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!

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

Well, everyone else weighed in ....

... on that historic bill that will provide health care for all according to those on the left, or the bill that will take this country into socialism according to the histrionics of those on the right.

As I've said before, a pox on both their houses. Neither side has been honest with the electorate: there are costs that will raise the deficit, but there are good areas that will lower some health costs. Yet, what does this bill do ... no one really knows.

Its funny however, listening to the GOP alternative plans, they sounded awfully like those we heard about 18 years ago, from Bill and Hillary !! If they are so keen on their health co-ops, why didn't they just go for it then?? Well, its wasn't their idea then, and anything coming from the other side is a bunch of socialistic nonsense. Hmm, sounds familiar.

Has the level of discourse come to this, that nothing the other side proposes will be agreed to because its from the other side. That compromises and negotiations are sneered at as caving?? Oh please, without such negotiations or compromises most of the major legislation of the 60's and 70's would not have passed.

When has it become an offense to disagree with your party on something, when has it become traitorous to vote your conscience, rather than with the rest of the party? Why must an elected official have to worry about being called RHINO or BLUE DOG when they take their assignment from the people who elected them serious; to vote their conscience, and stand their ground on principle? Why does a Representative who was not sure about the bill, be subjected to pressure from special interest groups on both sides to vote their way; then be threatened by these same groups when he votes opposite, even when he fully defended his actions with studies that the bill will not contain health costs, which the Representative was concerned about?

FWIW ... I agree with the Representative, there isn't much in the bill that will contain health costs. Having gone through a recent surgery and checking out what was billed, and what was actually paid by the insurance company, I can't understand how hospitals can get away with charging non-insured patients the original rates. If they can make money getting paid with the insurance company payment, why can't they do the same for all users.

Then again, maybe requiring everyone have health insurance will do that?? I have no idea, and unfortunately, I'm not sure those jackasses and packyderms (to steal a line from Dr. Bob Kopp) in Washington have any idea either.

All I can say is that I've been lucky in that I've always had a job that provided health insurance, the last one cost me about $160 a month for me and my wife. That said, I was working at Trader Joes for about $15.50 an hour, and part-time to boot (about 24 hours a week). If I didn't already own my house, I couldn't afford the insurance, as I'd have a hard time paying rent and eating.

Oh sure, I had a fall back, as I retired from the military, and have Tricare. However, they have a deductible, and per visit fee also.

Luckily having both a primary and a secondary insurance all these years, I've been sheltered from having to worry about paying what any insurance doesn't. But if I didn't have a secondary, I'd have no idea where I'd find the money to pay the hospital and surgeon what the insurance company didn't.

And that is the bottom line, while its great that this bill provides insurance for all (registered trademark of DNC), what happens when those who are covered, get the final bill for all the stuff that's left over? Where is that cost containment?

Oh wait ... I don't think its there!

... and so it goes !!

Politics and Presbytery

As a few members of the PC(USA) know, the past General Assembly (GA) passed some amendments to The Constitution of the PC(USA) and sent them to the Presbyteries for ratification. Most of these concerned the Book of Order (BoO), and were somewhat minor.

However there is a major amendment that addresses the usual Elephant in the Room. Now I fully expected for the usual groups, both pro and con, to put forward their advice and reasons for voting pro or con.

This is not unusual, and could be classified under providing information. However, I have heard that one group is not only providing information, but also requesting a pledge of support and vote at the Presbytery meeting.

You read right, a group is actively canvassing and requesting that the person being canvassed, pledge that they will vote in the direction the group is pointing.

IMHO, this totally violates the Book of Order:

G-4.0301d. Presbyters are not simply to reflect the will of the people, but rather to seek together to find and represent the will of Christ;

From the Annotated Book of Order, there's this bit of info under that paragraph:

Earlier Ref: (UPCUSA 1978, 93, Buchwalter v. Pittsburgh Pby): Questioning by pby of potential commissioners to GA is allowed, but voting pledges are not allowed.

Lobbying for a vote at Presbytery would (I would assume) under that same ruling. Unless a GA overturned the previous ruling without anyone's knowledge, which I doubt.

I don't care whether this group is pro or con, but this violation of polity should not go unpunished.

UPDATE - 02/08/09 - I was talking to the Pastor at Stodgy Presbyterian today, and he said that he was also contacted. What really offended him was the fact that the group was asking how he was going to vote and asking for his support, and that they were making calls like telemarketers, calling during the usual dinner time of between 5 and 7pm. Indeed, he was called from his dinner table to answer the phone and basically told the caller that the call was inappropriate, and he refused to talk with the person any further and hung up.

Just too much going on !!

I've not blogged for about 10 days. The reasons for this are many, one of which was an eye problem that I thought was cured, but returned without warning. That said, its cleared up now and hopefully, will not return.

Then there has been this election season. ARGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHH !!
Enough with the ads. Neither candidate says anything, and in order to find out what is what, you have to do some deep research. The average voter is not going to do that, they'd rather see what Jay Leno, or the Early Show has to say. I've actually heard a coworker tell me that his sister-in-law is going to vote for the Democratic candidate because she liked his wife !!!

Of all the inane reasons to vote for a candidate!! However, there are others. I'm worried that the country is more likely to go for the 'not-Bush' (that is Democratic) candidate, in much the same way that in 2000, people voted for the 'not-Clinton' (that is GOP) candidate because they're tired of what Bush has wrought.

Again trying to find out more about the candidates' positions is aggravating. Even when you go to their websites, the candidates really don't give answers that you can find easily. You can go to the tax reform site setup by the Democratic candidate to find out 'how much you could qualify for' under his plan, but it doesn't tell you how we're going to have to pay for it??

Everyone wants tax cuts, but no one wants to pay for the costs of government. Everyone knows there is fraud in goverment, but no one wants their earmarks for their favorite pork pie cut. The unions want to pay less for insurance, but they don't want their taxes raised, but who will help pay for the insurance that the Democrat is espousing.

Then there's the other side. I'm glad to hear that he's going to let the estate tax changes expire, but then I'm not so sure that reducing tax rates right now is a good idea. We need to have income to pay the national debt, and we won't get that by reducing tax rates anywhere.

In the meantime, foreign investors are buying up what they can, because the economy is in a downturn. Hey, why should they go to Neiman Marcus (European companies), when they can shop at K-Mart (USA)??

Final thought on elections ... QUIT THE ROBOCALLS !! I got calls from Obama, McCain, one of the state's Senators, even the Atty General of the State all asking for my support. I'd be flattered, except all they do is take up my time spouting the same drivel I'm trying to avoid on TV (thank God for DVRs).

Can you tell I'm sick and tired of all of this. I voted for McCain for a number of reasons:
1. He's a decorated Navy vet. He's had command responsibility, he knows about war, and also knows that you shouldn't take on two areas at once. The biggest problem of the past 8 years was that "W" did not finish the task he started in Afghanistan, but had to show Hussein who was boss (my emphasis). If we were on a war footing as in WW II, we'd have no problem with the manpower nor the supplies to keep going full tilt in both areas. The fool didn't do that, nor did he get good advice (or got it and didn't listen) to find Osama bin Laden first and neutralize that threat. I fully believe that John McCain would do what is needed to extract us from Iraq, and find bin Laden, and do it swiftly and efficiently.
2. He's a known quantity. All of his skeletons are out of the closet (No pun intended). There is nothing for him to hide, as its mostly all known. As one pundit put it this past Sunday: "why are people prepared for vote for a man where whole years of his life are not being explained or explored?". Its what I don't know that I'm afraid of.
3. He's not Bush! I know, that refutes what I said I was worried about initially, but in this case I meant it to mean that McCain "has been there". He wasn't flying F102's in Texas keeping that state from being invaded by the Commies during Vietnam, he was 'in theater' risking life and limb, and getting captured for it.
4. I happen to like the Separation of Powers between the Executive, the Congress and the Courts. Having a President and a Congressional majority of the same party would tend to negate any check and balance that having the President of one party and the Congressional majority of another would give us, the common people. FWIW ... after this election, we'd have 2 years of a House and/or Senate rubber stamping whatever the President and/or Congress wanted to do. A lot can be done in two years that could never be undone, after all, Congress hardly ever eliminates a program once they start it !!

OK ... such is my election day rant for today. I'm not going to post tomorrow in case I'd have more to rant or crow about.

And so it goes ....