2014 General Assembly and the Authoritative Interpretation

Most engaged Presbyterians know that our denomination recently held its national meeting called the General Assembly. It seems axiomatic that every General Assembly meeting produces some good news and some bad news. The proportion of each changes depending upon the year. For 20 years, I have had to respond to the General Assembly’s most negative actions in order to keep the local church engaged in the denomination. As we near the end of the process of leaving the PC(USA) and joining the ECO, that’s no longer the case. However, I offer this somewhat lengthy analysis because I continue to be asked my opinion on this year’s actions.

There were some good results. Perhaps the most celebrated good news came out of the Congregational Vitality Committee. They received the report of the 1001 New Worshipping Communities initiative of the Evangelism and Church Growth office. At the time of the Assembly, 248 groups had registered as new worshipping communities. Also, the World Mission office began a campaign on missional living and it joined with other offices to focus efforts on child education globally.

On the other hand, the actions guaranteed to cause division were in large supply. For example, an Authoritative Interpretation (AI) was passed to allow pastors the right to conduct gay marriages in states where gay marriage is legal. They also passed a change in our Book of Order that redefines marriage as a covenant between two people. The former decision is effective immediately; the latter must be approved by a majority of our 171 presbyteries. The Assembly voted to divest from three U.S. companies in Israel and they began the process to consider divesting from fossil fuel companies. They rejected any effort to amend, or even to review, our position on abortion, which essentially supports any form of abortion at any time in a pregnancy. And, as is common, they expressed liberal opinions on all types of political issues such as gun control, immigration, and tax reform. The last one advocated eliminating the tax deduction pastors receive for housing. Happily for us pastors, long ago Congress gave up caring about the opinions of the PC(USA) on any issue.

Obviously, I am disappointed with many of this Assembly’s decisions, but I am particularly saddened by how one piece of business was conducted, specifically, the AI on gay marriage. It was not only a theological and biblical error, but was also a gross violation of the constitutional framework of the denomination. We are historically a denomination with a strong constitutional foundation. The first half of our constitution is the Book of Confessions (theology) and the second is the Book of Order (governance). Adherence to both halves has been essential for the historic health of the denomination. Sadly, this last assembly severed any substantive connection between the two, and undermined the authority of the Book of Order. That’s a constitutional crisis.

When a passage in the Book of Order is unclear about a particular statement and how it pertains to a contemporary issue, the General Assembly can issue an AI that becomes law of the land as soon as the Assembly is over. It is a necessary way to keep our constitution pliable enough to address changing cultures. It requires that an Assembly have enough honesty and humility to recognize when there is a clear ambiguity in the book. That was not the case this year.

The Book of Order states in section W-4.9000 that marriage is a covenant between a man and woman. The Book of Confession also defines marriage as a covenant between a man and a woman. Is any of this ambiguous in your mind? Nonetheless, the Assembly used its power to pass an AI on W-4.9000 that allows ministers to perform weddings of any two people. Such an action is a gross abuse of the power of issuing AI’s. If mandates of the Book of Order can be so easily neglected, then it is no longer a reliable guide for the governance of the church. If the clear statements of the Book of Confessions are so easily tossed aside, then it no longer functions as a constitutional document.

In the past, we could trust that while we intensely debated difficult decisions, at least we were a people of the “book” that is, the Constitution, who followed good process. I’ve lost many votes, but for the most part good process was followed, which made it easier to accept the loss. You win some, you lose some, and you move on. In this case, the Assembly clearly wanted to advance the rights of the LGBTQ community, but they should have taken the advice of the Advisory Committee on the Constitution and rejected the AI strategy. The decision to use an AI to achieve an immediate victory for gay marriage eroded our Constitution and set a deadly trajectory for the future of the PC(USA). There will be aspects of PC(USA) that I will miss when we move to ECO, but I will definitely not miss the upheaval caused in many local churches every time the General Assembly of the PC(USA) meets.

What is that ringing in my ear?

Donald Sterling is a racist. That’s pretty clear. Not only is that evident from the secret tapes disclosed to TMZ, but his history of discriminatory housing practices confirms it. People ought to be outraged by his racism, because racism is wrong.

The outrage, though, sounds pretty tinny and hollow to my ear. It highlights how difficult it is to muster moral outrage when the things that incite you are highly limited to a few popular issues. Where is the moral outrage against infidelity considering the tape came from a mistress? Or, why do we not care that, as the tape reveals, Sterling nor his mistress care if she sleeps around with other boyfriends? That’s called promiscuity. We used to care about these things.

Beyond the cesspool of Sterling human behavior, what about the moral outrage of fans against the cluster of offensive behaviors that seem to pervade the lives of so many players? Where is the moral outrage when fans discover players are using illegal drugs, exploiting women, neglecting parental responsibility of children by multiple women, or are connected with a gang?

It doesn’t exist because we lost moral integrity with the society’s jettisoning of a defining moral standard. Of course, up to this point, when some of us raise the question of the moral acceptability of things like certain sexual practices, we are often told, “What happens in someone’s private life isn’t our business.” That really doesn’t work here, does it? It was in Sterling’s private life that the damning conversation occurred. The stuff of Sterling’s past was certainly very public, but that wasn’t the genesis of today’s reaction. Moral problems are problems whether public or private.

Racism is wrong and it needs to be removed from American life, but the impact of anti-racism efforts seemed to have plateaued.  Why is that? One possibility is that the plateau correlates with the vacuum of an absolute standard of right and wrong. Without it, we have no moral ground to stand upon to make a clear claim of why something like racism is wrong. If we had a solid moral standard, the outrage against Sterling could have been just one more expression of a people committed to right over wrong, good over evil. But were not. Consequently, our moral voice is weak and ineffective, but our nation’s ears have become dull to a moral word anyway.

And now for something entirely different: Is the movie Noah worth seeing?

Much has been said by Christians about the movie, Noah, and many of those folks have actually seen the movie. For some, the movie is an affront to the faith and for others it is a great tool for evangelism. Now that I've seen it, I'll share my opinions. In short, I don’t agree with either of the above assertions, but it is still a good movie. If you read further, please know that what follows contains spoilers.

To appreciate the movie, you have to accept that it is an adaptation. It has to be that way. It would be a very short movie if it did not fill in the gap with some imagination and artistic license. We expect that from every movie based on a book and, not surprisingly, we are usually unhappy with the difference between the two. If you take your Bible to compare notes, you will be frustrated. It is worth pointing out that Christians are guilty of making our own additions to this story. From my childhood, I remember such adaptions as people mocking Noah for building the ark, Noah begging others to join them on the ark, and we don’t have unicorns now because they were too vain to get on the ark.

Noah is not short on adaptions. The backstory to the development of civilization sounds more like the Tower of Babel, though in the Bible that’s after Noah’s story. The large stone creatures inhabited by angelic beings is a nod to the Nephilim. The attack on the ark and Tubal Cain’s sneaking onto the ark are entertaining filler that don’t do injustice to the original story. The injustice actually comes later.

Noah does several things well. It is visually pleasing. The special effects are excellent. The retro, hand drawn animations that tell of the events leading up to the flood are an enjoyable shift in style. The scenes capturing the ugliness of humanity’s sin are powerful. The characters, though oddly pretty for that time – particularly Shem, are easy to like. They possess the same mix of good and bad so typical of the Bible’s heroes.

The movie also effectively captures the essence and extent of the fall of humanity. I think this is the reason for the unfounded claims that it is just a cover for the environmentalist’s agenda. The volume of trees cut down to build the ark should be sufficient reason to doubt that claim. Christians too often think of the consequence of Adam and Eve’s sin as simply our personal separation from God. The apostle Paul helps us see that it was so much more than that. All of creation was subjected to “futility” as a result of the fall. Paul says “that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. (Romans 8:22 ESV)” The violence, starvation, greed, and lust “tastefully” on display among people living in a parched wasteland give full expression to the fall.

There some elements of the original story that the movie doesn’t do well. There is a lot of angst about a wife for Ham, but in the original story all three sons are married. And of course Japheth seems a little young for the married version in the Bible. Noah spiraling into depression on the ark and nursing an obsession with killing Shem and Ila’s baby upon birth is just weird. God’s speaks directly to Noah many times in Genesis 6-9, but God in the movie God is impersonal and the revelation of the flood is vaguely conveyed in dreams. Trying to capture a talking God in movies is difficult, impersonal revelation misses the character of God so central to Scripture.

All of that is forgivable, but there is one twist to the story that does great injustice to the original. In fact, I’m surprised that this flaw has received far less attention than the outrage that Noah doesn’t say the word “God” or that the environmentalists hijacked the story. Near the end of the movie in a conversation between Noah and Ila, his daughter-in-law, it is concluded that the reason humanity had a future is because God gave Noah the chance to choose love and spare his grandchildren’s lives.

If Noah had chosen differently, humanity would have ended. The real story in Genesis has a completely different explanation for the reason humanity survives this flood of judgment upon its sin: as an act of grace God covenants with Noah to save him and his family. The notion that the God of Creation would give Noah the choice to allow humanity to survive or not makes the God of this movie out to be incredibly apathetic towards his beloved creatures and wholly out of touch with the God of the Bible. Mercy, redemption, and the grace of God are why humanity lives and not the decision of Noah. It makes Noah out to be greater than God and God lesser than Noah.

Should you see it or not? You won’t waste your money seeing it. If you liked Spiderman or Superman or Braveheart, then you will probably like Noah. I'd suggest viewing it on the big screen as opposed to DVD, at least if your  entertainment technology is no better than mine. If you don't watch it, your life will not be diminished one bit. I don’t imagine it will lead to great conversations about faith, but if it has the potential do that with your friends, then watch it. Just make sure your friends understand the real story of God's mercy and grace that sustains humanity.

Why ECO?

I have blogged a bit about our dismissal from the PC(USA). Most of the previous posts have addressed why we are leaving, but not much has been said about why we are going to The Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians, (ECO). Simply put, ECO is a better fit for us for several reasons.

ECO has a distinct theological identity. ECO is clear and unapologetic in its commitment to the historic Christian and Reformed doctrine. It recognizes the confessional statements that comprise the current Book of Confessions. But, it summarizes the essential doctrine of those confessions in its statement on Essential Tenets, which can be found here. Membership in ECO means that we uphold these Essential Tenets. Membership in ECO means that we expect to be held, and to hold one another, accountable to those tenets.

ECO revitalizes the connectional system so basic to Presbyterianism. Affiliation with the ECO places us in covenant relationships of accountability that will make us a better church. For example, local churches are formed together in Mission Accountability Groups (4-5 churches) that meet together to share best practices, encourage one another, and to hold one another accountable to being missional churches. One instrument Mission Accountability Groups will use is, “The Narrative On the Health Of Mission and Ministry.” It’s not just churches that are held accountable to one another. Pastors also meet in Pastor Accountability Groups. Pastors will use an accountability instrument called “The Pastoral Rule”. ECO has all of the basic polity pieces expected of a Presbyterian/Reformed church, but these additional practices present a more rigorous way of life.

ECO’s mission and vision resonate with our mission and vision. For example, FPC is serious about making disciples of Jesus, which is why we had the Apprenticeship Conference last summer. The first question of ECO’s, “The Narrative On the Health Of Mission and Ministry”, asks this question: “How has the Holy Spirit been evident in your congregation in the past year; through conversions, growth in the fruit of the Spirit, or other transformational experiences that make disciples of Jesus Christ?” That’s a good question for a church like ours. Also, FPC believes that growth in Christian maturity leads us out beyond the walls of the church in mission to a lost, hurting, and dying world, which is why we go to Burnet School, Mullins, West Virginia, and Haiti. The second question of the narrative asks, “How has your congregation extended itself beyond its bounds through the establishment of new communities of worship and discipleship, expanding the Kingdom of God?” Again, ECO’s priorities match ours as well.

Just these two examples highlight what a good fit the ECO is for us. Our congregation’s chief focus is growing in Christ and sending people in mission for Christ. ECO offers a denominational affiliation that will help us stay “on mission” rather than serve as a distraction.

On To Phase Two!

It’s been a long time since my last post. You can see in previous posts that most of my blogging last fall and summer attempted to convey the reasons our congregation is seeking dismissal from the PC(USA). I took a hiatus for the duration of the first phase of our dismissal process, which was the time presbytery used to assess the will of the congregation and the leading of the Holy Spirit.

During the first phase, the presbytery conducted listening sessions and we had a great turnout from church members. They made two presentations. One explained the process. The second presentation was their opportunity to share the benefits of the PC(USA) and to make the case for why we should stay. Then, the presbytery sent surveys last October 28^th as the final instrument of their discernment process. Since then, we have been waiting for presbytery to tell us if we can go to the next phase, which is negotiating a financial arrangement for the church property.

Last night, January 14^th, we met with the Presbytery Engagement Team (PET) to hear their decision about our future in this process. Happily, they said they unanimously agreed that we should move to the negotiation phase. Their decision pleases me greatly. It means that they see the church as largely united and that people understand the difference between the two denominations. The survey results support those opinions. Exactly 90% of the survey respondents said they wanted to leave the denomination and 10% said they wanted to stay. Close to 96% of the respondents expressed that they understood the difference between the PC(USA) and ECO.

The leadership of this church has poured hours of work into this process, and I am grateful for their wisdom and faithfulness. But, all of us know that our hope and trust is placed in Christ alone for the future of this process. That is why prayer is so critical right now. Our church is praying every day in January specifically for this process. I invite you to join us in those prayers. Pray for God’s wisdom to guide us, pray that people on both sides of this issue will still see one another as brothers and sisters in Christ, and pray that the Spirit of God will protect us from the deadly efforts of the Evil One.