissal, or are in a period of discernment.

Slightly fewer than 55,000 individuals joined by profession or reaffirmation of faith, nearly one-third of who were 17 years old or younger. Adult baptisms totaled 5,740, a decrease of 408, and the number of child baptisms declined by 1,038 to 21,422.

Fewer baptisms, fewer new members, fewer child baptisms.   Where are all the people going?  Well some are going to other reformed denominations.    The Redeemer Presbyterian Church (and its satellites) in NYC is growing every year .. this is a PCA church.    A complementarian  church with no female TEs or REs, which holds to the WCF.  Why would families join such a church??   Perhaps right teaching ??

Membership loss came through certificate of transfer (23,082, compared to 29,835 in 2010); death (31,754, which was 717 fewer than 2010); and “other” (95,613, compared to 88,731 the previous year). The “other” category includes those who were members of churches that were dissolved or dismissed to other denominations. Two-thirds of the “other” category encompasses the removal of members from the rolls who are no longer active and have not become involved in another community of faith.

Seems the 2/3s that have  been removed are those that were formerly on the inactive lists which is no longer required by the PC(USA).     So, no more padding the books any longer.

So what does the Stated Clerk see as good news:

“The loss of membership through certificate-of-transfer is the lowest number it has been in at least four years, which is encouraging,” he said, “and per-person giving rose in 2011, reversing a downward trend in 2010.”

So we're seeing less people leaving through Certificate of Transfers,  what about those who just walked?  All a certificate means is that the denomination they moved to (or the member) asked for one.      Per person giving rose .. well it would have to in order to cover those members who have left, or are withholding money due to PC(USA) polity and doctrine changes.

I said last year in another venue, that the membership drop would bring the PC(USA) under 2 million.  I fully suspect that this time next year will find a membership have drop from 1,952,000 to 1,880,000.

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 ...