A Perplexed Conservative Churchman:

For years now, we in the Presbyterian Church, (USA), have been debating the issues surrounding the ordination of gay and lesbian persons.  This has been well chronicled, even on this blog. 

 

About ten years ago, when I was a minister in the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, the Presbyterian Church, (USA), the denomination to which I have now returned, added to its Book of Order the "Fidelity and Chastity" amendment.  This amendment requires a candidate for ordination to office in the PC(USA) to live in fidelity if married, and in chastity if single.  I believe that this standard of behavior should be practiced by the ordained officers of the PC(USA), or of any other church body, for that matter,  and should be upheld, not just by the ordained officers, but by all Christians.  Our own Session has affirmed as much; and the statement we adopted can be found in the archives of this very blog.  But here's my problem.

 

This amendment to the Book of Order singles out one behavior or one condition or lifestyle--namely sexual morality.  We have nothing comparable in the Book of Order relative to lying, stealing, drunkenness, cursing, or any of the other Ten Commandments or inappropriate behavior.  It's no wonder that the issue became so divisive. The gay and lesbian activists were bound to continue to make it a political cause in the church, just as they have made their movement a political cause in society at large. (And although the amendment clearly applies to heterosexual immorality, the impetus was clearly targeted at the gay and lesbian community.) 

 

I believe presbyteries should certainly have the right to reject people they find unfit for ordination--on theological or moral grounds.  But by singling out one particular type of behavior, the denomination was asking for trouble. 

 

Would it not have been better to put an amendment in the Book of Order to the effect that persons seeking ordination are expected to live in a manner that "becomes the followers of Christ," or some such language?  Don't get me wrong.  I would not favor affirming homosexuality as an alternate or acceptable lifestyle, or inserting language in the Book of Order that would require presbyteries to make no discrimination based on sexual orientation.  I would want to have the right, as a presbyter, to vote against ordaining or receiving into my presbytery, someone who was not living in accord with biblical sexual morality.  But by making such a calculated attempt to aim this provision so specifically in one direction, the tumult in the church  simply has been perpetuated.

 

I've only heard one other person make this argument, though I'm sure it must have been made by others at the time the amendment was originally adopted.    And it may well be that I'm missing a salient point here.   If so, I'm sure somebody will make me aware of it.

 

Even if I have a valid point, the issues have become so politicized, divisive, and entrenched now that it's unlikely the damage can be reversed.  But at some future General Assembly, perhaps a new kind of wisdom will make itself known.  Even from a conservative viewpoint, however, I can see an argument for modifying the current amendment.  It seems that whatever point of view a person adopts about certain issues, there always is a desire to enforce that point of view. We want the federal government or the General Assembly or the "higher-ups," whoever they may be in a particular context, to mind their own business--until it's in our best interest for them to step in and require or forbid whatever  we want to be required or forbidden.  I'm only asking in the present case:  Wasn't there a better way to do this that would have accomplished much the same objective?  I consider myself a conservative churchman; but sometimes, I am a perplexed conservative churchman--which is probably a good thing.  It proves I'm not mindlessly following any one group or organization.

 

From Another Perspective, .....

Although I consider myself a conservative, this seems a good time to mention some things I find perplexing and to look at a few things from another perspective, even if that look will necessarily be rather brief.

 

I find it incongruous that the United States--and much of the world in general--is so opposed to certain nations developing nuclear weapons.  If Canada wanted to develop nuclear weapons, would we be as outraged as we are when Iran and North Korea try to develop the same?  I haven't heard anyone saying that if North Korea and Iran will stop developing their nuclear weapons, we'll get rid of ours!  I do think I remember a certain degree of outrage when France was conducting underground tests of nuclear weapons many years ago.  The point is:  Why should the United States, along with other nations, try to bully certain countries into certain policies--especially when we do not follow those same policies? 

I also am very concerned about agriculture companies who genetically engineer their seeds in such a way that farmers in under-developed countries are not able to use seeds from last year's crop to produce future crops.  (This would also have an adverse effect on poor farmers, even in wealthier countries.)  For thousands of years, farmers have been able to count on using the seeds from current crops to grow future crops.  Now, that is changing.  And you could say that it's because of the greed of certain business interests. 

 

Along the same lines is the matter of companies who move operations overseas to avoid paying the high wages necessary in the U.S.  I actually do understand this practice; but much has been made of the presence of "sweat shops" in factories owned by western companies in the Third World. I suspect that the wages and working conditions of people working in western-owned companies are probably better than those of the workers in many native-owned shops; but I have no evidence for that supposition.  If companies are going to maintain operations in poor countries, they should strive to improve the lives of the people and be good corporate citizens, just as they are encouraged to do in this country.

 

And one more thing.  I'm interested in the "fair market" products that help bring a decent way of life to some farmers and craftsmen in under-developed countries.  I haven't yet pursued this interest.  I used to see it strictly as a political movement of which I was highly skeptical.  Well, in a sense, it is a political movement.  It also costs more for us to buy these "fair trade" products than to buy the mass-produced products we see in our grocery stores.  Additionally, I'm not for buying anything of inferior quality just to make a political or spiritual statement.  From what I understand, however, these "fair trade" products are not inferior.  It is a way of affirming our support of developing entrepreneurship in the Third World and not being wholly conditioned by the multi-national corporations.

  

When do We Grow Up?

Scott Peck, in his book, "The Road Less Traveled," comments about the difficulty of growing up.  He indicates that it's not as simple as we think.  He suggests that most of us never completely grow up.

 

By that, he means that it's very difficult for us to leave behind things from our childhood.  We cling to attitudes and ways that worked well for us as children which have long sense lost their usefulness, and may even be holding us back as adults. 

 

I read this some time ago, but I've been thinking about it ever since.  How much of what we do is colored by the expectations of others?  Or, on the other extreme, how much of what we do is simply a desire to break away, to be rebels, in a sense? In either case, we're not thinking primarily about the reasons or the merits of our actions or responses.  We're driven by external factors.  We are allowing ourselves to be mastered by others.  

 

In my case, I don't think my basic viewpoints are simply the sub-conscious expression of the beliefs of my parents. I do think, however, that for most of us, our past can exercise a subtle form of manipulation in our preferences, our decisions, our reluctance to think new thoughts and blaze new trails of experiences.  

 

When do we finally grow up?  I imagine that this tendency to cling to patterns from our past   affects different people indifferent ways. For some, it might be reflected in political or religious outlook.  For others, it might just be the reluctance to move far away from where they grew up.  It might show itself in preferences or relationships, guilt or the pressure to achieve.  I think I definitely deal with some of these things on some level.

 

It's important to note, however, that Scott Peck begins this well-known book with the words:  "Life is difficult."  Much of his writing emphasizes the point that we are ultimately responsible for the choices we make--even the decision finally to grow up.  It doesn't mean that we automatically jettison everything from our past.  It does mean that whatever we become, we have to make it our own and not just be copy-cat people.  For those of us who are Christian--and I understand that Scott Peck did become a Christian before his death--it means that our Christian faith cannot rest merely on the professions and devotions of our family. .  Our Christian faith must truly become our own--personal creed.  To the extent that our convictions, responses, and decisions are truly our own, and not merely the reflection of our past or our childhood, we can say that we have truly grown up.  Growing up can be very painful, though, because if we really take seriously the matter of becoming ourselves, we are going to have to leave behind a lot that we have truly cherished for a lifetime.  How many of us are ready to grow up in the fullest and best sense of that word?  How many of us are willing to do the hard work of self-examination necessary for this to take place? How many of us would be ready to face the consequences of what, for some, could be an experience of real upheaval?  

 

I don't know the answers to any of these questions.  I do pray that by God's grace, I will grow each day in those ways that are rooted and grounded in Christ.  I think Romans 8:29 holds the key to much of this for the Christian.  We are to be conformed to the image of God, to the image of His Son, Jesus Christ.  I guess we won't finally and fully grow up until we come face to face with Jesus in eternity.

         

I'm a Christian! You got a problem with that?

Straight AheadToday, I was perusing Presbyweb, as I usually do. If you're a Presbyterian, you need to become familiar with Presbyweb. It's one of the best resources around. Anyway, today, I was directed to a link which contained "bias-free guidelines" which are to be used by Presbyterian women in writing or talking about various people and religions. They had guidelines pertaining to racial-ethnic groups, the disabled, socio-economic usages, and even people of various body types. It was one of the most amazing documents I've ever read! For example, they said that people should not refer to me as a "blind man," but as a "man who is blind." I know this may come as a shock to people who refuse to live in the real world; but we are defined by our most obvious characteristics; and most of us learn to live with that. Some of their suggestions clearly had a thinly-veiled political agenda and were downright silly. Of course, the most incredible aspects of the guidelines came when they were talking about how we should address people of other religions. According to this paper, we should not assume that Christianity offers anything that is any better than other religions. We should not be perpetrators of what the writers call "imperial" Christianity. Personally, I think spending eternity in heaven is much better than spending eternity in hell, which is where those who fail to profess faith in Christ are likely to wind up! I believe we are indeed to go into all the world, making disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, just like it says in Matthew 28:18-20. Is that "imperial" Christianity? And just for good measure, I'm also a "triumphalist," another word that some theologians like to throw around. I believe, as some charismatic Christians like to say, that "we win in the end," or rather, Christ wins in the end--crushing all adversaries and rivals under His feet at the Last Day! Some will think I'm just stubborn and contrary. I prefer to think of myself as someone who is simply proud to be an American, thankful for the gifts of western civilization, and grateful to be chosen by God as one of His own before the foundation of the world. In other words, I'm a Christian! You got a problem with that? We in the mainline Protestant churches have allowed ourselves to be intimidated by "progressive" theologians and practitioners of political correctness for far too long. This is not the way to prepare for the coming struggle with Islam and terrorism.

Hebrews 5:1-10, October 16-22, Year B:

The writer of the epistle of Hebrews is addressing a group of Christians who had left their Jewish faith and been converted to Christianity.  He is dealing with certain questions and concerns of these Christians throughout this epistle and relating certain aspects of Christianity to Judaism, indicating in what ways Christianity is superior to Judaism.  In this passage, he is dealing first of all  with the matter of the priesthood.

 

There was something very magnificent and awe-inspiring about the Jewish priesthood.  The author of Hebrews is reminding the Jewish-Christians that in Christ, they have a superior Priest.  The priesthood represented by Christ is a special priesthood, "after the order of Melchisedec."  He was not encumbered by the sins or infirmities of an earthly priest--though, as we saw in Hebrews 4, he could identify in every way  with our weaknesses and temptations, yet without sin. 

 

This Sunday, we are nearing the final weekend in October, during which many Protestant churches will celebrate Reformation Sunday.  By the time of Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation, the earthly priesthood of men had reasserted itself.  Luther rediscovered the true nature of the Christian priesthood in the biblical concept of the "priesthood of all believers," as stated explicitly in 1 Peter 2.  The special qualities of our priesthood include the fact that it is not by heredity like the Old Testament Aaronic priesthood,  but appointed by God. It is not taken upon oneself or given by social standing or payment of money or as a political reward--as was often the case in the Middle Ages--but only as called by God.  Even today, a man or woman does not, strictly speaking, decide to be a minister of the Gospel.   It is a calling from God.  

 

And so in the celebration of the Protestant Reformation, we are celebrating the freedom from an institutional priesthood--a freedom that was bought by Christ with  the shedding of His blood on the cross.  For He was not only the priest, but He made the sacrifice that atoned for our sin.  Through Christ, there can be no more religious bondage or tyranny to laws made by man.  Our salvation comes not through obeying manmade laws, performing rituals, or claiming  many good works.  Our salvation comes through Christ.  Our prayers are offered, not through a priest or to the angels or the martyrs, but in the Name and through the mediation of Christ alone.  We are accountable to Christ alone.  He is our Advocate and Intercessor with the Father!

 

Yet, this passage also reminds us of something else.  Christ was the Perfect and Unchanging High Priest, making right all the failures of any human priestly system. Yet, in the latter part of this passage, we find that even Christ had His own lessons to learn on the cross.  What could it possibly mean that even the Son of God had to learn something as He was carrying out His ultimate role as High Priest?  

 

We know that He endured great agony in Gethsemane.  We know that at several points during His life and ministry, He wept openly for His people.  We know that He felt genuine sorrow because of His distance from God during those agonizing moments on the cross and His knowledge of the necessity for God to judge sin, as He took our sin on Himself.  With the ultimate objective always in view, however, Christ obeyed perfectly the will of His Heavenly Father.  He had to endure the full weight of human experiences of temptation and Experience in order perfectly to be able to identify in a divine way with the anguish of His Bride, the Church.  He was acquainted with grief; and it ever had to be so if He was to be one with us.  Perhaps He had to learn, in some mysterious divine way, what weakness feels like in His human nature.  He had to learn perfect obedience in the face of the torture of physical suffering and human sin.  Christ did not fear the physical pain; but He loathed the confrontation with evil itself in its fullest and most awful manifestation.  His confrontation with evil and temptation had to be total; and He had to prevail.  He faced the curse of the law, striking soul and body.  This is why the penal and substitutionary nature of His death is so vital for us to understand.  He obeyed the Father, not just because He should, as a matter of principle, but because it was His conscious desire, acted out to the Bitter End.  He learned the cost of obeying the Father in the midst of the human condition.  Three days later, there would be a resurrection; but as Christ hung there on the cross, there could be no supernatural deliverance.

 

This is a great truth to which neither I, nor any preacher, can hope to do justice.  The confrontation with evil, the pain and suffering, are so complete and so agonizing for Christ that our own struggles pale by comparison.  Yet, it is by Christ's sinless life, brutal death, and substitutionary atonement and sacrifice that He becomes, not only our High Priest, but the offering for our sins.  This is what the writer to the Hebrew Christians was teaching and proclaiming.  This is why we need no priest today.  This is one of the many reasons why the Protestant Reformation was such a high-water mark in the rediscovery of biblical Christianity.