Representation Redefined:

The concept of representation is of special importance in our understanding of government.  While I am particularly writing with the Presbyterian Church, (USA) in mind, this article should be of interest to anyone who is concerned about what is happening to the idea of representation in our society.  We seem to be losing sight of the true nature of representation.

 

Let's start at the beginning.  In the Presbyterian system of government, elders are elected by the members of the congregation to administer the affairs of the church.  These elders comprise what is called the Session.  The Session sends representatives to the presbytery.  The presbytery sends representatives, called commissioners, to meetings of the synod and General Assembly.  Our Book of Order says:  "Presbyters are not simply to reflect the will of the people, but rather to seek together to find and represent the will of Christ;...." (G1.0300d.)    This is true.  In fact, we could hope that any Christian in a position of public trust would seek to know and obey the will of Christ over against the will of humankind.

 

In G9.0100 of the Form of Government, we read this: "The Presbyterian Church, (USA), shall be governed by representative bodies composed of presbyters, both elders and ministers of the Word and Sacrament." Now, we run into a problem.  In what sense shall they be representative?  Of whom shall they be representative?

 

Obviously, these bodies are to be inclusive in terms of gender and race, as the chapter makes explicit.  Also, it is clear that these governing bodies are to be representative, in the sense that they represent the church, as has been stated in preliminary principles of our government.  Is this, however, the extent of representative government within the Presbyterian Church, (USA.?) The founders of Presbyterianism surely had something more in mind.

 

In almost all of our presbyteries today, commissioners to meetings of synods and the General Assembly are chosen by a nominating committee using various rotation formulae and criteria which have little to do with genuine representation.  These choices are based on things like geographic distribution within a presbytery, length of time since a church has been represented, length of service of a particular minister, balance of small churches and large churches, or other factors.  Nominations from the floor are usually strongly discouraged.  Awareness of a potential commissioner's thoughts on any of the likely issues is seen as irrelevant to the process.  This is not representative, in any meaningful sense, and it is not Presbyterian.

 

Before non-Presbyterian readers of this piece conclude that this has no significance for you, let me remind you of the increasing plea for "proportional representation" in many parts of our political ;process.  Political turf is increasingly being seen as the province of a certain race, gender, ethnic group, or even religious affinity.  And consider the controversy now building in Hawaii about what is called "native rule."

 

 It is certainly true that we should seek the will of God rather than simply represent the will of our fellows; but the assumption that somehow we cannot do this if our elected commissioners are freely chosen is strange, to say the least.  Most of us who are ministers or elders have convictions or at least strong opinions that have developed over years of being involved in the life of the church and seeking to follow Christ.  Am I suddenly going to go to General Assembly with a blank slate?  Hardly.  Yes, I may change my opinions about an issue--but not because I've never been listening to the Holy Spirit until the day I walk into  a meeting of General Assembly!  

 

Special interest groups from all across the theological spectrum will be at General Assembly meetings, seeking to inform and influence commissioners as to how to vote.  Hundreds of denominational officials from Louisville and across the nation will be there as observers or presenters, seeking to gain my support or build a consensus.  Am I to assume that these are the "voice of God?"  Clearly, the idea of choosing our commissioners to synod meetings and meetings of the General Assembly by what amounts to a glorified lottery system is unfounded.

 

I voice this concern, not so much because of the outcome of any one vote or any one General Assembly.  (I have been concerned about this ever since I entered the ministry 31 years ago.)  Still, if we look at just one issue--the recent adoption of the report by the Joint Task Force on the "Peace, Unity, and Purity" of the church, we can readily see the problem.  For the past ten years, our Book of Order has contained what is called the "fidelity and chastity" amendment, G6.0106b, which states: "Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church.  Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness."  In the last referendum of the presbyteries on this amendment, 73% of the presbyteries voted to retain this language in the Book of Order.  Yet, at this year's General Assembly, while still affirming this amendment by an overwhelming majority, also,    by a vote of 57%, adopted an authoritative interpretation which changes significantly the way our denomination will deal with fidelity and chastity issues in the years to come.  Is the will of God in conflict?  Do we simply change our views to eliminate hard choices?  How is this, in any sense, representative government?

 

The Session of First Presbyterian Church, in Jackson, Alabama, the church of which I am pastor, is very likely to submit an overture to our presbytery to devise a new system for the selection of presbytery commissioners to meetings of the synod and General Assembly.  I would hope that every Session and every presbytery would do the same thing.  The system can take into account legitimate concerns of gender and ethnicity, but needs to be more free and open, accounting for different viewpoints and perspectives, and giving presbyters a real voice in choosing their representatives to the higher governing bodies.

 

I do not believe we should instruct our representatives as to how to vote.  I believe we should always be seeking to know and obey the will of God, in every aspect of the Christian life.  I sometimes hear people defend the current system of choosing commissioners by affirming their trust in the decency and spiritual commitment of those they send to the higher governing bodies.  I do not doubt the sincerity of these people or the good will that is intended.  I do, however, have serious doubts about how a governing body can truly be representative or legitimate if it is chosen as a rubber stamp and only superficially reflective of the presbytery who sends it.  We must honor true Presbyterian principles of government.  The only way we can do that is to give voice to our principles of doctrine as they affect the decisions our governing bodies make.  Join me in making the Presbyterian Church, (USA), truly Presbyterian and representative again!--The Rev. Mr. Daniel Berry, First Presbyterian Church, Jackson, Alabama.

 

            

Ephesians 1:3-14, July 10-16, Year B:

This is one of the most magnificent passages in the whole of Scripture, in one of the grandest books of the whole New Testament.  It is as though in the letters to the Corinthians and Galatians, we have been dealing with all the necessary and practical aspects of church life--administration, discipline, misunderstanding, conflicts--and then, we come to this epistle, as though Paul is holding a Bible conference, and finally teaching some of the most glorious truths of the faith.

 

We are chosen, predestined, adopted--and all according to the plan of God, which has been unfolding since the foundation of the world.  These verses speak of our election and God's sovereignty.  Some want to make this passage simply say that Christians in general are the recipients of all  these things, not individuals.  But I see no warrant for that interpretation.  Paul is not just talking about the church collectively here.  He is talking about God's choice and blessing of us individually as well as collectively as the body of Christ, the church.  God's choices have always been personal and individual--Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Christ's choice of the disciples, His choice of you and me.  This is the comfort and the assurance of these wonderful spiritual blessings of which Paul speaks.

 

It is also the reason why we must remain so humble and watchful.  We are embraced by His grace.  His love for us is personal; but it is not based on anything we have done.  We cannot take any of the credit.  We dare not feel proud or superior.  It is all of grace.

 

As I write this, I'm thinking of people who are constantly beset by feelings of worthlessness and hopelessness.  I am thinking of people who are confused, stricken with grief, disappointed with life.  Yet, if they, or you, are a Christian, you can already have the assurance of knowing that you are embraced by His grace.  It has been decreed by the King.  As the old country gospel song says, "That old account was settled long ago."

 

But you may be asking:  "What about the people who are not Christian?"  We do not know but what they too are embraced by His grace, and just don't know it yet.  If someone is seeking, is yearning, is being moved to ask these questions, the chances are that such a person is being drawn by the Holy Spirit.  The key is that such a person must not resist the working of the Holy Spirit.  There will come a time that there resistance will become habitual.

 

I once counseled a young woman named Mary.  She said that one of the reasons she came to me was because I was blind.  She was so ashamed of her looks, her clothes, and especially of the tears she could not hold back.  Her main problem was that as a teen-ager, she had walked away from God, from the claims of Christ on her life.  Through her sobs, she wondered, "How can God love me now?  I've walked away from Him once.  How do I know He'll take me back?"  She believed in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Saviour of sinners; yet, she still had lingering doubts about the love of Jesus.  

 

I tried to assure her that the fact that she was even asking the question, and that she was agonizing over it so much, was a clear indication that the Holy Spirit was working in her life.  If God had abandoned her, if the Spirit wasn't working in her life, she wouldn't even be concerned about such things!  

 

In later years, I have thought of so many other things I could have said to Mary.  I certainly referred her to this Bible passage, and many others.  I can't say for sure, however, that she ever fully understood what I was trying to tell her during our several weeks of conversation together.  I pray that at some point, she realized the embrace of God's grace.  And I pray that for you today.--Daniel.

 

   

All-Star Game and Championships:

The major league All-Star game used to be of great interest to me.  I'd really get excited about it.  Lately though, it seems to have lost some of its luster.  Maybe that's because I wonder if the managers are really trying to win the game, or just use all their players.  Maybe it's because the National League hasn't won in ten years.  (They came so close last night, and then blew it.)  And even since that tie several years ago, it just hasn't been quite the same.

 

The lords of baseball came up with the bright idea of declaring the winner of the All-Star game the league that would get home field advantage for the World Series.  That's a bad idea--no better then the alternating home field advantage we had for years.

 

To my mind, the team with the best regular-season record ought to get home field advantage for the World Series--just like in the NBA or NHL.  Fact is, I don't see why that wouldn't work for the Super Bowl, too.  Sure, some years, one league has more talent than the other; and the team with the best record might have been playing weaker teams.  But the balance is not a constant.  Besides, that can happen in any league, any sport.  Nope, as far as I'm concerned, if you've got the best regular-season record, you get home field advantage for as far as you can go in the play-offs, including World Series and Super Bowl!  For now: Straight ahead!

 

Costa Rica:

Straight AheadSomebody sent me a very interesting article a few days ago about life in Costa Rica. In fact, the person who sent it may well be reading this blog. If so, thanks again for the article. It was very interesting. Apparently, Costa Rica would be a pretty good place to live. Daily living expenses and housing costs are low. Good health care and high-quality consumer goods are relatively accessible. The country is stable. English is one of the official languages. The climate is outstanding. What's not to like about that? I even told Lydia, my wife, all about it. And I'm thinking, "Maybe I'll move there when I retire." But later, I had another thought. Surely, I'm not the only person to have such an idea. Obviously, I wasn't the only person to read this article. So lots of other people are going to have the same thought I had. And they're going to move down there. Housing costs will rise. The country will become more of a target by terrorists. Next thing you know, the price of consumer goods and property will soar, and national instability will set in. Medical care will become snarled in bureaucratic red tape. All the things the people wanted when they moved down there will become a thing of the past. It'll be just like here. (Well, no, not exactly. They won't have Bill Clinton.) I still may move down there, but I'd want to visit first. I know what happens to paradise when too many people start discovering it.

Love and Affection, Tears and a Barefoot Woman

Straight AheadIt was over 25 years ago. We heard a knock on our door. It was about 2:00 in the morning. It almost seemed like a dream. We didn't get up to answer. Later in the week, however, we heard about a young woman who had been seen running down our street, barefoot, sobbing. She told someone in the neighborhood that she had been raped. My heart went out to her. There's no way of knowing if she was the one who knocked at our door, but I wished we had opened it. We have almost lost the capacity to love in our society. We are afraid of showing affection because someone might file a lawsuit. We're afraid to speak of love because people often attach only a sexual meaning to love. It's hard to take a risk for the sake of love. We might be called gay or weird. What is love, anyway? Christians talk a lot about love, but they don't really know much about what it is. We know something about love within the family. Yet, even in that context, Christians seem to do only slightly better than the rest of society. Love means that the happiness and welfare of the person you love is more important to you than your own. It means that you care enough to be willing to be vulnerable, and to let the other person be vulnerable. It means that no matter what comes to light about you or the person you love, the love will remain. Love doesn't condone wrong, but it is ready and willing to believe the best until all other possibilities are exhausted. Love doesn't mean that we come to compromises that bury our principles, just for the sake of getting along with other people. It means rather that we love one another in spite, or even because of, our differences. We respect those who stand for what they believe, and are able to love them in the process. And sometimes, love means showing affection. Some people do not want to receive love in this way, except from a very select group. Others do not respond to affection, and certainly there are those times when genuine affection is not appropriate. Yet, in so many surveys and studies that have been done in recent years, the importance of human touch and contact seems more and more evident in our impersonal society where relationships are often so superficial. I think of the widow who was sitting with a group of us at lunch in the seminary campus center years ago who suddenly burst into tears and said, "The thing I miss most is physical affection." We hadn't been talking about spouses or affection; and at the time, I didn't even particularly liked the woman. At that moment, however, I wanted very much to go to her side of the table, and show her the love and affection that would at least indicate that someone cared and took her emotions seriously. As a pastor, I've been with people who burst into tears because of shame, grief, a feeling of being overwhelmed or ostricized. I have sat beside people as they weep because they feel inferior, because they can't cope with a disability, a sense of loneliness, or the sting of rejection. I've had the privilege of taking these people in my arms and showing them affection. Most of these have been women. It's more difficult for men to show or acknowledge their emotions. Yet, affection of this kind is not sexual. It is truly spiritual. It is a response to loneliness, depression, fear, hopelessness, and a host of other emotions. So many people in our society were never nurtured. Their needs for affection were dismissed, ignored. The home and family were not sources of comfort and safety, but of strife and insecurity. Stable relationships were never allowed to grow. For so many today, a hug, an embrace, a committed friend who will understand their tears and their struggles can mean so very much. I am convinced that part of the appeal of the charismatic movement is the willingness to share intimate moments in a context of Christian love and acceptance. For so many of the rest of us within the church, Christianity has become so cold that the love is almost buried beneath the respectability. Certainly, we acknowledge the need for boundaries and the importance of sensitivity. But it was Jesus, after all, who encouraged us to weep with those who weep. Until we regain our capacity to do that, the love we talk about so much will seem empty. When we do our good deeds of mercy and compassion, we must do them not merely as performing a duty to one less fortunate, but truly as though we are showing the love of Christ to one for whom Christ died. From a worldly standpoint, I am puzzled as to why God would call a blind man into the ministry. Could it be at least in part because I know what it means to have those feelings of rejection and inferiority, the emotional emptiness that comes with physical limitation? I have always had a loving family--loving parents, a loving wife, an awareness of a loving God. Some only know the God who judges, who punishes. Yet, I also know what it means to hurt, to cry, to be dismissed. I think of these things often--of love, affection, tears, and that barefoot woman, that tearful widow, that lady who was ashamed of her past mistakes or overwhelmed by life and grief. I wonder how many millions need to know that somebody, that God, loves them. I cannot take them all into my arms--all the tsunami victims, all the broken women and shattered men; but I can reach some of them--perhaps even through these written words. By God's grace, this will touch someone. God's love is available. If this article has encouraged you, I hope you will leave a comment or perhaps send me an email. Let us celebrate and weep together.

God's Grace is Enough

We have all felt rejection at one time or another. I know what it feels like to be rejected. I am totally blind. I have felt rejected by church committees. When I was a child, I sometimes felt rejected by other children. As a minister, I have even felt rejection by other ministers. Rejection hurts, especially when you can do nothing about the reason for that rejection. At times, the apostle Paul felt rejection. In 2 Corinthians 12:7-9, we learn that Paul had a "thron in the flesh." We don't know what this affliction was. We don't even know whether it was physical, emotional, or psychological. We do know however that it caused some people to reject Paul, to question his apostolic authority and to undermine his ministry. Paul asked the Lord on three different occasions to remove this thorn in the flesh; but God reminded the apostle that the grace of God was sufficient. God's grace is enough. There are reasons that God gives us certain situationswith which we hvae to deal. There were reasons in the case of Paul why this "thorn in the flesh" was necessary. But right now, the point I want to make is that God will give us the strength and the grace to deal with our difficulty. Many who read this may be feeling rejected right now. You may be dealing with a particularly unpleasant difficulty--divorce, grief, sickness, loneliness, a physical handicap or emotional upheaval. It would be wonderful if we never had any doubts, if our faith never wavered and our purpose and focus were always clear. Often, however, the way is not always clear. We're not always sure that we're loved. We feel unworthy, confused, even scared. We don't like to admit these feelings because they make us feel vulnerable and weak. The apostle Paul realized that in his weakness, God would be glorified. He had to come to the point of experiencing a grand reality, knowing that God's grace would be sufficient for him. You may not even be particularly religious; but you know there are problems and difficulties that are bigger than you can handle on your own. There is a way to face your fears, your weeping, and your uncertainty. It requires us to stop trying to do everything on our own. Acknowledge God. Seek the Lord, through Jesus Christ, and accept His love. You will feel rejected no more. God's grace truly is sufficient. Straight Ahead