Category Archives: Fellowship of Presbyterians

Gay marriage and a crisis of authority

Posted on by

By Jeff Gissing / @jeffgissing

There seems to be something of an authority crisis today. Let me explain. It seems increasingly difficult for contemporary Americans, even American Christians, to recognize any authority outside of themselves. The self is conceived of as the ultimate frame of reference and what appears to be deference to rightly constituted authority is often simply an internal calculus of cost verses benefit. Where there is little to no cost to defiance the chances increase that we will follow our own decisions regardless of the authority that tells us otherwise. I’m not able to trace the history of the rise of the self as a sort of unimpeachable moral authority, but I’m sure that consumerism has cemented a  previously developed understanding that places the “I” as the ultimate moral agent and authority.

An interesting example comes in the form of a sort of Constitutional crisis in the Presbyterian Church USA (via: Mary Naegli). You can read news coverage here.

The Presbytery of Redwoods (PCUSA) has refused to carry out a lawful order by a higher court, the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission. This is the church equivalent of a trial court judge deciding that a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States is “wrong” and s/he therefore will not act on it.

Incidentally this actions falls into the category of “schism” so eagerly used when churches wish to leave the denomination, but not when governing bodies refuse to abide by the decisions of higher church courts.

Here’s what happened (in brief). From June to November 2008 the State of California recognized same sex marriages. During that period of time Jane Spahr (a Presbyterian minister) conducted sixteen (16) same sex marriages despite the fact that the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA) defines Christian marriage as between a man and a woman exclusively. The narrative of facts from the decision is copied below.

Spahr was brought on charges before the Presbytery of Redwoods for violating her ordination vows by representing as Christian marriages unions that were not. That conviction was subsequently upheld on two appeals (to the Synod and General Assembly). According to the highest court of our church the presbytery did not err in convicting Spahr nor in rebuking and enjoining her from doing same sex marriages.

Earlier this week the Presbytery of Redwoods met and its docket (agenda) included carrying out the lawful order of its own Permanent Judicial Commission to rebuke and enjoin Jane Spahr for and from performing same sex marriages. It refused to do so.

Instead it resolved to “oppose the imposition of the rebuke” as such an imposition is “inconsistent” with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. (read the resolution below). In other words: it refused to carry out a lawful order by a higher court purely and simply because it did not agree with that order.

What is really going on here? This is actually a short-circuiting of due process. A presbytery is claiming that it has no duty to act in accordance with the authorities that it has vowed to respect and obey. The presbytery has said to the church that it will comply with lawful orders only when such orders meet with its approval. The presbytery has said that it is the sole authority and will respect no others in the making of this decision.

Some observations:

  • With this action, the presbytery has shown itself to no longer be meaningfully presbyterian in its polity. Unchecked, each presbytery will become further balkanized a disconnected from the rest of the church.
  • This action mirrors the larger culture where there is an increasing polarization and lack of respect for authority which necessitates greater use of coercive power.
Authority is conceived of as resting on the ability to coerce, but in reality it rests on integrity.  Should this define by a lower court not be checked, then our church’s higher courts will have lost more authority by showing a deficit of integrity in handling this matter.
This is a troubling development for the Presbyterian Church (USA) and occurs in the same week that saw 20% of the churches in the Presbytery of Tropical Florida be released to other denominations (ECO: A Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians and The Evangelical Presbyterian Church).
God help us.

Additional Information

1. Here are the facts a reported in the decision of the General Assembly PJC (Order 220-08):

On April 28, 2008, this Commission issued its Decision and Order in the case of Jane Adams Spahr v. Presbytery of the Redwoods. That decision stated that a same-sex ceremony is not a marriage and that officers of the PC(USA) shall not state, imply, or represent that a same-sex ceremony is a marriage. On May 17, 2008, the Supreme Court of California ruled that same-sex marriages were legal under California law. Same-sex marriages were sanctioned by the State of California from June 20, 2008, through November 4, 2008. During that time period Spahr performed wedding ceremonies for approximately sixteen same-sex couples.

In 2010, a prosecuting committee of the Presbytery brought charges against Spahr for officiating at these ceremonies and a three-day trial was held before the PPJC in August 2010. At the conclusion of the trial the PPJC found her guilty of three of the four charges, issued a Rebuke, and enjoined her “to avoid such offenses in the future.” The PPJC also declared that the “rebuke and injunction shall not be imposed” until any appeals were complete. Spahr appealed to the SPJC, which affirmed the decision of the PPJC on March 25, 2011. That ruling was appealed by Spahr, and on February 20, 2012, the GAPJC sided with the Synod to say that the change in state law had no effect on the church’s definition of marriage that can be authorized by the PC(USA).

2. Here is the language of resolution from the Presbytery of Redwoods:

The Presbytery opposes imposition of the rebuke as set forth in the decision of the Presbytery Permanent Judicial Commission, dated August 27, 2010 (which was stayed by its terms until the present day), by declaring and resolving as follows:

WHEREAS, our primary ordination vow as Ruling and Teaching Elders is to be obedient to Jesus Christ, the Word of God, as the Scriptures bear witness to him, (F-1.02; W-4.4003 (a);

WHEREAS, the love of God in Jesus Christ is for all people, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people;

WHEREAS, the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the constitution require that full inclusion and pastoral care be extended to all members of the church;

WHEREAS,  this Presbytery called the Rev. Dr. Jane Adams Spahr to a ministry in outreach to- and in community among and with – lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people;

WHEREAS, the 38-year ministry of the Rev. Dr. Jane Adams Spahr has been faithful to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to her calling;

WHEREAS, the decision of the August 27, 2010, by its terms, acknowledges and apologizes (1) that the rules of the church “are against the Gospel,” and (2) that the decision and rebuke continue the grievous harm “that has been, and continues to be, done” by the church to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people “in the name of Jesus Christ”;

Be it RESOLVED that the Presbytery of the Redwoods opposes imposition of the rebuke set forth in the decision dated August 27, 2010, as inconsistent with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA), and the faithful life of ministry lived out in this Presbytery.

Let there be no strife between you and me…

Posted on by

I came across a refreshing piece of writing concerning the split that is currently happening in the Presbyterian Church (USA). I intentionally use the present tense because this is not a split that is “coming” or one that has passed. Instead, it is a long slow (sometimes faster) rending of a Christian church over genuine theological disagreements about significant issues for life and faith.

In the midst of this sundering passions run high. Words like “apostasy” and “schism” are flung around, often carelessly. This can create a toxic environment that makes it almost impossible to move into reconciliation.

Enter J. Barrett Lee, a progressive pastor who wrote the post mentioned above. In it he lays out his cards as a member of the progressive wing of the Presbyterian Church (USA) and cites his advocacy for the “equality” (read, “full inclusion” and “affirmation of”) GLBT people in the life of the church and in the New Testament orders of ministry (elders and deacons).

In his post he names reality as it really is when he asserts:

In reality, both sides are delusional. The PC(USA) is not the United Federation of Planets and ECO is not the Rebel Alliance. It’s pretty obvious to me that we’re essentially dealing with two different religious traditions under the roof of one denomination. This leaves us with two options. We can either: (A) Organize our denominational life together in such a way that leaves room for both parties to coexist, or (B) Peacefully part ways in a spirit that is consistent with our highest shared values.

The “Schism” Model

Typically, any division of a single denomination or church into two or more denominations or churches has been labelled a schism.
Many are, but is it really necessary that the only way to separate is in acrimony? Is it really always wrong to follow your understanding of the teaching of the church across history and leave for a place more consistent with that understanding?

Obviously schism is a serious matter since not only does it mean that error has taken place, but its also detrimental to the witness of the church in the world. However, even Calvin provides for situations in which separating is justified.

Peaceable separation model

Lee points to a second model rooted in the history of the people of God. In Genesis 13 Abram and Lot are journeying through the promised land. They reach a point in their journey where they realize that the land will not support both of their contingents. The solution is an amicable separation with mutual blessing and reciprocal generosity.

It seems to me that this is a model that we can pursue and maintain a wholesome witness to the broader world. What do you think?

Seminary as trade school: parish-based theological education?

Posted on by

As a leader in InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA and an ordained Presbyterian minister, I spend my life sandwiched between the university and the church. InterVarsity is both a para-church and a para-university movement–we work within and beside both institutions to advance their respective missions as well as our own.

InterVarsity contributes to the mission of the church by making disciples of students and faculty and sending them into the world as agents of Gospel-change. We contribute to the mission of the university by creating diverse, center-set believing communities that seek the welfare of the university and value respectful dialog and a common life with those who also call the university home.

One of the places where church and university encounter one another, in addition to campus ministry, is in the training of pastors and religious leaders. Historically this task has been performed by theological seminaries (usually stand-alone institutions) and divinity schools (of universities) related to the a church (as in denomination).

Regardless of whether there is a legal relationship between a theological institution and a denomination, there is the functional relationship that exists in that most denominations required their ordained clergy to receive a theological education from an accredited institution of higher education. It may be their first, second, or tenth priority, but all institutions of theological education train pastors.

These relationships often create tensions between the academy and the church:

  • How does academic freedom relate to theological and confessional integrity?
  • Can pastors be trained to perform their calling by those who have little to no parish experience?
  • How effective are seminaries in connecting academic learning with the practice of ministry?
  • Is the cost of seminary burdensome to future clergy whose earning potential is depressed?

Leadership Network reports that in light of the above issues (and more) some churches are stepping into the task of preparing ministers for parish service:

In 2011, the church [Sojourn Community Church] launched a one-year “Pastor’s School” as part of a residency where potential church planters attend intensive classes and serve as ministry leaders. Pastor’s School meets weekly, and the primary teacher is always a Sojourn pastor. The other training components focus on service in the local church. Each student must volunteer at least 5 hours a week in church ministry. The program will soon become a fully accredited, church-based theological education. Until then, Sojourn has negotiated with nearby Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY for 30 hours of Master of Divinity credits to be completed while serving in the church.

The church believes that this initiative can provide greater theological integrity among those called to plant church as well as pastor existing congregations. Says the pastor, Daniel Montgomery,

Too many pastors and church planters practice a ‘mutt theology’ of gleaning here and there—a bit of Tim Keller, of Francis Chan, of David Platt, of Mark Driscoll…. We recognized that one of the things missing in training church leaders is a community of practical and intellectual virtue. Sure there’s a place for the classroom, but learning is best done in residence in the church.

There is much to applaud about a project like this. Many para-church organizations (like InterVarsity, CRU, YoungLife) provide experience-based training in ministry that is complemented by classroom instruction during the summer. It seems to me that this model serves us reasonably well. By way of confession, my theological training took place full-time in a residential Master of Divinity program rather than a church- or ministry-based experience.

There are some things that concern me about this model as well. Chief among them is the risk of provincialism. A program like this could well lead to pastors with a stunted vision and philosophy of ministry overly limited to a single school of thought. It’s one thing to be rooted in a theological tradition, it’s another to be largely ignorant of anything beyond your own branch of the church.

Seminary isn’t a trade school. Instead it is a community in which we learn to think and live theologically, to practice ministry and deepen in the life of Christ. It is a specific, time-limited experience that forms the basis of a life devoted to theological reflection and practice now experienced in the context of parish rather than seminary. 

What do you think?

The Church needs shepherds, not cheerleaders

Posted on by

The Presbyterian Church USA continues to travel a difficult road that is exposing theological and hermeneutical fault lines within. In the midst of wading through these controversies it is easy to become self-justifying.

Richard John Neuhaus writes (Freedom for Ministry, p. 23):

We do not have to justify the Church. The magnitude of what is wrong with it does not mean, as some urge, that we should start saying what’s right with the Church. That way lies self-righteousness, smugness, and fact-denying illusion. The ministry is not the Church’s office of public relations, or it should not be. Our job is not to project a more positive ‘image’ of the Church, as that term is used in the communications media. Our task is to take seriously the biblical images or models of the Church that illuminate the Church’s full mission as the sign of humanity’s future. As we take this biblical understanding of the Church seriously, there is ever much in the empirical Church of which we must be relentlessly critical.

The next time you read a letter, and I don’t care who its from, that starts: “See, I am doing an new thing…” remind yourself that our job isn’t to give a pep rally for the Church–our calling is to guide and guard the church to be a faithful expression of the future of humanity.

Neuhaus on the church

Posted on by

It’s always a pleasure to read something (a book, article, blog post) that gives words to thoughts I’ve been having or an idea I’ve been wrestling with. At one and the same time it assures me that I’m not alone and that there is some hope of finding a way forward in the midst of a struggle. The person who recommends such a resource is an invaluable friend to whom a great debt it owed.

Recently Allan Poole (Pastor of Blacknall Memorial Presbyterian Church) recommended the late Richard John Neuhaus’s Freedom for Ministry.

I’m less than a fourth of the way through the book so I’ll refrain from a sweeping endorsement. However, I will tell you that the first chapter of the book is a gem. In “The Thus and So-Ness of the Church,” Neuhaus reflects on the tension we ministers experience when we hold together the “church of faith” with the “church of fact.” There is a gulf between the Church as it is and as it ought to be.

Ministry takes place firmly in the church as it is. Recognizing this is one of the keys, I am sure, to faithful ministry over the long haul. Writes Neuhaus, “But, you say, you cannot love the real church [the church of fact] because it is so unspeakably unlovable [petty, self-absorbed, sometimes heretical, etc.]. But what is the “real” Church? It is a great error, I believe, to think that only what now exists is real. To view the Church in terms of possibility and promise is not to depart from reality but to encompass the greater reality” (14).

What a breath of fresh air like for an idealist like me! The church is rent asunder and distressed by heresies. It can be petty, tyrannical, apathetic, and cruel. It is an institution, an organization, and prone to all the problems that beset such as this. However, it is also the bride of Christ:

What is the Church of which we are called to be ministers and for which we are to have love unbounded? It is the Church that “Christ loved…[he] gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish” (Eph. 5:25-27). That is the real Church. And that real Church is in continuity with, inseparable from, this empirical, existing Church with which we are so deeply and so rightly satisfied. (15)

Neuhaus powerfully names the tension I have been living. He continues: “To love the Church, then, is to help it become what it is” (15). The central element of the pastoral calling, then, is to help the church live into its identity as the bride of Christ and to do this in the way of love. What a calling!