An Evangelical View of the PC(USA)

Transcription

1 An Evangelical View of the PC(USA) The present arguments within the PC(USA) in my view represents a dispute primarily between the Evangelical and Progressive wings of the denomination. Before we get into the nature of this dispute, let s describe the participants. These are of course generalizations and if your experience is different, just bear with me for a few minutes so we don t have to argue about definitions. Evangelicals, by my definition, would believe all of the following: Jesus Christ as sole source of salvation; The Trinity; The virgin birth; Importance of evangelism and missionary activity; Jesus Christ will return some day. The miracles in the Bible actually occurred. Progressive Christians, on the other hand, are likely to disagree with one or more of those points. They are often uncomfortable with the exclusive claims of Jesus Christ. Some reject the concept of the Trinity; The virgin birth is often regarded as unnecessary and is therefore ignored or rejected; Their outreach tends to focus more on social justice issues than on evangelism; The 2 nd coming of Christ is often ignored or rejected. They generally reject most or all of the miracles. The areas of dispute between Evangelicals and Progressives tend to fall into several categories. Some are more important than others: 1. Political issues; 2. Judicial issues; and 3. Theological issues. Political Issues I am going to start with the issue that I think is least important. Before I do that, let me take a brief survey. By show of hands, how many of you have ever been struggling with how to vote in an important election and stopped to think about how the PC(USA) would advise you to vote? The truth is that virtually no one inside or outside of the PC(USA) has ever changed their minds based on a political statement from our denomination. There is no question that the denomination is reliably liberal, but if there is a verse in the Bible that says Thou shalt vote Republican I am not aware of it. Christians come in all political persuasions. However, there have been two positions that have particularly irked Evangelical Christians: abortion and Israel. The vast majority of Evangelicals believe that there is a moral component to protecting the life of the unborn. The PC(USA) pays lip service to this moral concern but cannot bring itself to call for any legal restrictions, not even on late term abortions. 1

2 The PC(USA) has a long history of relationship with Palestinian Christians. Not all Christians are supporters of Israel but the vast majority of Evangelical Christians are. The 2012 General Assembly came very close to voting to boycott companies that they believe to be enabling Israel s unfair treatment of Palestinians, but backed off at the last moment. This year the Israel Palestine Mission Network (the IPMN) has issued a report called Zionism Unsettled that is downright anti-semitic in the eyes of many. As upsetting as these positions are to many Evangelicals, we need to realize that they haven t changed any significant number of people s opinions. The ones who protest the positions most vociferously already strongly supported Israel before this report and the ones who support the report strongly supported the Palestinian position before this report. I once attended a townhall meeting where Bruce Reyes Chow, who was then the Moderator of the PC(USA) said that no one cares what the denomination thinks. He was right. Judicial Issues First, let us review the structure of authority in the PC(USA): 1. Jesus Christ 2. The Bible 3. The Book of Confessions (Part I of the PC(USA) Constitution) 4. The Book of Order (Part II of the PC(USA) Constitution Also, remember that there are four levels of governance in the denomination: 1. The local congregation 2. The Presbytery 3. The Synod 4. The General Assembly Each Presbytery, each Synod and the General Assembly elect members of a Permanent Judicial Commission. Cases can start at the Presbytery or Synod level. Presbytery decisions can be appealed to the Synod. Most of the major cases start at the Synod level and can then be appealed to the General Assembly commission. If you spend much time reading decisions by the various judicial commission you soon find that the emphasis always seems to be on the Book of Order rather than the Bible or the Confessions. In fact, there is precedent for the fact that if the plaintiff does not mention Scripture in the initial complaint, the commission is not allowed to base its decision on the Bible. As we will discuss later, there is a wide variety of views of Scripture among PC(USA) pastors. I find it fascinating that the most extreme example of a PC(USA) pastor one who denies the divinity of Christ, the virgin birth, the resurrection and the second coming has stated that he takes great care not to violate the Book of Order. Let s look at an example of this: It s the case of The Presbytery of Newark v McNeill. Laurie McNeill was an ordained pastor (teaching elder) in the PC(USA) in Newark, New Jersey. She and her female fiancé went to Massachusetts, which had legalized gay marriage by a court decision, and got married in a ceremony conducted by a minister in the United Church of Christ. At that time, the PC(USA) ordination standards still called for ordained persons to live 2

3 either in chastity in singleness or fidelity in marriage between a man and a woman, which violated the PC(USA) Constitution. Charges were brought against Ms. McNeill, specifically that she was married in contradiction to the definition of marriage in the Book of Order and that she participated in a marriage service that violated the Book of Order. McNeill was acquitted by the Presbytery PJC. It was appealed to the Synod PJC, where she was also acquitted. It was appealed to the General Assembly PJC, where she was also acquitted. While the acquittal itself might be objectionable to many, the logic used to arrive at the acquittal is particularly unusual: The validity of the marriage was called into question because there was not proof beyond a reasonable doubt that she had consummated the marriage. I don t even want to think about how the accusers were supposed to prove that. The court held that the PC(USA) Constitution had no authority because the wedding service was conducted in a different denomination The court also held that no Biblical citations could be used since the accuser had not cited any. [Note: You can read about this case at: ] Our next case is St. Andrews Session v. Santa Barbara Presbytery Regarding Union Presbyteries. I mentioned this case a couple of weeks ago in the second discernment luncheon. The Santa Barbara Presbytery had proposed the formation of a union presbytery with the ECO, meaning that it would essentially be a member of both denominations. It was intended as a way for churches leaving the PC(USA) to ECO to remain in the Presbytery. The case was probably doomed from the start because an overture to the General Assembly to permit such union presbyteries had been defeated in the previous GA meeting. The curious part of this case is not that the union presbytery was denied by the Synod PJC. That was almost a certainty once the overture was defeated. The Synod PJC went out of its way to declare that the ECO is not a reformed body because it has essential tenets. The decision was only binding on the parties involved and Los Ranchos Presbytery has already specifically approved the ECO as a reformed body. The question is whether this attitude could spread to the GA PJC. It won t happen from this case because the Synod decision was never appealed. It s ironic that this decision came out shortly after the New Form of Government (nfog) was adopted. One of the foundational principles of the nfog is stated as: With greater freedom and flexibility, the New Form of Government encourages congregations and councils to focus on God s mission and how they can faithfully participate in this mission. Sort of makes you wonder if they really meant it, doesn t it? [Note: You can read about this case at: ] Let s look at one more court decision perhaps the most important decision in recent years. It s called Tom and Others v Presbytery of San Francisco. The case revolved around the dismissal by the San Francisco Presbytery of the Community Presbyterian Church of Danville with their property in return for payments equaling per capita and missions funding for five 3

4 years and no other payments required under a gracious dismissal policy. After the dismissal was final, several people filed a challenge with the Synod PJC, which upheld the dismissal. The case was appealed to the GA PJC where the court issued the following decision: When the lower council's actions cannot be undone, this Commission may exercise its declaratory authority to provide guidance to lower councils and to prevent future violations. When a congregation seeks dismissal under G i (now G a), it is the responsibility of the presbytery to fulfill its fiduciary duty under the Trust Clause. This fiduciary duty requires that the presbytery exercise due diligence regarding the value of the property of the congregation seeking dismissal. Due diligence, of necessity, includes not only an evaluation of the spiritual needs of the congregation and its circumstances but also financial analysis of the value of the property at stake. Payments for per capita or mission obligations are not satisfactory substitutes for the separate evaluation of the value of the property held in trust. This decision obviously places great emphasis on considering the value of the property. Let s look at the trust clause from the Book of Order: G Property as a Tool for Mission The property of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), of its councils and entities, and of its congregations, is a tool for the accomplishment of the mission of Jesus Christ in the world. G Decisions Concerning Property The provisions of this Constitution prescribing the manner in which decisions are made, reviewed, and corrected within this church are applicable to all matters pertaining to property. G Church Property Held in Trust All property held by or for a congregation, a presbytery, a synod, the General Assembly, or the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), whether legal title is lodged in a corporation, a trustee or trustees, or an unincorporated association, and whether the property is used in programs of a congregation or of a higher council or retained for the production of income, is held in trust nevertheless for the use and benefit of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). There is an inherent conflict between the first paragraph and the last paragraph. On the one hand, the property is a tool for the accomplishment of the mission of Jesus Christ in the world. On the other hand, property is held in trust nevertheless for the use and benefit of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). The big question is which is more important the mission of Jesus Christ in the world or the use and benefit of the PC(USA)? Is it about how to help a church be a thriving Christian community or is it mostly about the money? It s worth noting that if a church is dismissed to ECO, the property is held by the church, not the denomination. The dismissals since the Tom decision have been a mixed bag. There have been some dismissed for very little, while others for a lot. The Menlo Park church was charged $8.9 million. The Winter 2014 issue of the Layman magazine lists 11 churches which were dismissed in 2013 (after the Tom decision) where the monetary settlement is known. It does 4

5 not include Menlo Park but the payments ranged from $100 per member to $1,866 per member, with an average of just under $600 per member. These numbers are not indicative of what we could expect since the trust clause considers the value of the property, not the number of members. The point is that there have been some dismissals that are exorbitantly expensive while there are others that were very inexpensive. No one knows where this is going. Theological Issues One of the primary complaints Evangelicals have about the PC(USA) is that the denomination lacks a central core. For almost 100 years now, the ordination oath for elders includes a promise to uphold the essential tenets of the Christian faith but the denomination deliberately refuses to define any essential tenets. The truth is that I could spend an hour or more telling you of the heretical and near heretical things I read from Presbyterian pastors on the Internet. Don t worry I won t spend an hour on that. If you are an Evangelical and ever find your life needs a some aggravation just go to the Presbyterian Bloggers website. Don t bother with the main text, just go down the blog roll on the right side of the page. You will find a few solid Evangelicals but you will find three times as many Progressives. Let me just give you one taste of what you might find. A phrase that has been showing up more frequently lately is one that says you can take the Bible literally or seriously, but you can t do both. That s the dumbest thing I have ever heard. No one takes every word literally. Consider Isaiah 55:12: You will go out in joy and be led forth in peace; the mountains and hills will burst into song before you, and all the trees of the field will clap their hands. I love that verse and am having a hard time not singing it it s in one of my favorite choir anthems. However, whatever my mood, I am not expecting the avocado tree in my front yard to develop opposable thumbs. On the other hand, are we to take nothing literally? What about the crucifixion and resurrection? What about the concept of Heaven? What about God creating the heavens and the earth? Are we not taking these things seriously if we believe them to be literally true? Rather than just quoting a bunch of irritating Internet quotes off the top of my head, let me take you for a walk through a theological statement from a Progressive Christian. It s called Apologia Progressiva and you can download a free sample from the website of the Presbyterian Outlook magazine. Google it. The link is at the bottom of the page otherwise me and I can send it to you. It s a response to Evangelical critics of the PC(USA) from Paul Rack, the Stated Clerk of the Presbytery of Elizabeth in New Jersey. I will present many of his arguments with my responses. 5

6 On the subject of Biblical authority and interpretation he says: Critics also express frustration with the views and practices of the PC(USA) concerning biblical authority and interpretation. However, it is simply not true that the PC(USA) no longer accepts the Bible as authoritative in its life and work. We believe that the Holy Spirit is always opening the mind of the church to new nuances and readings in Scripture. Passages once considered marginal come to the center; once authoritative passages are viewed more in context. As the church strives to make the good news of Jesus Christ intelligible to people in new times and places, the Spirit leads us to new understandings. But different interpretations do not diminish Scripture s authority for us. Indeed, they are a result of taking the whole message of the Bible with great seriousness. In short, the PC(USA) has been more faithful to the fullness of the scriptural witness in all its diversity. We are willing to question whether traditional readings are indeed still faithful to the good news of God s love revealed in Jesus Christ. The Reformed tradition has an acute allergy to idolatry in all its forms, especially when dressed in orthodox language. We admit that we may occasionally need our perspectives broadened to appreciate a wider view of the biblical witness. The bolded words are mine, but I find them troubling. If you are going to find new nuances almost 2,000 years after the words were written, I think the burden of proof is on you. He goes on to cite the arguments over the ordination of women. What I respect most about that argument is that both sides made Scriptural arguments almost all of them in good faith. In the fight over gay marriage and ordination, the Evangelical side presents direct Scriptural references while the Progressives just tell us why we should ignore those. The arguments on the floor of the General Assembly supporting gay marriage are almost entirely about feelings and a desire for equality. These are fine things, and all too often Evangelicals have been less than loving in these arguments, but there is no Biblical citation that supports gay marriage. Honest Progressives admit that. On the issues of substitutional atonement he says: We believe faithfulness to Scripture is more important than adherence to particular historically-conditioned theological doctrines, or even to the confessions of the church. The PC(USA) recognizes that the Word and Spirit of God may be leading the church to hear Scripture in ways that do not reflect a medieval, feudal and patriarchal understanding of society. Evangelicals will strongly hold to the concept of substitutional atonement, which is the idea that Christ took our punishment for sin when he died on the cross. I won t take the time to give you all the Biblical citations right now, but I bet that idea is not new to you. I bet you never knew it was medieval, feudal and patriarchal, however. On the issue of universalism, he says: Some advocates for separation say that the PC(USA) has fallen into universalism, which they seem to think means denying the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and the 6

7 essentiality of faith in him alone for salvation. On the contrary, our denomination has never adopted any form of universalism. Later in the same section he says: Our church has awakened to the mature realization that it is possible to live a life in obedience to God s law and at the same time not be part of our faith community, as Paul affirms in Romans 2: Jesus himself allows that he has other sheep that do not belong to this fold (John 10:16). We long ago acknowledged that Jesus could have sheep in folds that do not call themselves Presbyterian or Reformed or Protestant. Is it beyond possibility that Jesus could have sheep who belong to folds that do not call themselves Christian? I love how he denies any form of universalism but then ends up making the case for it. I believe his reference to John 10 is a complete distortion. Notice that he didn t quote John 10:9, which says I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. Most scholars believe his reference to other sheep refers to Gentiles. I have even heard people suggest it is a reference to beings from other planets. To say that it means that there are other ways to salvation is complete nonsense. On the issue of gays and lesbians he makes the usual Progressive argument that Jesus never used the word homosexuality nor specifically condemned it. He goes on to say: Then there is the view that what people in Paul s day knew as homosexuality (the word wasn t even invented until the 19th century, by the way), almost always referred to a violent, abusive or coerced sexual act or relationship. There is no evidence that Paul ever personally knew anyone who lived in anything like the same-sex relationships of mutual love, commitment and respect we know today. Finally, we have to take into account the wildly inclusive practices of Jesus and Paul, reaching out even and especially to people who had been rejected and victimized by the larger society. While there is no mention of Jesus inclusion of any homosexuals in his circle, it is hard for some Christians today to imagine that the Lord who welcomed prostitutes, tax collectors and other groups of people commonly scorned as wretched sinners would then turn around and reject same-sex partners. The Lord rejected no one who came to him in faith. This is a classic straw man argument. I totally agree that Jesus would not refuse to ever associate with gays or lesbians. We read in the gospels how he in fact did meet with all of those sinners he lists. If Jesus hated us sinners, he never would have died for us. It s also true that Jesus would not reject a homosexual who came to Him in faith. That s not even the point. Remember that Jesus did not reject the woman caught in adultery, but after he saved her life, what did he say? Go and sin no more. This is a difficult subject to discuss. As I said last week, our job as Christians is to be a first baseman. We are to stretch as far as we can to reach out, but we are also to keep our foot on the base. For someone who says he values nuance, his is a heavy-handed argument. 7

8 This is just a summary of the basis of the dispute between the Evangelicals and the Progressives. We could get into a laundry list of grievances. I have told people that I sometimes think that the sole purpose of the General Assembly is to embarrass me personally. I trust that this gives you an overview of the areas of dispute. 8