Category Archives: PCUSA

When calendars collide

Posted on by
Reply

by Jeff Gissing | @jeffgissing

When secular and ecclesiastical calendars collide, the secular calendar always wins. At least, it seems that way to me. Christmas on a Sunday? Let’s cancel church–Christmas is a time for family, right? Pentecost on Memorial Day weekend? Time to head to the beach. Observing this little fact over the years suggests that culture is more deeply shaping many American Christians than the story of the Church.

20120528-075249.jpg

Pentecost celebrates the church’s coming into being as recounted in Acts 2. The giving of the Holy Spirit is no small part of the story of the Church and it’s no small part of the story of individual Christians. That we are so immune or ignorant of the Spirit’s work in our own lives is, again, testimony to the ill health of the Christian community.

20120528-080459.jpg

Don’t get me wrong, there’s nothing wrong with secular holidays such as Memorial Day. As a Reformed Christians I have no problem observing the sacrifice of members of the Armed Forces who have given their lives in the defense of the nation. The military is an extension of the civil authority and therefore is to be respected.

Further, I don’t have a great deal of problem with a sense of allegiance to or respect for one’s nation. After all, we’re all born somewhere and as part of some people. It seems to me that love of neighbor begins with love of one’s fellow countrymen. It should be remembered, of course, that love of country and allegiance to the flag (or the crown) has its limits.

There is a prior or more ultimate allegiance for the Christian–Christ himself and His bride, the church. We shouldn’t forget how radical a statement that can be. After all, imagine such words coming from the mouth of a Muslim. Some of us might feel somewhat different in that instance.

What I long for is a day when the evangelical church is marked by a growing sense of its on-going participation in the story of Christ as marked by the church calendar. What I hope for is the sense that above and before all other commitments is a commitment to a local group of believers who live in intentional accord with the testimony in the book of Acts (2.42):

And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

I get excited envisioning a day in which when two calendars collide, the church calendar wins.

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.

Don’t forget the Ascension

Posted on by

Christian discipleship has a lot to do with locating yourself in the story of God. One of the ways that the Church has done this is through the Church calendar–taking time to place ourselves in the narrative of God’s redemptive work in Christ. There are other stories of which we are a part, but none is deeper or more important than the story of God’s reconciling the world to himself.

For low church evangelical protestants the temptation is to reduce this redemptive story to two movements, or even one as we’re pressured by the culture in which we live to mark time according to a different calendar–one where some of the holidays have the same name, but have very different meanings poured into them.

The Christian calendar (outside of strictly liturgical churches) often gets reduced to Christmas and Easter. If we’re honest, Christmas edges Easter out. Easter itself is often reduced to Maundy Thursday (if you’re lucky) and Easter Sunday, rather than the Triduum that the Church has historically celebrated (Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, Holy Saturday). True reflection on the work of Christ on the cross seems quite difficult absent three days to consider in community.

We rarely pause moreover to consider the significance of the Ascension to the story of God. In the Gospel of John, Jesus tells his disciples that unless He leaves them the “comforter” (“counselor,” “advocate”) cannot come to them. He is speaking, of course, of the Holy Spirit.

Were it not for the Ascension, we would be without help and without a deep and living connection to the Godhead through the Holy Spirit.

Christine Sine offers a reflection on the Ascension by guiding us through the words of several liturgies used to celebrate this important day in the life of the faith.

Consider preparing for Ascension Day by reading and reflecting on the word of God.

From the Acts of the Apostles (9.11f., Phillips):

When he had said these words he was lifted up before their eyes till a cloud hid him from their sight. While they were still gazing up into the sky as he went, suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them and said, “Men of Galilee, why are you standing here looking up into the sky? This very Jesus who has been taken up from you into Heaven will come back in just the same way as you have seen him go.

And Jesus’ own words in the Gospel of John (16.7):

Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send Him to you.

Consider this liturgy from the Reformed tradition:

Our God goes up with shouts of joy!

Our Lord ascends to the sound of trumpets!
All: Sing praises to our God, sing praises!
Sing praises, sing praises to our King!
The Almighty rides in triumph.
The Almighty leads captivity captive.
Who shouts for joy? Who blows the trumpet?
The hosts of heaven sing the honor of his name;
they praise him with an endless alleluia.

-David Diephouse, Calvin College

Thanks be to God! Amen.

Gay marriage 1 – an intro

Posted on by

Next month the people of the state of North Carolina will have the opportunity to vote on a Constitutional amendment that will define marriage as between a man and a woman. This issue is exposing cultural fault lines in North Carolina and dividing what is commonly known as a “red state.”

In this post and the next I will offer two arguments: one will be the Christian case against allowing the state to recognize same sex unions/marriages; the other will be the Christian case for allowing the state to recognize such unions.

Notice the phrasing these two sentences. I will in neither case be arguing that Christian churches should recognize or solemnize unions between two people of the same sex. I am of the conviction that a Biblical case cannot be made for expanding the definition of marriage beyond the marriage of a man and a woman. We may argue about the evolution of the meaning of marriage or the rights enjoyed by the husband and wife, but what cannot be argued is that marriage has ever included more than one person of the same sex–in polygamy, for example, a husband has multiple wives, but those wives have a single husband (not a husband and a series of wives).

Nor will I be discussing the specific language of the proposed amendment. Several voices have made the case have been made that the language of the proposed amendment is overly broad and will reach beyond the actual intent of the drafters (to adversely affect existing domestic violence laws). This is worth considering, but not in these two posts.

Monday I will post a Christian case in favor of state recognition of gay marriage, and on Tuesday I will post a Christian case opposing such state recognition. Notice that I have used the qualifier “Christian.” I am writing as a Christian minister and as a Christian voter. I believe my calling as both is to think Christianly on a topic as significant as the ordering of our society. While I may touch on issues like the purpose or nature of the law, my chief concern is to root my comments in the tradition of the Church’s reflection on Scripture.

I invite your civil comments and interactions around these two posts and the issue in general. Any incivil comments will be moderated and removed from the blog. Thanks for playing nicely!

Note: I will try to link to appropriate articles or posts either in my own posts or in a separate post providing resources for a Christian discussion of this issue.

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?