It’s a Topsy-Turvy World in PCUSAville

One slightly humorous occurrence at the 220th GA surfaced during the ecumenical worship service as we were invited to join in reciting the printed words of the Nicene Creed.  All went smoothly as we spoke the words “…On the third day he rose again from the dead in accordance with the Scriptures,” but then most all of us were disoriented by a typo in the next line: “he descended into heaven….”  I kid you not — most unfortunate.  The more I thought about this, the more appropriate it seemed as an unintended display of what is wrong in our denomination — up is down and down is up.  It’s a topsy-turvy world in the PCUSA.

The first sign of this should have been apparent GA’s theme.  It was paraphrased from Isaiah 40:31 as “Walking, Running, Soaring into Hope.”  Interestingly, this phrasing reverses the flow of the text in the Bible, which reads, “Those who hope in the Lord will renew their strength; they will soar on wings like eagles, they will run and not grow weary, they will walk and not faint.”  In the context of Isaiah 40, Israel is a tired, beleaguered nation because of her spiritual infidelity, and God is calling her away from trust in idols to hope instead in Him alone.  He promises that even in her exhaustion He will be with His chosen people and carry them through their hard times.  To hope in Him means to trust in His unfailing Word; it is here in Isaiah 40 that we first read the this statement picked up again in the NT (1 Peter 1:24-25):  “All flesh is grass….Surely the people is grass.  The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever” (Isa 40:6-8).  Why the reversal of order in our GA theme?  Who knows?  My personal opinion is that the intent of the rewording was to encourage optimism for an ever brightening future, from walking to running to soaring.  This is a belief in optimism for optimism’s sake.  If we just speak what we want to see happen, it will happen — a new form of “name it, claim it” theology.  Instead of calling us back to a renewed hope in the Lord, based on the promise of His unchanging Word, we take a portion of Scripture and reword it to stir up a pollyannish optimism, because we want so badly to soar into the bright future of our own making. It’s not enough to trust that God will give sufficient strength for increasing trials to those who actively wait upon Him, and will bring us through.  Instead, we need to boost our sagging spirits by reframing Scripture for psychological reasons.  Instead of true hope in the Lord we settle for humanly concocted optimism in a future we have promised for ourselves.  Ironically, where the Word of God warns us not to trust in our human efforts but to trust in the Lord, we instead take that same Word and change its order to foster optimism by our human efforts rather than to rest by faith in what God has declared He will do.  It’s a topsy-turvy world in the PCUSA.

Though as many have commented, the final decisions coming out of this General Assembly basically maintained the status quo, my assessment is that even the right decisions were in most cases made for the wrong reasons.  The most obvious instance of this was the vote to retain our “traditional definition” of marriage.  Notice that we are not willing to acknowledge that this “traditional definition” is the biblical tradition; we want to leave open that perhaps we can redefine God’s truth and still have it be acceptable to God, or at least to the church.  By a razor-thin margin (if 16 commissioners out of 668 had changed their votes, GA would have approved same-sex marriage), marriage as the Bible and our Confessions have unequivocally defined it was spared from perversion for another two years, until our next GA.  Why did the vote go this way?  Because the scant majority was convinced by biblical and confessional evidence?  Hardly.  The primary argument was that a redefinition of marriage at this point in time would decimate the PCUSA, perhaps even eviscerate it.  Many presbytery executives were privately whispering predictions that the move to redefine marriage might mean the departure of 30-40 per cent of our congregations from the PCUSA.  This would tear the heart and soul of the denomination from the remaining skeletal structure.  “We can’t do this now.  Give us time to live into these new realities.  Perhaps in two years, Presbyterians will be ready for this progressive change,” was the advice we were hearing from moderate liberals.  Why support traditional marriage?  Not because it is God’s design and biblically faithful to do so, but because to support redefinition might destroy our denomination as an institution, and we must not let that happen.  The foundations of our biblical and Reformed theology may be allowed to crumble, but we must not let the foundations of our ecclesiastical institution fall apart.  It’s a topsy-turvy world in the PCUSA.

This same breathtaking blindness was seen in a ruling by our denominational constitutional “scholars”, upheld in turn by our Stated Clerk and the new Moderator of the denomination.  When the motion to approve same-sex marriage was brought to the floor of GA, it was challenged as out of order because Roberts’ Rules does not permit a motion to be considered that stands in contradiction to an organization’s constitution.  Since the first part of our PCUSA Constituion is our Book of Confessions, and the confessions speak with one voice on the definition of marriage, the motion to redefine marriage must be out of order.  Sure makes sense to the neutral observer.  But our constitutional “scholars” advised that the Confessions in general are capable of many interpretations on many subjects (though they failed to note that on marriage they are eminently clear) and so we cannot be shackled to their statements as we make decisions about how we govern ourselves with our polity.  The Stated Clerk happily announced his agreement with this ruling, and the Moderator quickly voiced his support as well.  As a result the motion was placed before the body for debate.  The stunning consequence of this decision is that we now have a ruling from the highest advisory parties in the PCUSA which declares that how we decide to order our lives as a denomination has no necessary relationship to our theology.  The Book of Confessions, though the primary part of our Constitution (as recognized by our Book of Order, which is the secondary part of our Constitution) no longer stands over the Book of Order, but rather holds the position of a quaint museum piece of what our forebears once believed.  The will of mostly theologically unschooled commissioners by majority vote now trumps the carefully crafted, deep and weighty theology of our confessional documents.  Instead of submitting ourselves in humility to the wisdom of the church down the ages, we have cavalierly decided that we, who are lightweights in terms of biblical knowledge and wisdom, nonetheless should be free to decide whatever we want.  It’s a topsy-turvy world in the PCUSA.

One last example, out of the all too many provided by this GA.  I’ve been asked by friends how our GA could have strayed so far from the gospel in pursuing a left-leaning political agenda and ignoring the time-honored, clear teachings of Jesus to go into the world and make disciples of all nations, preaching a gospel of forgiveness of sins and eternal life for all who believe.  The answer, it turns out, is deceptively simple.  Most well-meaning liberals believe with all their hearts that they are indeed pursuing the gospel.  It’s just that they have redefined the gospel.  Instead of a full-bodied message of good news that addresses salvation at all levels, they have truncated the message to be this-worldly only.  The gospel is the announcement of the Kingdom of God come here and now.  The Kingdom is seen where justice, peace, diversity, redistribution and ecological harmony are advanced.  God is no longer really needed except as the source of this vision; Jesus is irrelevant (certainly his atoning death is) except insofar as his serves as an exemplar to ”energize the base;” the Holy Spirit serves not as the One who sanctifies us increasingly into the image of Christ, but as the One to whom we can appeal subjectively to baptize our vision and to empower us to work for peace and justice.  The Kingdom of God is no longer our personal and corporate surrender to the reign of God, but the utopia where our personal definitions of what is just and peaceable and equitable and ecofriendly will ultimately come true.  It is up to us to make this utopia come to fruition.  Liberals believe that by zealously pursuing these social policy alterations they are bringing the gospel to the world, thereby honoring Jesus’ vision of life. 

That may sound wild to many, but here’s one quote from Luciano Kovacs, a young “progressive” who was the keynote speaker at GA’s Ecumenical Breakfast on July 4th: “We are addicted to economic models that are the antithesis of God’s justice, which is not a political system or a social gospel but THE gospel — the good news for the hungry is a piece of bread….A church that is not committed to God’s justice is not really a church of Jesus Christ.” The fullness of the gospel addressing the totality of our human predicament has been reduced to a plan for make sure everyone has enough to eat (and no one has too much). “God’s justice is THE gospel!” So why did Jesus come, and suffer crucifixion and death? Apparently so that no one would go to bed hungry. Full bellies for everyone! Unfortunately, such a gospel is no gospel at all. The apostle Paul has harsh words for those who make the gospel a utopian enterprise: “Many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, live as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction, their god is the belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things. But our commonwealth is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ…” (Phil 3:18-20). Godly love must entail addressing the full range of human need, not just the physical, this-worldly concerns of those in need. In light of eternity, the good news is first and foremost the offer of forgiveness, reconciliation and eternal life with God. If we crusade to wipe out poverty, hunger, oppression, pollution, prejudice, economic disparity, etc., but we fail to urge people to faith in Christ, we will have cared for their bodies and surroundings at the expense of their eternal destruction. But the liberals don’t seem to believe in the reality of hell and the need for saving faith in Jesus. Their god, it seems increasingly clear, is the belly. It’s a topsy-turvy world in PCUSAville.

Whose Hand Is Guiding Our Stroller?

I was touched during opening worship at GA last Saturday afternoon by an endearing scene that took place out of the view of most folks in the hall. A mother and toddler were standing together in the wide, smooth concrete expanse between the edge of seating and the convention hall walls about 25 feet from my seat. The little toddler would not be still, and his mom wisely let him stand behind the stroller, grasping its back and pushing it forward as he expressed the energy God so mightily worked within him. Of course, this little boy could not see anything but the back of the stroller as he pushed it for all he was worth. Naturally, he didn’t know where he was going as the front wheels of the stroller turned in sharply changing directions. This could have become problematic but for the fact that his mother was hovering behind him (without his apparent knowledge) close enough to be able to lay her hand on the stroller handle whenever it began to swerve into errant territory. He was free to follow his heart’s desire, with regular correction from his mother to keep him going where she wanted him to end up. So it is with the church and God.

Interestingly, at the end of that worship service came this charge and blessing: “Eternal God, You call us to ventures of which we cannot see the ending, by paths as yet untrodden, through perils unknown. Give us faith to go out with courage, not knowing where we go, but only that Your hand is leading us and your love supporting us; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.”

That has led me to the uncomfortable question, “How do we know that God’s hand is hovering over the handles of the stroller that we are pushing, whether the stroller of our individual lives, of our congregational communities, of our denomination?” Can we assume that since we belong to a certain group, even one that uses theologically correct language and has a long, storied history, that God is like that loving mother who watched over her active toddler, and that whatever we do in our decisions and activities, God will be there to correct our swerves and stumbles?

I can’t remember how many dozens of times here at GA I’ve heard it declared that God is with us, guiding us unerringly by His Spirit in what we are doing. It makes me wonder what gives us such assurance. In Jesus’ day the religious rulers, both priestly and lay, regularly claimed that those who followed them were following God. Jesus disputed those claims. Obviously, it’s not enough simply to assert that God is with us. And to repeat the mantra ad nauseam may lift our spirits, but it doesn’t establish the reality. So how do we know whether we can have confidence in God’s sovereign, beneficent hand upon us or not?

The key of course rests in whether our relationship with God is real or imagined. Are we children of God or impostors? None of us sinners is a child of God by nature (Paul makes it clear in Eph 2 that we are by nature “children of wrath”, “having no hope and without God in the world.” So how do we become children in God’s family, sure that He will shepherd us through life? Reformed theology, anchored in the Scriptures, teaches clearly that our status with God changes when we are linked in true faith to the only-begotten Son of the Father. In and through Jesus Christ, the true Son, we are adopted as sons and daughters into God’s family. This life-giving personal relationship with Jesus Christ manifests itself in our love and devotion to him. It is intimately connected to our desire to live under and in obedience to his will. How do we discover that will. Through his word (which in the Sermon on the Mount to be the culmination of all God’s prior revelations). In John 14:23 Jesus promises, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.” He assures the disciples of the Father’s love in 16:27: “The Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came from the Father.

Reformed theology has always maintained that true faith in Christ can be measured by increasing pleasure in and obedience to the Word of God. Believing this, we logically conclude that assurance of the Father’s love depends on our proper relationship with His Son, and our proper relationship with Jesus depends on love that is evidenced by our desire to grow in obedience to His Word. Now of course in this world none of us is always obedient to the Word of God, written and living, but we all can tell the trajectory that we are on over time. If the Scriptures are becoming less and less central in our lives, that should set off the alarm bells. If our hearts are yearning to drink deeply from the Word and live out the truth we find there in daily partnership with Jesus, then we should be encouraged.

One of my deep concerns for the PCUSA arises from the observation that the Bible is strangely absent from General Assembly deliberations, both in committee meetings and on the plenary floor. Sure, the Word is read in worship, and sermons are preached, but apart from formal times where one would expect the Word to be proclaimed, biblical input is a rare oasis in an unrelenting desert. Even allusions to Scriptural truths are few and far between. In many committees, quotations from the Bible are actually scoffed at, and those seeking to provide such input are demeaned, treated as “unsophisticated fundamentalists.” If at our national denominational gathering such is the stance we take to God’s Word, what does this indicate of our relationship with God?

It doesn’t matter how passionately we declare that God is with us, how often we recite the religious mantras of peace, justice, inclusion, love, grace, faith, concern for the poor and marginalized and disenfranchised, how proud we are of being Presbyterian, how entranced we are with social concerns, how enthralled with what our Reformed ancestors accomplished; if we have deserted the Word of God at the center of our life together, if we have no passion to grow in “the whole counsel of God” (see Acts 20:27), we are betraying the absence of a true relationship with Jesus Christ. If that is absent, we are not abiding in the love of the Father. If we are not in His love, there is no hand hovering over the handles of the stroller was are so assiduously pushing. Should that really be the case, then in spite of all our claims that God is with us, the stroller of the PCUSA will end up in the ditch, or even worse, over the cliff of destruction. May the Spirit of God hear the prayers of the faithful, and restore to us a true love for Jesus Christ and his Word.

“Integrity Matters!” — When It’s Convenient

First off, I have an apology to any who have read my last blog.  Yesterday, the Spirit convicted me that it was not my place to judge the motivations of our former PCUSA Vice-moderator as he led the communion portion of GA’s opening worship time.  Since he has not shared what was going on in his heart and mind, I was wrong to assign ill intent and to paint him in a negative light.  Christ calls us to think the best of others unless and until they give us objective evidence to the contrary.  I failed to do this, and I apologize.  Fortunately, not too many read my blogs, so perhaps I have not done much damage.  Now on to some related thoughts concerning yesterday’s happenings at GA.

Back at the 1993 GA, the leadership came up with the defensive mantra, “Theology matters!”, in response to the heretical “Reimagining God” conference in which some denominational staff had participated.  Many of us were heartened to see this emphasis, led well by our Office of Theology and Worship even up to today.  However, as the saying goes, “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.”  You can lead others to good theology, but you can’t make them embrace it.  Theology matters, but only if it is woven into our lives.  Our denomination seems to show increasingly that we don’t actually believe what we mouth.  If “theology matters”, then “Integrity matters!” as well.  We should live in accord with what we declare to be our shared convictions.  Two things occurred during yesterday’s business which bring this into question.

First was the election of the Vice-moderatorial candidate who had been selected in advance as part of the “ticket” of the new GA Moderator.  Her name is Tara Spuhler McCabe, a minister serving in the Washington, D.C. area.  Her nomination had been problematic for many because it “came out” a few weeks ago that she had conducted a same-sex wedding in the District of Columbia, something permitted by secular law in the District, but forbidden for PCUSA ministers to participate in by our church law.  When asked directly if she had performed this ceremony, she refused to answer affirmatively, instead saying only that she stood with the lesbian couple, and that her name is affixed to the wedding license as officiant.  When people use words to avoid the truth without denying it, we all know what that means.  As a minister of the church, Tara took the same vows we all do, including “Will you be governed by our church’s polity, and will you abide by its discipline? Will you be a friend among your colleagues in ministry, working with them, subject to the ordering of God’s Word and Spirit?” Nevertheless, she knowingly violated our present Constitution and spurned this vow.  That would be bad enough as is.  But having done this, she is still willing to stand as the Vice-moderator of the General Assembly of the PCUSA, serving to represent our “order” and faith in the second highest elected office of the denomination.  To the credit of some of this year’s commissioners, this lack of integrity was troubling, and so what would normally be a perfunctory confirmation vote by acclamation turned into a tepid show of support as she was elected by a 60% majority.  Still, the majority elected her, and demonstrated by their vote that “Integrity doesn’t matter,” even at the highest levels.

The second sign has to do with another minister recently in the news.  Brian Ellison appeared last night before the Middle East Peacemaking Committee to inform them of the general work of the Committee on Mission Responsibility Through Investment, which he presently chairs.  Their work is to oversee how denominational monies are invested so as to help shape ethical behavior in companies which otherwise might place profits before justice.  The activities of the MRTI Committee have generated some controversy over the years, and this year is no exception, but the integrity issue I’m concerned with lies not with them but with Brian Ellison.  He has been pastor of a congregation in MO for 13 years, and last month submitted his resignation in order to pursue a new call to serve as the Executive Director of Covenant Network, a liberal advocacy organization committed to normalizing the gay agenda within the PCUSA.  Brian also serves as a board member of the Board of Pensions of the PCUSA, which recently passed a controversial decision to extend full benefits to same-sex partners and dependents of church employees.  In his announcement letter to his congregation, Brian not only told them of his new call but “revealed” to them that he has been in a committed homosexual relationship since 2003.  Apparently, the fact that this lifestyle has been a violation of his ordination vows for all of his ministry (up until the striking of any standards from ordination vows last July) never concerned him enough to give up this behavior or to demit his ordination.  Instead, he wanted to continue in a vocation which prohibited his lifestyle, so he just flew under the radar.  Now that it is “safe” to admit, he has written this “Oh, by the way…” letter to his congregation.  On top of that, as a board member of the Board of Pensions, he apparently participated in the discussions and vote on extending benefits to same-sex partners of church employees.  We’ll never know for sure, unless he discloses this, for all their deliberations are privileged and private, but I sure hope he recused himself from the decision-making process.  What makes me doubt it is the fact that he hid his lifestyle from his own congregation until last month – why would he disclose it to a group he only meets with periodically?

Now here he is, addressing a GA committee on making ethical decisions….Integrity matters, it seems, only when it is convenient to our purposes.  Sadly, we are an unconverted denomination, perhaps like the alcoholic at the inner city mission who comes for his nightly meal but has to sit through the sermon first in order to eat.  When you talk to him, he can share with you all the essentials of the gospel, and he’ll affirm whatever you want him to as long as he can get his hot meal and then go back to his bottle.  We mouth the Reformed confessions that others risked their lives to pen, but then live in defiance of them.  I’m reminded of Jesus’ assessment of the religious hypocrites of his own day: Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said, “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men” (Mt 15:7-9 RSV).

Theology matters, but only when we say it does; integrity matters, but only when it’s convenient; words matter, but only according to our private definitions.  These seem to be the slogans of our denomination today.  Our ancestors would be ashamed.  May our Lord have mercy.

Signs of the Times? — 220th GA of the PCUSA

The 220th General Assembly of the PC(USA) in Pittsburgh kicked off today as it should — with worship of the Triune God.  Generally speaking, it was harmless enough, as far as denominational worship services tend to go.  The music was excellent, everyone seemed well-rehearsed in their parts, the liturgical dancers (how could GA worship happen without some?) were appropriately graceful.  But something seemed missing, at least to me.  After pondering this for a bit, I’ve concluded: what was missing is faith in the triune God and His gospel.

I’m not a died-in-the-wool liturgist, but I’ve never been more grateful for the Reformed eucharistic liturgy.  Had it not been for the epiclesis (prayer of consecration where the saving acts of the Triune God are remembered and praised, particularly the atoning sacrifice of Christ), for the reading of 1 Cor 11 to remind us of the meaning of the bread and wine, for the appropriate musical selections to focus us on Christ during Communion, one would have been hard-pressed to find anything distinctly Christian in the rest of the service (apart from the hymns).  But most disconcerting to me were the opening “festivities”, the subChristian sermon and the “performance” of the sacramental liturgist (of course, this last critique is highly subjective, but it is my sense nonetheless).  Let me address these in turn.

No one who has paid attention to General Assemblies in the past decade could fail to know that the symbol of the rainbow has been commandeered by the pro-gay left of the church to symbolize the inclusion of all (all the colors of the rainbow, so to speak).  Commissioners to past GAs have “flown their colors” by wearing knitted rainbow scarves or stoles or other similarly marked attire.  Never has the Office of the General Assembly in the past tipped their hand as to support or opposition to this “rainbow movement.”  Today, however, leading the formal procession down the center aisle to begin the celebration of GA worship, coming even before the procession of the cross, were two liturgical dancers dressed in white, each wearing a rainbow stole and waving streamers on poles also in the color of the rainbow.  As the procession continued, these dancers took their place at either side of the cross on the stage, and as the procession came to an end, they joined their stoles together and draped them over the arms of the cross.  I was, to use the British term, gobsmacked.  Could the GA leadership really be so brazen in their belief that homosexual behavior has now been normalized in the PC(USA) that they no longer need to hide their embrace of this position?  After the service, I asked one GA friend about this, and he assured me that he was equally shocked, but was pretty sure this was not something the GA leadership had known anything about, since the worship services are developed by the local presbytery.  He believes that the worship planners were thinking innocently of the covenant promise of God given to Noah in the sign of the rainbow, and were completely ignorant of what the symbol has come to signify within the PC(USA).  This might be a bit more believable if the service had had anything to do with Noah, or with God’s covenants in general, but such was not the case.  On top of all this, the table at which the Moderator sat while delivering her sermon was draped with a rainbow-colored cloth.  It takes a lot of faith to believe this is not what it looks like.  In the end, either the GA staff was highly negligent or incompetent in their planning of the details of this opening service, or they are firing an opening salvo to let everyone know where this Assembly meeting is headed as we debate, among other things, gay marriage and the attempt to revoke gay ordination.  Time will tell.

Cynthia Bolbach is our outgoing GA Moderator.  I like and respect her, and believe she has brought great natural wisdom and common sense to the church in her role these last two years.  I disagree with some of her views, particularly on the acceptability of homosexual ordination and on the good health of the PC(USA), but she has been fair and open in her dealings with those who disagree with her.  Unfortunately, she is not well-schooled in Reformed theology, and it showed in her sermon today.  She preached on the text of Mark 2:1-12, as she has many times in the last two years.  In this message she focused on the four individuals who brought a paralyzed man to Jesus by tearing a hole in the roof of the house Jesus was in and lowering him on a stretcher into Jesus’ presence.  What troubled me were her words (as best I can recall them), “Risk-taking disciples are the heart of the gospel.”  Her diagnosis of the church is that, though sick, it is not as sick as she once thought, and her prescription for its return to full health is that it needs its members to become risk-takers.  Now, of course, it would be a great thing if all members of the PC(USA) were to become risk-takers for Christ, willing to bring people to Christ come what may.  But this is not the heart of the gospel.  Jesus is the heart of the gospel.  Yet in Cynthia’s message there was almost no mention of Jesus, except as the one to whom disciples should bring people.  The commendable work of true disciples as risk-takers is not the heart of the gospel; it is the natural result of discovering in Jesus the Savior and Lord of all.  The gospel is all about Jesus, not about how effective we are in taking risks for him.  If Presbyterians are not already risk-takers for Christ, simply encouraging us to become risk-takers will not bring transformation.  But if we become so transfixed with the glories and attributes and promises and mercies of Jesus Christ that we believe him to be the answer to all human needs and yearnings, and the one to whom all creation should direct its worship and love, then we are more likely to want to risk our own resources, reputations, safety and friendships in the quest to bring people to Jesus for his honor and for their salvation.  The problem with Cynthia’s message, in my mind, is that she was offering a solution of human works to a spiritual problem — if only we would get up our courage and take risks to work out our denominational problems, then the church would get back on track.  But the problem is that as a church we do not know Jesus, the Jesus of history, the Jesus of the Gospels, the Jesus of orthodoxy.  Until we take our eyes off ourselves and what we can do to heal the church, and turn them onto the Sovereign Head and Lord of the church, we will never be or become anything more than a broken, human construct.  May the Spirit open our eyes before the PC(USA) implodes upon its vacuous heart.

Lastly, and most subjectively, I was troubled by our outgoing Vice-moderator’s ”leadership” of today’s eucharistic liturgy.  He seemed to be more inspired by the sound of his own voice and the timing of his delivery than by the profound truths he was mouthing, as if what really should impact us as worshipers was his performance of the liturgy than the depth of spiritual reality into which we were brought by the Spirit through Word and Sacrament.  What was missing for me was any sense that our liturgist was anything more than a Hollywood actor reading his lines for the adulation of his audience.  I could easily be wrong, misled by my own prejudices.  I hope that is the case.  May it truly be so.

I’m sure that many commissioners here felt the opening worship service was wonderful.  Perhaps I’m overly jaded; certainly I’m overly critical.  But my prayer is that if indeed the spirit of this 220th GA is lacking in faith in the triune God and His gospel, God the Father will move mightily to bring us to repentance and restored faith in His grace made manifest in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit.

More to come tomorrow!

Defeating Radical Islam — An Astounding Answer from an Unexpected Source!

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a remarkable woman.  Born into a Somali Muslim family, she endured the typical abusive environment surrounding young girls and blossoming women until finally escaping the fate prescribed by her father: being pledged in marriage to an older Somali man that she had never met and fleeing to anonymous safety in Europe.  As a refugee, Ms. Ali built her new life in Holland, ultimately becoming a Dutch citizen and then a Minister of the Dutch Parliament, championing the cause of other refugees, particularly Muslim women and children facing oppressive actions by their male relatives. As Ms. Ali learned more of the western, Enlightenment world view prevalent in Europe, she jettisoned her earlier Muslim beliefs in favor of “reason.”  She gained prominence as she teamed with film producer Theo Van Gogh to create a movie called “Submission,” dealing with Islam’s treatment of women.  Not long after, Van Gogh was gruesomely assassinated by a young Muslim man for his part in this movie.  Ayaan Hirsi Ali has lived under government or private protection ever since.  She now resides in the United States, speaks and writes regularly, and is a resident fellow of the American Enterprise Institute.  If you’d like to read about her life, you will find her own recollections and musings in her two books, Infidel and Nomad.

In her second book, Nomad, Ms. Ali makes clear that she is now an atheist, believing that reason leads inexorably to this world view.  Yet she is not militantly so.  She believes the greatest threat to the world today is radical Islam, and she speaks regularly against it, arguing that it must be decisively defeated for the world to live freely and prosperously.  Unlike many western analysts, Ms. Ali rejects the notion that moderate Muslims will be able to eradicate it, no matter how hard they try, because radical Muslims believe that anyone who denies their understanding of Islam, even ones who practice some other version of it, cannot be true Muslims.  Therefore, the views of moderate Muslims are as misguided as those of pagans or infidels.  Likewise, though governments should rightly use power when necessary to eclipse the influence or advancement of militant Islam, power itself will not bring the movement to an end, only contain it.

What then does this converted atheist believe is the one antidote to radical Islam?  The Christian Church!  Listen to these quotations from Nomad:

“I would prefer, as a fourth option, to offer Muslims who cling to the idea of a creator and eternal life a religious leader like Jesus, who said, ‘Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to god the things that are God’s,’ rather than a warrior like Muhammad, who demanded that the pious seek to gain power by the sword.” (p. 250)

“To help ground these people in Western society, the West needs the Christian churches to get active again in propagating their faith.  It needs Christian schools, Christian volunteers, the Christian message.” (p. 250)

“The churches should do all in their power to win this battle for the souls of humans in search of a compassionate God, who now find that a fierce Allah is closer to hand.” (p. 251)

“A mosque is an island of gender apartheid….The contrast with the churches I have attended in America could not be more complete.  Men and women, children and adults, people of all races intermingle. Their attire is no different from what they might wear on the streets.  There are no ablutions.  The members of the congregation take their places on long wooden benches….The central message is one of love.” (p. 252)

“They [moderate churches] need to step up to the challenge of provided new Muslim immigrants with the concept of a God who is a symbol of love, tolerance, rationality and patriotism….” (p. 253)

“Some readers may still be skeptical that the clash of civilizations can be won through religious competition.  But I know it can work because I have seen it with my own eyes.” (p. 253)

Ever since personally discovering the transforming power of the gospel, I have believed that Church holds the key to overcoming the threat of Muslim extremism, as well as to reaching all who languish under the stifling legalism of works-based justification.  But never before have I heard of an atheist who knows the ins and outs of Islam and who has some basic understanding of Christianity who then openly concludes that of all the potential victors over radical Islam only the Church can win the day — but only if the Church takes serious her mission!

More on this in my next post.

Hope for the PC(USA)? Perception Is Not Reality…. (Part 2)

Yesterday I began a response to an open letter from “the Chicago eight” concerning the future status of the Presbyterian Church (USA).  The authors’ claim is that the future of our denomination is bursting with hope, and that we disaffected evangelicals are just blind at the moment — our perception is not reality.  Today’s blog is my concluding response to that open letter.

2)  Halfway through, after attempting fruitlessly (see yesterday’s blog) to show how deeply missional the PCUSA is, the letter claims, “The PC(USA) simply has not turned its back on proclaiming Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.”  Yet the very fact that the writers felt the need to make this declaration shows the sad state of our denomination.  Who in a healthy denomination would feel the need to defend their institution from the charge that the institution has turned its back on proclaiming Christ as Lord and Savior?  Why would such a charge ever be leveled at a church that is faithfully following Christ?  Only if the charges have some prima facie support would one even tackle the question.  How sad that the authors at least implicitly recognize there is enough evidence against our institutional faithfulness to feel they have to come to its defense.  Yet what they offer as a defense is worse than flimsy.

3)  This letter urges those in congregations contemplating departure to “…insist that your leaders re-expose you to the voices of fellow Presbyterians who are resolute in their intentions to stay.  Do not allow one-sided presentations to be all you consider as you seek to discern God’s call to you and your congregation.”  Yet earlier, the authors said, ”We know that those contemplating the possibility of leaving are bathing the decision in prayer, and are genuinely seeking to discern God’s will in this.”  Is God not capable of speaking clearly to those genuinely seeking His will, who are ”bathing” their questions in prayer?  What makes the Chicago eight assume that evangelical leaders are unfair and one-sided in their presentations to their flock of these profound issues?  Why were there no similar calls to the liberal wing of the church in its single-minded and blindly one-sided push to divide the PCUSA by ramrodding a change in ordination standards?  I am offended by the implication in this paragraph that those committed to staying in the PCUSA are truly following God’s will, and those contemplating leaving are in danger of missing it.

It would seem to me that if the Chicago eight were wholly committed to seeing God’s will followed, they would equally urge those congregations that are not presently considering leaving to call on their leaders to expose them to those in the church who are resolute in their intentions to leave, so that they are not limited by one-sided determinations to stay.  The implications from the words of this letter are clear: staying is right; leaving is wrong.

4)  We are further warned not to be tempted by greener grass elsewhere because: a) such grass has its own problems; b) our grass may be regenerating in ways we haven’t seen; c) the process of jumping the fence brings heretofore unknown perils.  Beware the law of unintended consequences, and remember to count the cost before taking action (after all, we are reminded, Jesus gave us this piece of wisdom).

It is certainly true that the grass isn’t always greener on the other side.  However, often enough it is, and that is why grazing animals seek to leave their over-grazed or otherwise unhealthy confines.  In point of fact, having served in the EPC denomination for 7 years before re-entering the PCUSA in response to God’s call, I can affirm that the grass really is greener for evangelicals in that fold than it is in the PCUSA.  It suffers from none of the problems that plague our desolate pastures.  Certainly there are issues being debated in the EPC, but none of them deals with keeping or jettisoning orthodoxy.  We are told that PCUSA grass may be regenerating in ways we have not noticed.  Of course, if this is true it’s a tautology.  If there is regeneration going on, we are unaware of it because we haven’t noticed it.  This letter, however, does nothing to instill any faith in the notion that PCUSA grass is getting greener anywhere.  The most likely explanation for our not noticing any significant regeneration is that nothing significant is happening.  Indeed, overtures to this coming GA make it clear that liberals are seeking to spray the remaining grass with Roundup.  As to the warning that seeking to jump the fence brings unforeseen perils, many of those leaving have indeed discovered this.  The perils relate almost wholly to our denominational machinery doing all in its power to penalize or inflict economic and ecclesiastical harm upon those leaving.  I’ve not heard of any congregations, who having left the PCUSA in the past are now saying, “We sure wish we had stayed.”  Perhaps there are some, but they must be in the tiny minority.  If the authors of this letter are really concerned about the perils facing those contemplating departure (I am thinking specifically of our GA moderator and vice-moderator), I can tell them how they, out of the deep love they profess, could quickly eradicate the bulk of the perils involved in leaping the fence:  TAKE DOWN THE FENCE.  Why not allow free and unhindered departures for those who believe God is calling them to go?  In our local churches we allow any member to move to another congregation without putting up barriers or demanding some payment before releasing him/her.  The attitude our larger leadership has had toward churches wishing to shift membership reminds me of repressive regimes that have built border walls not to keep out illegal immigrants but rather to keep in citizens seeking freedom or opportunity elsewhere.  All the feeble arguments to justify such draconian behavior fall far short of the law of love to which God calls us all, and sully the name of Christ.  Lastly, we are called to beware the law of unintended consequences.  This is a good reminder.  Would that all the proponents of homosexual ordination and a new form of government had been given this warning and heeded it!  We would not now be facing what brings such worry to the Chicago eight.  Yet perhaps the consequences our denomination is now reaping were not unexpected or even unintended by the liberal wing.  That is between them and God.  But as the Scriptures remind us, “We reap what we sow.”  The authors of this letter also quote Scripture, reminding us of Jesus’ words to count the cost.  Though they apparently do not realize it, this is exactly what many of us have been doing, leading to the painful conclusion that to remain in the denomination we have poured our hearts and labors into and thereby lose fellowship with Jesus through disobedience is too high a price to pay.

5) Lastly, these authors tell us confidently that the “season of change” we are experiencing now is simply “…the birthpangs of a new church as it is being reformed by the Holy Spirit.”  I am astounded by what appears to me to be brazen folly.  Our denomination, like other mainlines that have trodden this path before us, is being torn asunder as faithful Christians leave in droves, and these interpreters tell us these wrenching pains are merely birthpangs caused by the Holy Spirit’s reforming work.  To many of us, these convulsions are signs of death throes, not birth pangs, and they are due not to reformation caused by following the Spirit, but to conformation caused by following a bankrupt culture.  While liberals seem eager to wheel the PCUSA to the obstetrics ward to behold a new birth, we see lying in an ICU bed a beloved denomination whose life is ebbing away from decades of addiction to deadly practices.  Time will tell whose diagnosis is correct.  But the fact that the Holy Spirit has never led the Church to embrace moral and theological positions in opposition to the Word before should offer some clues.

We are told that “reformation is strengthened by reinvesting ourselves and all of our congregations….”  But my question is, “Reinvesting in what?  In a denomination that is deaf to the leading of the Spirit, and hellbent on pursuing the life of the flesh?  To what end?  If our leadership showed any degree of repentance and remorse for leading the PCUSA to the brink of destruction, and called on evangelicals to join in reversing direction to regain our biblical footing, I would be among the front lines of response — which I’m sure would be huge.  Sadly, however, our liberal leadership seems content in its error.  This letter is just one more sign of deluded hubris.

Lastly, the letter acknowledges that “…the Church of Jesus Christ is facing a complex, turbulent time,” but that these eight elders together “…share a genuine hope for the future of the PC(USA).”  I wish I could be so sanguine about our future.  But where the church ought to experience turbulence is on the border where her life and influence clashes with that of the world, not in the middle of her heartland where peace, unity and purity ought to reign.  The turbulence we see is in the core of our institution, and when the infection causing this distress has so deeply invaded our vital organs, there is not much cause for hope.  With no other positive evidence, the Chicago eight tell us they are confident their hopes are sure because they are based on the resurrection of Christ.  But I would remind them that a rebellious Israel was confident that God would protect her from captivity or worse, even when she refused the calls of prophets to repent.  She was wrong.  A denomination that thumbs its nose at God may speak confidently of Christ’s resurrection power, but if we retain any memory of our Scripture we should not be surprised when it reaches out its hand before slipping under the waves of oblivion only to discover that the nail-pierced hand of the Savior is not there to save it.

My prayer is that these eight will listen to their own words — Perception is not reality – and see what the vast majority of  Christians in this denomination and around the world see so clearly.  Should that happen, my hope for the PC(USA) will flicker to life.

Hope for the PC(USA)? Perception Is Not Reality…. (Part 1)

Yesterday, 8 Presbyterian elders of various persuasions issued a joint letter to the many thousands of disaffected Presbyterians presently contemplating leaving the PCUSA.  The letter was a plea not to leave, saying in essence that things are not as bad as you think, that perception is not reality, that there is much going on to stir hope that God is rebirthing this denomination.  I felt this letter deserved a response, as one of those apparently misguided, disaffected members to whom it was addressed.  There is too much to cover in one reasonably-sized post, so I will offer installment one today, and post the remainder tomorrow.

Though the authors completely skirt the profound issues tearing about our denomination, they do acknowledge that we are undergoing “complex changes.” They want the disaffected to know that they love us, and want to continue to serve Christ together side by side — as long as we remain in this denomination.

I am grateful for these stated affections, but find it hard to receive love that is delivered with such a patronizing approach.  I’m sure the authors aren’t even aware of this, but the overarching message that “Your perceptions of what is going on in our denomination is not at all on target” discounts our years of experience, struggle and efforts to undo the damage done in the name of “progress” to a once great denomination.  They, of course, see the reality; we are awash in false perceptions.

This is seen even in the choice of words to describe how both sides of the debate have responded to the changes in ordination standards and in the revised Form of Government.  For those in favor of these, the departures from the past are a welcome change.  For those opposed, they feel like a betrayal.  Notice the subtle differentiation which discounts our position.  The changes are indeed a good thing, though they may feel to us right now like a betrayal.  But one day, these enlightened elders hope, our wounded feelings will pass as we too discover how wonderful these developments really are.

I would like to respond to the claim of the authors that with regard to the health of the PCUSA, “perception is not reality” — that if we only knew the facts, we would join them in tiptoeing through the tulips into a bright, new springtime of hope.  Here are some purported evidences to support their view of reality, and my counter observations:

1) “The PC(USA) is deeply missional.”  Why?  Because a) the 2010 GA reaffirmed the 2008 GA’s call to “Grow Christ’s Church Deep and Wide”; b) the 2012 GA will take up the vision to plant 1001 new worshiping communities in the next 10 years; c) there are now some evangelically-minded leaders at the GA offices level who have dreams of how to equip Presbyterians to turn things around; d) Tom Taylor (formerly an evangelical pastor, now president of the Presbyterian Foundation) “…often affirms, ‘Planting and growing congregations, proclaiming the gospel effectively, building up the church – these are at the core of who we are as Presbyterians.’”

This is slim evidence for such a bold claim — that our denomination is deeply missional!  As a Texan might say concerning a drugstore cowboy’s claim to be a successful rancher, “All hat and no cattle.”  The 2008 GA launched a glitzy campaign to grow the PCUSA deep and wide.  How successful was it?  The fact that the 2010 GA had to reaffirm this commitment should give us some clue.  The GA offices have come out with another plan, one based more on marketing hype than on substance, in my opinion, to create 1001 new “worshiping communities” in 10 years.  It’s a lofty goal, to be sure. But what constitutes a “new worshiping community”?  How long will they stay in existence?  What will make them “Presbyterian”?  What resources will be mustered for this effort?  What motivation in the present church is there to take up this challenge?

It’s true that because of significant unrest and refusal of the evangelical wing of the church to financially support the liberal agenda of the GA offices over the last decade, concessions have had to be made by the liberal leadership– the office staff has been downsized and restructured a number of times, bringing in leaders more responsive to evangelical concerns.  But after 30 years of liberals at the helm, with our denomination lying on the operating table in danger of bleeding out, is this not too little, too late?  The quotation from Tom Taylor (whom I like and respect personally), while nice-sounding, is in reality laughable.  What he says was once true of Presbyterians (close to a century and more ago), but it in no recognizable manner reflects the core of who we are as the PCUSA now or in recent memory.

Let’s look at some statistics to back up my realism: over the last decade, according to denominational statistics, the PCUSA has lost 20% of its official membership.  From the 6 years of 1999-2004, our average rate of loss was 1.5% of our total membership annually.  For the last 6 years (2005-2010), that rate has jumped to 2.6%.  That means over the last 6 years we have lost members at a 73% faster rate than over the 6 earlier years.  You may remember that in 2005, the Peace, Unity and Purity report, adopted by the 2006 GA, was made public.  To say that we have been “building up the church, growing congregations and proclaiming the gospel effectively” is to blind oneself to the data.  We have been trending from bad to worse.

As for planting new churches in the midst of closing or losing existing ones, here are the facts for the period from 1999-2010.  The PCUSA was made up of 11,216 congregations in 1999.  Over the last 12 years, we have established 248 new congregations, averaging a little over 20 per year.  In the past we used to receive at least some congregations from other denominations or from independent status that wished to transfer in.  In the last 6 years, that has dwindled down to an average of around 1 per year (these represent mostly Korean congregations wishing to affiliate with the “mother church.”)  Of course in the last 12 years we have also lost churches either to institutional death, merger or dismissal.  This number totals 1099, an average of roughly 91.6 per year.  We now stand (2010 figures) at 10560 congregations, a total net loss over the last 12 years of 656 churches.

So, how are we doing at growing the church deep and wide?  Pretty miserably, when we look at the facts.  If one were to compare our statistical trends to those of countries and their emigration rates vs. their immigration rates, I’m afraid we would mirror countries like Iran and North Korea (where people are straining to leave) more than the United States or England (where people are straining to get in).  Yet this letter tells us that we have always been missional, that this is at the core of our being as a denomination, and that great things are happening.  My response to the authors: your perception is not reality.