Rural and Small Churches--Everywhere!

Straight AheadFor most of my ministry, I have been serving small churches. I did not necessarily start out to minister in small churches, but that is where God has placed me. In any case, it has been a rewarding ministry. However, I see problems with rural and small churches everywhere in virtually every denomination. The problem is not that these churches are rural or small, but they are largely neglected by the denominational judicatories of which they are a part. Large churches are not necessarily better than small ones. They aren't necessarily doing a better job of faithfulness to their ministry, and they aren't necessarily more faithful to the gospel. Too often, however, the idea seems to be that if small churches could just go to a large church and see how they do it, then the small church could learn from the large church and "get it right." To be sure, there are small churches who are insular, seemingly reluctant to grow, and not very aggressive in evangelism. Some of them are not very concerned about outreach or excellence in ministry; but the same could be said of medium-sized or even some large churches. The major problem is that while regional and national governing bodies of denominations purport to believe that the small church is important, the rural and small churches are often not a high priority. They often settle for part-time or inexperienced ministers, and they can only pay a minimum salary which can work a hardship on a minister's family. There is a solution to this problem. Denominations need to develop strategies for strengthening their rural and small churches. Funding priorities need to be shifted so that more rural and small churches can pay more realistic salaries to ministers. Denominations need to provide incentives for church growth and help the rural and small churches meet growth targets. Other ways can be found for funding effective, full-time ministry and programs in the small churches. The rural and small churches are major aspects of the mission of the church. In most denominations, the vast majority of churches have under 100 members. Renewal of this large body of our collective witness, which represents a great cross-section of Protestantism from urban and multi-cultural to farming and suburban, is absolutely essential if the mainline church is again to represent a viable statement of Christianity in the western world. If properly and prayerfully conceived, some of these small churches will not be quite so small, either!

It's Not About the Culture, but the Bible:

Straight AheadWe live in a society that generally finds virtue in being moderate, middle-of-the-road. Sometimes, that's acceptable. When it comes to issues of right and wrong, however, being "down the middle" isn't good enough. Too often, those of us who are Christians have chosen to substitute loyalty to an institution for loyalty to the Church Universal, to Christ, to the Word of God. One example is the issue of homosexuality wich is now causing such a stir in most mainline Protestant denominations. As I have been pointing out, my own denomination, the Presbyterian Church, (USA), has recently given congregations and regional governing bodies more leeway in the ordination of practicing and self-acknowledged gay and lesbian persons to the offices of deacon, elder, and ministers of the Word and Sacrament. Yet, when we look closely at Bible passages such as Romans 1:26-32, 1 Timothy 1:8-11, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and other passages in the Old and New Testament, we have to ask ourselves what possible biblical warrant could there be for changing our understanding of this practice and lifting our prohibition against gay and lesbian officers in the church. We hear people say that the Bible should be interpreted differently, or that it should be viewed in the context of the culture in which it was written. Some are even bold enough to suggest that we need to go "beyond the Bible" for daily direction in matters of faith and practice. Would these people prefer that our modern secular culture set the standards for daily living in matters of morality? It ultimately comes down to our view of Scripture. I believe that the Bible is the Word of God. As a ministerial colleague has said, "Is it more likely that the church has been wrong for two thousand years on the issues of biblical morality, or that those who have emerged in the last generation with a new approach are perhaps seeking to revise the laws of God for their own purposes? Sometimes, going "down the middle" is not possible when matters of moral principles and eternal truth are at stake. This is the last entry I will make for a while dealing largely with the matter of homosexuality; but remember that the principles I've laid out here and in previous entries do not just apply to homosexuality, but to the whole range of Christian truth concerning biblical morality and the Christian life. If we lose sight of our spiritual integrity, our responsibility to behave in a godly manner, our need to uphold biblical standards, and our commitment to speak and write for biblical principles, then we have compromised our Christian faith and witness to the point where it will be barely distinguishable from the lifestyle of the secular culture which surrounds us.

After 31 Years:

Straight AheadIt was exactly 31 years ago tonight that I was ordained to the ministry in Oakland Heights Presbyterian Church, Meridian, Mississippi. From the world's perspective, it doesn't make much sense for God to call a blind man into the ministry. But then, that just illustrates how God can demonstrate His power in the weakest people. I was ordained by the old Central Mississippi Presbytery of the PCUS--then the Southern branch of the mainline Presbyterian Church. At about the time I'm writing this, Mr. Topham, my long-time mentor, was probably preaching the ordination sermon. He preached another installation sermon for me about five years later. Like so many who were there that night, he's no longer with us. Many family members were there, of course, some of whom are no longer alive. My cousin Susan was playing the organ. We had a wonderful celebration dinner afterwards at a place that was an institution in Meridian at that time. The only really unfortunate aspect of the whole thing was that Lydia, my future wife, was not with us. I saw her a month later, and we spent about a week together with my parents in Nashville, Tennessee. In January of the following year, 1976, we were married. I don't know that I have any truly profound thoughts on this particular night. Since I have just started this blog, however, I did want to take a moment to reflect on some of the things that have given me courage and comfort over the years. For one thing, I've always had a pulpit from which to preach. God has been very gracious to Lydia and me on that point. I truly do not deserve the least of His mercies. For another thing, I know that I have made mistakes; but I take comfort in the fact that when the big decisions have had to be made, I believe I have truthfully sought the will of God; and I did the best I knew at the time. I have tried to live my life and exercise my ministry according to principle over pragmatism when the two were in conflict. Sometimes, I'm sure I made wrong decisions. Sometimes, I'm sure I mis-applied my principles; but I tried to make sure that my decisions were grounded in a genuine theological and biblical context. I can also say that whatever ups and downs I have had in my ministry, whatever errors in judgment I may have made, my marriage to Lydia has been one of the happiest aspects of my life. That was one decision I made that was absolutely right! May God get the glory for that! I've done some very interesting things. I spent ten years in the Evangelical Presbyterian Church and understood why I cannot encourage most contemporary worship. I spent two years in Maine as a pastor of the United Church of Christ and was reaffirmed in my growing conviction that God wanted me back in mainline Protestantism. And now, I have the chance to make contacts and new friends all over the world through email, this blog, and other means of which I am no doubt not even aware yet. My ministry has been vastly different from what I expected when I graduated from Princeton Theological Seminary 31 years ago. I have a very genuine sense that because of the present situation in my denomination, the Presbyterian Church, (USA), and because of my own convictions, interests, and stage in my personal ministry, I am on the edge of some things that will be more exciting and more unpredictable than anything up till now. Through this blog, I hope to take many of you on the ride. I know that I need an increased dose of healthy spiritual discipline so that I will be clear about where God is leading me and what He wants me to do. But I know that in His care, I can keep going in the direction indicated by my blog title--Straight ahead!

It's Not the Sin, It's the Standard:

Straight AheadIn the Presbyterian Church, (USA), Book of Order, there is this statement under heading G6.0106b: "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. Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament." This is the standard regarding personal sexual conduct that is required for ordination in the PC(USA.) Is sexual sin the worst sin that a Christian can commit? Are these kinds of sins the ones mentioned most often in Scripture? The answers to these questions might be interesting to ponder, but are really irrelevant. It's not the sin, but the standard which is the important point. In the catalogs of sin and vice to be found in the Bible, we discover a variety of misdeeds and transgressions of the law of God. Is it fair to designate one particular type of behavior as making a person unfit for ordained office in the PC(USA?) After all, the Book of Order doesn't say anything about drug addiction, robbery, murder, lying, covetousness, or cursing. It certainly must be admitted that this so-called "fidelity and chastity" amendment was not even a part of the Book of Order until 1996. No doubt, there were plenty of possibilities for the ordination of folks whose sex lives didn't necessarily match up with these standards. The church believed in 1996 that this one area was where the line must be drawn most clearly--not only because of the increasing presence of gay and lesbian persons, but also because of the increasing influence of the "sexual revolution," casual sex, and other forms of sexual immorality. Paul, in several of his epistles, singled out sexual sins--not because sexual sins are necessarily worse than other sins, but because they are so terribly obvious and so prevalent, and because they pervert the very order of creation and the process of life itself. Some will say that it is very unfair to single out one lifestyle for special treatment. After all, shouldn't a gay or lesbian person be able to live with whomever he or she desires without forfeiting the opportunity to serve the Lord as a church officer or minister? To that, I would answer that the Christian life is not usually the easy way. From our sinful human perspective, it will not always seem fair. However, it is the way of the cross. If we are truly Christian, then the path of discipleship is the path God has called us to travel. It is not a matter of saying that one sin is worse than others; but it is the standard our denomination has adopted regarding ordination to the offices of elder, deacon, and minister of Word and Sacrament. Anyone who cannot, in good conscience, affirm that this is the standard by which they will seek to live, should not seek ordination to office in the PC(USA.) It is not simply a minor point of doctrine with which one may "scruple." It is an essential point of conduct to which one should gladly give assent.

It's Not the Orientation; It's the Vehavior:

Straight AheadAs I continue to try to clarify the issues in the situation regarding the ordination of gays and lesbians in the PC(USA), I need to say that it isn't a matter of sexual orientation, but of behavior. I hope that these thoughts will not only help clarify the issue for me, but may help others as well. I am not a sociologist, biologist, geneticist, or psychologist; so I do not know to what degree sexual orientation is inherited, nurtured, chosen, or acquired by some still undefined process in each individual. I do know that I never consciously chose to be heterosexual. I also tend to believe that there is some kind of continuum or sexuality scale, and that few of us are probably altogether heterosexual or homosexual. We may all hvae some traits of both, with one orientation as dominant. In the overwhelming majority of cases, that sexual orientation is heterosexual. It isn't primarily the orientation that concerns me, however, but the behavior that is the subject of the debate. In the Presbyterian Church, (USA), the Book of Order requires that ordained officers live in fidelity if married and in chastity if single. Our sexual orientation, just like other proclivities, may be a fact of our lives that we cannot change. Even the best scientists and medical experts are still not certain on this point. What is certain is that we can choose how to respond, how to handle the behavioral patterns of our lives. A heterosexual does not have to give into lust. A person prone to addicition must learn how to control or deal with that addiciton. This is what the "fidelity and chastity" amendment is all about. People often claim that therapies which seek to convert or reprogram homosexuals are not successful--that the sexual orientation cannot be changed by any kind of psychological or spiritual therapy. (I have seen conflicting evidence on this point; but in one sense, it doesn't really matter whether various types of therapies change the sexual orientation of the individual.) The question would be whether or not such therapies can alter the behavior of such individuals. On that point, the conclusions are more apparent. Work has been done by Christian groups and others that suggests that the sexual behavior of such people can be modified--even if the orientation may not be. What our Book of Order forbids is the ordination of practicing, unrepentant, self-avowed homosexuals. If this standard is not upheld, it will also open the way to the ordination of heterosexuals who are openly and unapologetically living together without the benefit of marriage. This is certainly not the kind of lifestyle we want to encourage--if for no other reason than the message it sends to young people in the church. Whether we are talking about heterosexuals or gays and lesbians, the issue is the practice of a lifestyle that is beyond the bounds of biblical Christianity. This represents a serious departure from historic Presbyterianism and biblical Christianity.

It's Not About Love, but Integrity:

Straight AheadThe Presbyterian Church, (USA), is still dealing with questions surrounding the ordination of gay and lesbian persons. This struggle is now entering a new phase in our denomination; but it is also absorbing the energy of other mainline denominations. Periodically over the next few days, I want to make some comments to help define or clarify what I see as the real issues in this newly emerging situation. I believe that my comments will be relevant, not only to Presbyterians, but to Christians in general, as we seek to deal with a new era in our society. And while I am primarily addressing issues related to homosexuality, I think these observations may be helpful as we seek to deal with other controversial issues in the church and society at large. First, we need to understand that it's not about love, but integrity. I have a lesbian friend and I know people who are gay. I do not hate them. I am not homophobic. The issue regarding our current Constitutional situation in the PC(USA) is not about love, but integrity. When pastors and churches were leaving the PCUS to form the Presbyterian Church in America in the early '70's, they were accused of being unloving. Later, when people in the North and the South were joining the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, they were urged to do the "loving thing," and stay within the PC(USA.) Now, we're hearing the same thing. The implication is that if you leave the PC(USA) to join another denomination, you simply don't have enough love. This argument may tug at the heart-strings and send a few people on a "guilt trip," but it simply isn't true, and it isn't fair. If I oppose the ordination of people who are deliberately practicing a lifestyle of which I disapprove, that does not necessarily mean that I do not love those people. If someone joins another church or denomination, it doesn't necessarily follow that the person no longer loves me or my church. I know ministers who, for a variety of reasons, have served pastorates in several denominations, but who would hardly be accused of being unloving. I love Christians who are Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, United Church of Christ, and several different brands of Presbyterian. I disagree with them on points of theology--sometives vehemently --but could hardly be accused of not loving them just because we are theologically different. The suggestion that if someone takes an action based on their understanding of theology or Scripture, they are deficient in love is a dangerous and heartbreaking conclusion. It is a rush to judgment that no one has the right to make. No, the issue is integrity. How can people, on both sides of the issue, carry out their Christian commitment with integrity? This is always the important question when significant issues are being decided. Can a person who believes a decision to be wrong still, in good conscience, be a part of an institution, even though it may be seriously flawed? How does one square personal conscience with the judgment of the collective body? There are those on both sides of this particular issue who feel that the church has made a grievous mistake. Some believe that the PC(USA) has gone too far with this decision, while others believe that injustice and discrimination still pervade the church. They desire to live out their Christian calling to ministry and discipleship in faithfulness to Jesus Christ and to Almighty God. How can we say that if God is leading them in different directions they are automatically lacking in an attitude of love? That is a rather harsh judgment that smacks of self-righteousness and condescension. I am not advocating that anyone leave the Presbyterian Church, (USA.) I am truly saddened by the membership losses our denomination has already suffered and expects to suffer in the next eighteen months. I am equally saddened, however, by the insistence on the part of some that when a person acts out of a strong conviction based on an understanding of Scripture and the standards of this church, that such a person is acting in a haughty spirit or an attitude of pettiness. If we lose our integrity, then our whole Christian witness is shattered. Few of us claim to have all the answers; but if we fail to act on the light we do have, we deny the work of the Holy Spirit in our own souls. There is always the possibility that we could be wrong; but that is no excuse for doing nothing. If I were never willing to risk being wrong, I could never preach another sermon. I love many with whom I disagree; but I must also serve my God with integrity. Without integrity, even our love is tarnished.

Ephesians 2:11-22, July 170-23, Year B:

Straight AheadIn this chapter of this marvelous epistle, Paul speaks of the transformation which takes place when someone receives Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. First, in 2:11-13, Paul reminds his readers of the condition of the Gentiles before the gospel message was brought to them. (Most of the Ephesian Christians were Gentiles.) Being Gentiles, they were not part of the covenant. They did not know the law of God. They were not part of the household of faith. That is exactly the condition of anyone today who does not know Christ. What was needed was a reconciliation--but not a humanistic reconciliation, not just a reconciliation of one person to another. This is the kind of reconciliation that Christians have increasingly emphasized in recent years. Reconciliation between races and among people became the keynote of confessional statements and church pronouncements. This kind of reconciliation was one of the driving forces behind the ecumenical movements of the past 40 years. As important as the reconciliation among people may be, it is not the primary reconciliation that is needed in the world today; and it is not the type of reconciliation of which Paul is speaking here. Paul is urging the reconciliation between human beings and God! That's the kind of reconciliation that Jesus Christ brought by His birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension. That's the kind of reconciliation that ultimately brings nations together and breaks down the barriers of separation. We need this kind of reconciliation because we have committed sins against God. We have missed the mark. We have fallen short. The problem today increasingly is that we don't even know what the mark is that we've missed, or what target of which we've fallen short. So we are faced with several obstacles to a right relationship with God. In Ephesians 2:14-17, Paul shows how our position is changed by the blood of Christ. Our relationship with God is changed--not by mysticism, not by ethics, and not by good works. We are in a new relationship with God because Christ becomes our Peace. True spiritual unity can come only through Christ. Being in Christ is the only way genuine peace can come to a world torn by sin. Being in Christ is the only way truly to worship God or be in fellowship with Him. In Ephesians 2:18-22, Paul contrasts the tragedy of hopelessness without Christ with the new relationship we have in Christ and with other believers. In Christ, we are built on a solid foundation, joined together brick by brick. It is not good enough to be near the kingdom; we must be in His kingdom. We are saved for heaven, the place of our true citizenship; but we are to be the church here on earth. Do we truly desire to be with Him forever? Are we strangers in church now? Where do we feel more at home--in Sunday morning worship, or at a party with non-Christian friends? It is not just a matter of escaping eternal punishment, though the Bible definitely teaches eternal punishment for those who do not know Christ as Lord and Saviour. It is a matter of desiring God and fellowship with Him for its own sake. It is a matter of truly being part of the family. Do you belong to Christ?

"This is Where I Stood"

A story is told of an incident that occurred during the War Between the States. It seems that a beleaguered river port town in Florida was about to be overrun by the Union troops. Few men were left in the town because most of them were away in the Confederate Army. There were some elderly men; but the defense of the town was largely in the hands of young students in a local military academy. They lined up on the banks of the river with their meager weapons to defend their little town. As the Union troops approached and noticed the helplessness of the young boys, many of whom were not even teen-agers, the Union troops relented. Years later, one of the boys who had taken part in the memorable events of that day, would greet visitors at the river's edge. Now an old-timer, he would plant his cane solidly in the ground and say, "This is where I stood." We might laugh at that story, at that old man. And yet, look at your own life today. There are issues and battles all around us, choices to be made, struggles to be fought. Can you look back proudly over the years of your life? Will you be able to look back on the decisions you make today and the battles you fought or the compromises you made, and say, with a sense of satisfaction and a clear conscience, "This is where I stood?" We cannot always be successful; but by God's grace, we can, at least, be faithful!

The Name of This Blog:

You may be curious about the name of this blog.  Well, does anyone remember Joe Pyne.  He was one of the first well-known national talk show hosts.  I think he worked out of the San Francisco area during the '60's.  He didn't take phone calls.  I think his show was pre-recorded.   And one of his specialties was antagonizing his guests.

 

For some reason, as a teen-ager, I enjoyed listening to him.  And he would end every show by saying, "This is Joe Pine.  Thanks for listening, and straight ahead!"

 

I loved that ending!  For me, it suggested a straightforward style that wasn't intimidated by anything or anybody.  I kind of adopted that line myself--especially during my college days.  And from time to time, I would come back to it!  That's what I want this blog to be--straightforward and clear!  Of course, it won't all be deadly serious or confrontational.  But I hope it will be----Straight ahead!  

Straight ahead!  See my blog at:   www.noblindbluff.blogspot.com