Debate? Deliberation? Discussion? Discernment?

Although this entry concerns my Presbyterian denomination, I urge all of you to read this.  It signals some trends in our society which should be of great concern to thinking men and women, regardless of religious affiliation.  At the October 10 meeting of the Presbytery of South Alabama, the body voted to make a radical change in the way the presbytery will be conducting its business--or not--during its meetings from October, 2007, through the spring meeting of 2008.  During those meetings, the presbytery will largely dispense with committee reports, overtures and resolutions and will only conduct mandated Constitutional business.  For the rest of the time,   the presbytery adopted a "presbytery Sabbath," for those meetings--a format in which most of the meeting time will be taken up with discernment and prayer.  The recommendation is apparently an attempt to create an atmosphere similar to that of the General Assembly's recent Joint Task Force on the Peace, Unity, and Purity of the Church.  No clear-cut issue was given as the motivating factor for this radical change in presbytery procedure.  I am aware that other governing bodies within the denomination are experimenting with similar procedures.

 

I have some practical concerns about the procedure.  An overnight stay will be necessary, since these are to be two-day meetings.  No details of the procedure have been worked out yet.  We don't know where the meetings will be or how the expenses for ministers and elders will be met.  Presumably, ministers and elders will be reimbursed by their churches, as is customary now; but the expenses will be greater.  Related to that is the fact that the presbytery has already been concerned about the lack of participation by ruling elders, even for regular meetings.  How do they expect to get more ruling elders involved for a two-day meeting?

 

My strong opposition to the idea, however, is based on far greater concerns--issues that are based on principle and a philosophical approach.   We seem to be entering a time in the church--and possibly in society at large--that devalues debate, deliberation, and discussion.  We are afraid to take responsibility for decisions, and so we seek consensus.  In the church, we seem to think that some kind of "discernment" process, stemming from group analysis, is more likely to produce valid actions and decisions, and show us God's will,  than a set of proposals rationally conceived and thoroughly discussed.  Debate is now something to be feared.  We are moving away from thought and more towards feelings, subjective discernment--based, presumably, on the idea that everybody will "feel better" about the results.

 

One of the interesting comments made during the discussion of this proposal was that people wanted an atmosphere where they could "hub someone in public, and not be embarrassed."  (I can assure you that if I decide to hug someone in public, and they are willing to be hugged, I won't be embarrassed.)

 

There are certainly times when all of us who are believers need to pause and reflect during a busy life to discern the will of God as best we can do so.  We reach many "forks in the road," and it is not always easy to know which path to take.  When I seek to discern the will of God about a difficult decision or a matter of principle, I do so through prayer and meditation, Scripture reading, and serious thought as I consider a number of factors.  I may do most of this individually.  If it is a personal matter, I will discuss it with my wife.  In any case, I may choose to consult with close friends, people I respect, or people who know and love me and care deeply about my life.  I am least likely to want to spend time with a group who are largely strangers to me and who may or may not even have much in common with my understanding of the Christian faith! In any case, the vigorous debate and intellectual stimulation which come from wrestling with issues while meeting with fellow ministers and ruling elders is hardly a hindrance to the process of discernment and serious thought!  If we use our best intellectual energy and engage in that kind of conversation in which "iron sharpens iron," are we not more likely to come to hard-fought decisions that will be of substance than if we merely try to throw every idea in a collective soup, regardless of its Scriptural merit or factual credibility?    blank      

 

To try to create an atmosphere similar to that of the Joint Task Force is artificial and unlikely to be successful.  The participants of the PUP Task Force were together for about four years and held many meetings.  The people at presbytery are likely to change over the year and are, in any event, doing something that they are required to do, not something they were appointed to undertake under very special circumstances well in advance.

 

Margaret Thatcher once said that "consensus is the negation of leadership."  Robert's Rules of Order were popularized largely because those involved in deliberations realized the failure of the consensus method.  Consensus, or the discernment process envisioned by PC(USA) idealists, serves to intimidate the minority, encouraging them to go along with things they do not approve, since there are no real Parliamentary safeguards to guarantee their right of official dissent.  It is true that in the Parliamentary model, those who are not as informed on the issues or who feel less certain of the procedure, may sometimes choose to remain silent.  The solution to this, of course, is not to "dumb down" the system, but to encourage officer training and better awareness of the issues.  What we have chosen to do instead is sacrifice reasonable cognitive thought for vague ponderings and objective decisions with accountability attached to them for subjective discernment which will piously and self-righteously claim to "bring people together" when, in reality it will say very little.  Boldness does not usually result from consensus.

 

I am just as eager to discern the will of God--for myself, a congregation, a denomination, or a nation--as anybody; but that discernment cannot be done by seeking to mix ingredients from the general pool of human thought with the hope of coming out with a successful recipe.  I still prefer order to a kind of sanctified chaos and rational deliberation over

fuzzy spiritualizing.        

My Music:

Straight AheadObjectively, I know that classical music is better than jazz; and most jazz is better than rock, pop, or country. By this, I simply mean that it takes more technical understanding of one's instrument and of the music itself, and more skill, to perform or appreciate certain types of music than other types. I am not a professional musician. I have, however, studied piano and voice and have many very talented musicians in my family. I know that serious religious music, whether a Gregorian chant, a classical choir anthem, or one of the great hymns, is more demanding and requires more musical ability than most contemporary Christian music. Having said all this, however, it does not necessarily follow that I spend my musical hours performing or hearing classical music. In fact, I like some classical music; but I rarely listen to it. I own some recorded classical music, mostly on old records which I cannot play at the moment, since I don't have a working turntable. I listen to jazz, rock, and country, occasionally some bluegrass and gospel. Music involves the intellect, but music also involves the emotions. It speaks to us in ways that few other human expressions speak. I enjoy some contemporary Christian music as well. It speaks to a part of the Christian experience that, for a number of people, has not yet been reached by traditional Christian hymns, choir anthems, and the like. To be sure, the hymns and anthems are significant--for theological, if not artistic or aesthetic reasons; but we cannot completely dismiss the value of some of the more substantive contemporary Christian music. I've said all that to say this. I have rediscovered my music this afternoon. I have an XM Satellite radio "boom box" which also has a CD player. It's very simple to operate. So today, after having the set for about nine months, I finally took the time to learn how to use it! I listened to some of my old Bruce Hornsby, some of my new country CD's, and Chuck Mahronic's beautiful jazz stylings of favorite hymns. I had heard these all before. It's just that I've barely listened to any CD's since I took the radio with the CD player out of my room and moved it over to the church! I truly did rediscover my music. I think I've been impoverishing myself by failing to listen to music very much over the past four or five years. I havaen't even been playing the piano as much as I used to--particularly when I was in college and seminary. I'm sure that even my computer time would be greatly enriched by taking a music break every now and then--and I have another "boom box" with a CD player right here in front of me! Oh, my music may not always be the most intellectual. (It will not always even be the most spiritual.) But life isn't all about intellect or even about hymns and anthems. As Montgomery Gentry said in his recent country hit, songs are about "you and me and life, and God, and family." Music is about all that--centered around God, to be sure, but not ignoring the fun and friendship, the love and laughter and tears, the emotions that make up our days and nights. Thank goodness, I finally learned how to operate that CD player!

Hebrews 4:12-16, October 9-15, Year B:

The Word of God is quick and powerful; yet, it rarely constitutes the guiding standard by which most modern Christians live their lives.  This has been shown by a variety of studies and surveys.  We know that this Word is often a cutting and a piercing message; so we avoid it, or explain it away, or find a more comfortable by which to govern our decisions and our conduct. 

 

And what of this God with whom we have to deal?  We ignore that part of God that sees through our pretense and hypocrisy.  We reject the idea of God as all-powerful, all-knowing.  We forget that when we talk to God, we are in conversation with the King, the Creator.  We want a casual God--one who blesses our prejudices, answers our prayers the way we want them to be answered, loves us even when we're bad, and basically helps us through life's difficulties and finds us, for the most part, to be rather cute and harmless little creatures.

 

Of course, if we ignore, reject, or soften  the first two verses of this passage, we also essentially destroy the power and beauty of 4:14-16.  This part of the passage tells of Jesus, the High Priest, who identifies with all our weakness and pain.  We are encouraged to hold fast our profession.  We are urged to come boldly to the throne of grace through that Great High Priest, where we will find mercy and grace to help "in time of need."  Through Christ, we will find that eternal Sabbath for which we so desperately yearn.

 

And so you see, dear reader, that if we strip away the difficult things of God, we also lose those things we find most precious.

  

Children can Go Ahead and Play:

Boy!  That's a load off my mind.  I was afraid maybe the children couldn't play any more; but apparently, it'll ok if the children go ahead and have unstructured, non-educational, non-creative play--just like we used to have when I was a kid.  It must be ok to do that again because the major group of pediatricians in America has said so in a study just released.  We can go ahead an let kids be kids! 

 

I really do believe that we have gone through a period where many adults, heavily influenced by educators, politically correct experts, sensitivity gurus, and psychological counselors, have believed that everything children do has to be intentionally calculated to teach a lesson or a skill or have some inter-personal, sociological value.  Now, the American Academy of Pediatrics says that children learn a lot of these skills in the course of good, old-fashioned play!  Well, well!  I think our parents and grandparents and their grandparents probably knew all that a long time ago.  We've tried to make kids grow up and be like us!  And there's something kind of incongruous about a twelve-year-old trying to act like an expert anchor-man on the "Evening News!"  Don't laugh!  I've heard them try to do it--and they weren't playing!  Maybe we'll actually begin to learn that some things just have to take their natural course without our manipulation and overly sensitive scrutiny!  Why, maybe they'll even come out with a report in a few years that will allow guys to take out their natural aggressions in ways that will prevent drive-by shootings--or, are we going to continue to expect essentially unisex children?  Well, I won't push my luck too much with *that one!