So, after all the fussin’ that went on in Acts 15, how did the first General Assembly finally make its decision? Peter’s comments are recorded first. He recounted his own experience of God’s grace, probably referring to that amazing outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Gentiles in the house of Cornelius, recorded in Acts chapter 10.
Next, Paul and Barnabas also spoke of the things they had witnessed God doing during their ministry among the Gentiles, the miracles and wonders they had seen. In other words, however much Peter may have disagreed with Paul at the time the letter to the Galatians was written, by the time the Assembly itself rolled around, the two apostles were in complete agreement. Both of them pointed to the same sort of evidence – the proof of the mighty acts God had done in the lives of the Gentile believers.
From these two reports, we might thus be tempted to think that the Assembly made its decision based simply on reason and experience. But that is not the case. The Assembly did not come to a conclusion until James quoted from the book of Amos, demonstrating how the Old Testament Scriptures agreed with the testimony of the apostles.
And so, at the end of the day, the Assembly based its decision not on who Peter and Paul were, and not simply on what Peter and Paul said had happened. The crucial factor for the Assembly was what the prophet Amos had said.
This, then, is what we Presbyterians must do at the General Assembly this summer in Minneapolis. If we try to base our decisions on who is speaking or on what makes sense to our reason or to our feelings, we will keep on fussin’. But if we are willing to submit our reason and our experience to the Word of God, which we used to call the only infallible rule of faith and practice, we might move just a little closer to that peace which we all desire so much.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Fussin' Presbyterians
Why do we Presbyterians have so much fussin’ to do? Wouldn’t it be so much easier just to have bishops or popes make all the hard decisions for us? Perhaps it would be. And it is probably in such an attempt to avoid conflict that some presbyteries have delegated much of their decision-making power to committees or commissions, or even to paid staff members.
But when we look at the way the Church dealt with disagreement in Acts 15, we don’t see any of those early Christians appealing to powerful personalities to impose peace on the Church. No, whatever our Roman Catholic friends might believe about Peter being the first Pope, no papal power is on display during that first General Assembly. Yes, Peter is the first person whose comments are recorded, but he doesn’t insist on everyone listening to him because Jesus gave him the keys of the Kingdom. In fact, he doesn’t mention those keys at all. (And if you look at I Peter 5, you’ll notice that Peter speaks to his fellow elders – not exactly the language you’d expect from the vicar of Christ.)
Paul and James were also at the first Assembly, and both of them either had written or would write numerous portions of Scripture. But neither one of them appealed to their apostolic authority. Neither of them said the Assembly should listen to them because of who they were.
No, when we look at Acts 15, we can’t help but come to the conclusion that the early Christians made decisions the way that we Presbyterians still do: by coming together in councils of elders to make decisions as a group. And the only way a group of elders can make decisions, especially when matters can’t be compromised, is to have what verse 6 says they had: much dispute. There’s just no way around it. Governing ourselves as Presbyterians, governing ourselves in the way that the early Church did, means we’re going to do some fussin’.
But when we look at the way the Church dealt with disagreement in Acts 15, we don’t see any of those early Christians appealing to powerful personalities to impose peace on the Church. No, whatever our Roman Catholic friends might believe about Peter being the first Pope, no papal power is on display during that first General Assembly. Yes, Peter is the first person whose comments are recorded, but he doesn’t insist on everyone listening to him because Jesus gave him the keys of the Kingdom. In fact, he doesn’t mention those keys at all. (And if you look at I Peter 5, you’ll notice that Peter speaks to his fellow elders – not exactly the language you’d expect from the vicar of Christ.)
Paul and James were also at the first Assembly, and both of them either had written or would write numerous portions of Scripture. But neither one of them appealed to their apostolic authority. Neither of them said the Assembly should listen to them because of who they were.
No, when we look at Acts 15, we can’t help but come to the conclusion that the early Christians made decisions the way that we Presbyterians still do: by coming together in councils of elders to make decisions as a group. And the only way a group of elders can make decisions, especially when matters can’t be compromised, is to have what verse 6 says they had: much dispute. There’s just no way around it. Governing ourselves as Presbyterians, governing ourselves in the way that the early Church did, means we’re going to do some fussin’.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Fussin' in the Family
Are Christians really called to be involved in feudin’ and fussin’ over doctrine? Surely, that can’t be right. Surely the reason that we have such fundamental disputes is because some of the people in the Church aren’t really believers, right?
Well, that’s what a lot of Presbyterians believe. And while it is of course possible that many Presbyterians could in fact be deceiving themselves about whether they are in fact saved, it remains the case that genuine, Spirit-filled, Jesus-following Christians always have disagreed, even over critically important issues.
Think again about the question of whether or not Gentiles needed to be circumcised in order to join the church. This question was, as Paul rightly points out in his letter to the Galatians, central to the gospel. But with whom did Paul say he disagreed about this? In Galatians 2:11-13 Paul tells us that, at least for a time, the apostle Peter disagreed with him. One Scripture-writing apostle was disagreeing with another one. Surely the problem wasn’t that one or the other of them wasn’t saved.
And at the first General Assembly itself, described in Acts 15, verse 5 makes it plain that those who argued for the necessity of circumcision were not Pharisees who rejected the authority of Christ – they were Pharisees who believed. In short, this was an intramural disagreement. This dispute took place among believers.
So, how did these Christians who disagreed manage to come to a conclusion? Verse 6 reminds us that it was only after much dispute. And so if Spirit-filled folks like the apostles had to do some fussin’ before making a decision, why should we modern Presbyterians think we are any different?
Well, that’s what a lot of Presbyterians believe. And while it is of course possible that many Presbyterians could in fact be deceiving themselves about whether they are in fact saved, it remains the case that genuine, Spirit-filled, Jesus-following Christians always have disagreed, even over critically important issues.
Think again about the question of whether or not Gentiles needed to be circumcised in order to join the church. This question was, as Paul rightly points out in his letter to the Galatians, central to the gospel. But with whom did Paul say he disagreed about this? In Galatians 2:11-13 Paul tells us that, at least for a time, the apostle Peter disagreed with him. One Scripture-writing apostle was disagreeing with another one. Surely the problem wasn’t that one or the other of them wasn’t saved.
And at the first General Assembly itself, described in Acts 15, verse 5 makes it plain that those who argued for the necessity of circumcision were not Pharisees who rejected the authority of Christ – they were Pharisees who believed. In short, this was an intramural disagreement. This dispute took place among believers.
So, how did these Christians who disagreed manage to come to a conclusion? Verse 6 reminds us that it was only after much dispute. And so if Spirit-filled folks like the apostles had to do some fussin’ before making a decision, why should we modern Presbyterians think we are any different?
Monday, May 31, 2010
In Praise of Fussin'
“Why can’t we all just get along?” That’s not just Rodney King’s question – it comes from the lips of so many Presbyterians as we approach what is likely to be yet another contentious General Assembly. It is only natural for Christians to want peace, because such a desire flows organically out of our love for one another.
And the fact is that most of the conservative congregations and individuals that have left the PCUSA over the last several years have done so precisely in pursuit of such peace. They have said that they are tired of fighting the same old battles over questions that should have obvious answers. They say they are ready instead to get on with what they consider to be the real ministry of the Church, to take the gospel into a lost and dying world.
But given the remnants of sin and self-deception that lie within us all, it is no wonder that the Church has always had disagreements. And some of those disagreements have been quite serious.
Think back to the days of the first General Assembly, which is described in Acts chapter 15. The question before the Assembly was whether Gentiles had to be circumcised and follow the Old Testament ceremonial law. In his letter to the Galatians, the apostle Paul indicated that this question struck at the very heart of the gospel. It threatened to overturn the tremendous truth of justification not by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ. This was not an issue that could be compromised or swept under the rug.
Just so, many of the issues that face the 219th General Assembly simply can’t be compromised. It is either right to uphold women’s rights to be in absolute control over human reproduction, or it is right to defend the lives of helpless unborn babies. In the same way, it is either right to open the ordained offices of the Church to those who engage in homosexual practice, or it is right to exclude people who practice such behaviors on the grounds that they are unrepentant sinners.
So, as we see in Acts 15:6, the early Christians engaged in much dispute over issues that were of critical importance. We, their descendants in the faith, are called to do no less.
And the fact is that most of the conservative congregations and individuals that have left the PCUSA over the last several years have done so precisely in pursuit of such peace. They have said that they are tired of fighting the same old battles over questions that should have obvious answers. They say they are ready instead to get on with what they consider to be the real ministry of the Church, to take the gospel into a lost and dying world.
But given the remnants of sin and self-deception that lie within us all, it is no wonder that the Church has always had disagreements. And some of those disagreements have been quite serious.
Think back to the days of the first General Assembly, which is described in Acts chapter 15. The question before the Assembly was whether Gentiles had to be circumcised and follow the Old Testament ceremonial law. In his letter to the Galatians, the apostle Paul indicated that this question struck at the very heart of the gospel. It threatened to overturn the tremendous truth of justification not by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ. This was not an issue that could be compromised or swept under the rug.
Just so, many of the issues that face the 219th General Assembly simply can’t be compromised. It is either right to uphold women’s rights to be in absolute control over human reproduction, or it is right to defend the lives of helpless unborn babies. In the same way, it is either right to open the ordained offices of the Church to those who engage in homosexual practice, or it is right to exclude people who practice such behaviors on the grounds that they are unrepentant sinners.
So, as we see in Acts 15:6, the early Christians engaged in much dispute over issues that were of critical importance. We, their descendants in the faith, are called to do no less.
Friday, April 2, 2010
A Cautionary Tale from History
In the 1850’s, the United States was convulsed by a similar moral problem: slavery. Some thought slavery was a moral evil, and sought to exclude it from the Federal territories west of the Mississippi River. Others thought it would be unjust to prevent citizens from taking legal “property” with them as they settled in those territories. There was no way to compromise the point, because slavery could not be both good and bad at the same time. Slavery could not be both legal and illegal in the territories at the same time.
The United States Congress decided to inject “local option” into this situation in the form of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Passed in 1854, the act allowed the citizens of the newly organized territories of Kansas and Nebraska to decide for themselves whether or not slavery would be allowed within their bounds.
This act simply moved the contest from the national to the local level. Pro-slavery and anti-slavery settlers rushed to fill up Kansas, each side desiring to form the majority so they could write the laws for the new state. Arguments and vote fraud led to violence, and the new territory soon became known as “Bleeding Kansas.”
When he was running for Senate in 1858, Abraham Lincoln commented on the Kansas-Nebraska Act with these words: “Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached, and passed.”
Lincoln then quoted the words of Jesus, found in Matthew 12:25: “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Lincoln went on to say, “I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved – I do not expect the house to fall – but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.”
In the same way, the PCUSA may not be dissolved, but it must cease to be divided. The Church of Jesus Christ cannot condone either bigotry or perversion, but it must do one of these two things if “local option” becomes the law of the land. Eventually, a crisis must come.
The crisis may be acted out in 11,000 Presbyterian congregations, with every election of officers forcing the issue of sexual purity to be debated over and over again. The crisis may be acted out in 173 presbyteries, as every candidate presented for ordination becomes a battleground for one of the two parties to gain the upper hand. In either case, trust will be lost with every charge and accusation that is leveled, with every vote that is taken. The feeling of unity at every level of the church will weaken, and many members will leave the church to avoid the unpleasantness. One way or another, local option will always force Kansas to bleed.
But there is, of course, a more horrifying option. In 1858, Lincoln did not expect the Union to be dissolved, but that is exactly what happened less than three years later. It eventually cost the blood of over 600,000 Americans to rid the nation of slavery once and for all. The nation did eventually become “all one thing,” but only after 4 years of war.
Only time will tell if that sort of cleansing cataclysm will come upon the PCUSA. Only one thing is certain – the words of our Lord Jesus: “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” One way or another, local option will guarantee the fall of the PCUSA.
The United States Congress decided to inject “local option” into this situation in the form of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Passed in 1854, the act allowed the citizens of the newly organized territories of Kansas and Nebraska to decide for themselves whether or not slavery would be allowed within their bounds.
This act simply moved the contest from the national to the local level. Pro-slavery and anti-slavery settlers rushed to fill up Kansas, each side desiring to form the majority so they could write the laws for the new state. Arguments and vote fraud led to violence, and the new territory soon became known as “Bleeding Kansas.”
When he was running for Senate in 1858, Abraham Lincoln commented on the Kansas-Nebraska Act with these words: “Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached, and passed.”
Lincoln then quoted the words of Jesus, found in Matthew 12:25: “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Lincoln went on to say, “I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved – I do not expect the house to fall – but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.”
In the same way, the PCUSA may not be dissolved, but it must cease to be divided. The Church of Jesus Christ cannot condone either bigotry or perversion, but it must do one of these two things if “local option” becomes the law of the land. Eventually, a crisis must come.
The crisis may be acted out in 11,000 Presbyterian congregations, with every election of officers forcing the issue of sexual purity to be debated over and over again. The crisis may be acted out in 173 presbyteries, as every candidate presented for ordination becomes a battleground for one of the two parties to gain the upper hand. In either case, trust will be lost with every charge and accusation that is leveled, with every vote that is taken. The feeling of unity at every level of the church will weaken, and many members will leave the church to avoid the unpleasantness. One way or another, local option will always force Kansas to bleed.
But there is, of course, a more horrifying option. In 1858, Lincoln did not expect the Union to be dissolved, but that is exactly what happened less than three years later. It eventually cost the blood of over 600,000 Americans to rid the nation of slavery once and for all. The nation did eventually become “all one thing,” but only after 4 years of war.
Only time will tell if that sort of cleansing cataclysm will come upon the PCUSA. Only one thing is certain – the words of our Lord Jesus: “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” One way or another, local option will guarantee the fall of the PCUSA.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Extra-Constitutional Options: Nullification and Anathematization
If a Biblically and Confessionally Orthodox Presbytery (BACOP) seeks to distance itself clearly from presbyteries that choose to ordain Self-Acknowledged Practitioners of Homosexual Acts (SAPHAs) it could take any number of extra-constitutional actions, depending on how the constitutional crisis plays itself out.
One option is to nullify any unbiblical actions with which the BACOP disagrees. Beaver-Butler Presbytery, for example, has already nullified an action of the General Assembly. On July 28, 2009, it declared the following as part of its “Open Theological Declaration to the PC(USA):”
“We will not be governed by the Authoritative Interpretation adopted by the 218th General Assembly because it is constitutionally, biblically, and judicially unsustainable. This interpretation cannot change the plain meaning of the Constitution, which still holds full force and effect in Beaver-Butler Presbytery.”
The full text of the Declaration can be found here:
http://www.layman.org/Files/Theo%20%20Declaration%20Final.pdf
If the language of the current constitution were not to be changed by amendment, but if the GAPJC were to allow congregations and presbyteries to ordain SAPHAs anyway, a BACOP could take a similar sort of action. The BACOP could nullify the acts of governing bodies with which it disagrees, declaring such acts to be of no force or effect within the BACOP’s bounds.
A more extreme alternative would be for the BACOP to anathematize congregations or presbyteries that ordain SAPHAs, declaring those governing bodies no longer to be organizational expressions of the true Church.
Both nullification and anathematization would make it clear that the BACOP is not in any way in agreement with ordinations it understands to be immoral or unconstitutional. Both actions would thus solve the worst of the moral dilemmas caused by local option – that of appearing to approve of the proclamation of a false gospel.
There are, however, many problems with both of these tactics. Anathematization would practically be very difficult – for how would any BACOP know whether another presbytery has in fact ordained a SAPHA? No one wants to condemn someone else based purely on hearsay or gossip, and there would be no meaningful way to conduct hearings on the matter, since the ordination would by definition be outside the BACOP’s jurisdiction.
The main problem with nullification is that it would have little practical effect – after all, the BACOP would have no power actually to undo the actions it would be nullifying. This means that the ordination of SAPHAs would continue within the PCUSA, no matter what any BACOP might say or do. The BACOP would still be legally implicated in those actions, as long as G-9.0103 remains in the Book of Order: “The governing bodies are separate and independent, but have such mutual relations that the act of one of them is the act of the whole church performed by it through the appropriate governing body.”
Moreover, given the ability of higher governing bodies to overturn the actions of the governing bodies immediately below them, no extra-constitutional actions are likely to stand. Statements of nullification or anathematization could be, and probably would be, quickly overturned. Such extra-constitutional statements might also encourage Synods to appoint administrative commissions to prevent such irregular actions in the future.
One option is to nullify any unbiblical actions with which the BACOP disagrees. Beaver-Butler Presbytery, for example, has already nullified an action of the General Assembly. On July 28, 2009, it declared the following as part of its “Open Theological Declaration to the PC(USA):”
“We will not be governed by the Authoritative Interpretation adopted by the 218th General Assembly because it is constitutionally, biblically, and judicially unsustainable. This interpretation cannot change the plain meaning of the Constitution, which still holds full force and effect in Beaver-Butler Presbytery.”
The full text of the Declaration can be found here:
http://www.layman.org/Files/Theo%20%20Declaration%20Final.pdf
If the language of the current constitution were not to be changed by amendment, but if the GAPJC were to allow congregations and presbyteries to ordain SAPHAs anyway, a BACOP could take a similar sort of action. The BACOP could nullify the acts of governing bodies with which it disagrees, declaring such acts to be of no force or effect within the BACOP’s bounds.
A more extreme alternative would be for the BACOP to anathematize congregations or presbyteries that ordain SAPHAs, declaring those governing bodies no longer to be organizational expressions of the true Church.
Both nullification and anathematization would make it clear that the BACOP is not in any way in agreement with ordinations it understands to be immoral or unconstitutional. Both actions would thus solve the worst of the moral dilemmas caused by local option – that of appearing to approve of the proclamation of a false gospel.
There are, however, many problems with both of these tactics. Anathematization would practically be very difficult – for how would any BACOP know whether another presbytery has in fact ordained a SAPHA? No one wants to condemn someone else based purely on hearsay or gossip, and there would be no meaningful way to conduct hearings on the matter, since the ordination would by definition be outside the BACOP’s jurisdiction.
The main problem with nullification is that it would have little practical effect – after all, the BACOP would have no power actually to undo the actions it would be nullifying. This means that the ordination of SAPHAs would continue within the PCUSA, no matter what any BACOP might say or do. The BACOP would still be legally implicated in those actions, as long as G-9.0103 remains in the Book of Order: “The governing bodies are separate and independent, but have such mutual relations that the act of one of them is the act of the whole church performed by it through the appropriate governing body.”
Moreover, given the ability of higher governing bodies to overturn the actions of the governing bodies immediately below them, no extra-constitutional actions are likely to stand. Statements of nullification or anathematization could be, and probably would be, quickly overturned. Such extra-constitutional statements might also encourage Synods to appoint administrative commissions to prevent such irregular actions in the future.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Sorting Ourselves Out - More Flexible Presbyteries
By this point, it should be obvious that it is not possible for Presbyterians who have different views on the ordination of Self-Acknowledged Practitioners of Homosexual Acts (SAPHAs) to remain in full ecclesiastical communion. And yet it cannot be denied that people who hold mutually exclusive positions on this question do remain within every presbytery of the PCUSA.
One solution to this problem has been presented to the 219th General Assembly by Beaver-Butler Presbytery. Overture 45 can be found here:
http://www.pc-biz.org/Explorer.aspx?id=2339
The main point of this overture is to allow congregations to sort themselves out into presbyteries in which they can “express shared, deeply held convictions.” The intention is admirable, and would be most helpful for a few congregations that find themselves at odds with the clear majority of their presbytery. According to this overture, such minority congregations could decide to join another, more theologically compatible presbytery, even if that presbytery were not geographically contiguous, as long as that other presbytery were “within one day’s reasonable travel.”
This is, of course, not as radical a change as it sounds. The PCUSA already has several non-geographic presbyteries, membership in which is defined along linguistic or cultural lines. Beaver-Butler’s idea would simply extend this idea to include theological affinity along with racial-ethnic affinity.
The idea also takes into account the relational revolution we are all experiencing with the advent of the internet. With conference calls and social-networking sites so inexpensive and available, it simply makes no sense to insist that geography be the exclusive determinant of political unity.
Unfortunately, however, the Beaver-Butler proposal cannot be seen as the final solution to the PCUSA’s problems, for it would leave G-9.0103 in the Book of Order: “The governing bodies are separate and independent, but have such mutual relations that the act of one of them is the act of the whole church performed by it through the appropriate governing body.” As long as SAPHA-ordaining presbyteries remain within the PCUSA, even those presbyteries which self-consciously and publicly reject the ordination of SAPHAs would be implicated in their actions. Sorting congregations into more homogeneous presbyteries could thus only be seen as an intermediate step towards a more radical separation.
One solution to this problem has been presented to the 219th General Assembly by Beaver-Butler Presbytery. Overture 45 can be found here:
http://www.pc-biz.org/Explorer.aspx?id=2339
The main point of this overture is to allow congregations to sort themselves out into presbyteries in which they can “express shared, deeply held convictions.” The intention is admirable, and would be most helpful for a few congregations that find themselves at odds with the clear majority of their presbytery. According to this overture, such minority congregations could decide to join another, more theologically compatible presbytery, even if that presbytery were not geographically contiguous, as long as that other presbytery were “within one day’s reasonable travel.”
This is, of course, not as radical a change as it sounds. The PCUSA already has several non-geographic presbyteries, membership in which is defined along linguistic or cultural lines. Beaver-Butler’s idea would simply extend this idea to include theological affinity along with racial-ethnic affinity.
The idea also takes into account the relational revolution we are all experiencing with the advent of the internet. With conference calls and social-networking sites so inexpensive and available, it simply makes no sense to insist that geography be the exclusive determinant of political unity.
Unfortunately, however, the Beaver-Butler proposal cannot be seen as the final solution to the PCUSA’s problems, for it would leave G-9.0103 in the Book of Order: “The governing bodies are separate and independent, but have such mutual relations that the act of one of them is the act of the whole church performed by it through the appropriate governing body.” As long as SAPHA-ordaining presbyteries remain within the PCUSA, even those presbyteries which self-consciously and publicly reject the ordination of SAPHAs would be implicated in their actions. Sorting congregations into more homogeneous presbyteries could thus only be seen as an intermediate step towards a more radical separation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)