the Outlook Blog

Reading a bit about Karl Barth and the situation in Germany, 1933, the term, "Confessing Church" tells a remarkable story of how some refused to erase the boundaries between church and state.

To read about the Confessing Church stirs my heart, and I wonder, "Would I have had the courage to stand, as Barth did, or would I have found ways to quietly compromise my status while telling myself that I was yet a man of integrity?"

The term, "Confessing Church" ought not to be ripped from its historical context in Germany, 1933, and co-opted to serve some smaller purpose.

Every time I read of the "Confessing Church" organization in the Presbyterian Church, my soul is shaken - that some would take virtually a holy-ground moment in time and claim it for their own to describe an in-house theological debate. Yes, a debate of genuine importance with long-lasting implications about the church and its life. But to call this group the "Confessing Church" is to misconstrue history.

The real Confessing Church stood its ground against the false gods of National Socialism. 

If there are any comparisons possible to the Confessing Church, it would be those who today protest the casual and careless mingling of church aims and national interests - the most current example of which is Glenn Beck and other lesser lights, who appeal to some of the very worst instincts in our national character.

Instincts found in every nation, and when times are troubled, such instincts rise to the surface, as they did in Germany after WW1, and by the time Hitler came along, he masterfully tapped into them and filled the cup of wrath that was poured out on Germany and the world. 

I respect my sisters and brothers on the issues, but I continue to regret their co-opting the title, "Confessing Church." 

The new proposed language for G-6.0106b calls for us to joyfully submit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life.  But how do we decide which Jesus to follow, in a day when we have wildly different concepts of “What Would Jesus Do?  The answer is in our second ordination vow: we “accept the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be, by the Holy Spirit, the unique and authoritative witness to Jesus Christ in the church universal, and God’s word to [us].”

            What the Bible says about Jesus trumps any other claim on the market, according to what we have vowed.  It trumps the Quran, the Gnostic gospels, Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code, and the voice of the “spirit” within us.  Our vow to accept the canonical Jesus as our authority also does not permit us to play the game of claiming that parts of our picture of Jesus were invented by the early church.  The early church was in a far better position than we are to know what Jesus really said and did.

            If we claim obedience to a Jesus who is a contradiction to the total witness of the Old and New Testaments, then we are not following the real Jesus.

Which picture of Jesus is correct?  The Great Rulebreaker — who came to get rid of dos and don’ts, who came to replace a religion of law with a religion of love? Or the One who had standards for his followers to live by?  The problem with Jesus is that it is too easy to make him into the great Fill-in-the-Blank who looks and thinks like us, a “Stepford Savior” who loves us and never contradicts us, a product of our own wishful imagination, an idol (if you will).  Look out whenever your Jesus begins to sound and look too much like you: Democrat or Republican, rich or poor, light or dark, permissive or Puritan.  If my Jesus makes me too comfortable, if he doesn’t shove me into my discomfort zone at times, it’s not the real Jesus.

To avoid distortions, it is important for us to accept the entire picture of Jesus we find in Scripture, not just the parts we like. We need to embrace both the loving Jesus, and the no-nonsense Jesus who did not tolerate hypocrisy or playing games with God. We need to embrace both the radically inclusive Jesus who welcomed outcasts who were not welcomed by the Pharisees or Qumran, and the One who let the Rich Young Ruler walk away; the One who loved both the woman at the well and Zacchaeus too much to leave them in unrepentant sin. We need to embrace both the One who shows us God’s love more than anyone else in Scripture, and the One who talked about hell more than anyone else in Scripture; the One who gives us a morality too high to reach, and the One who can save the most wretched of sinners.  We need to embrace both the Jesus who broke rules that were based solely on human tradition, and the One who beefed up laws where people had gotten lax.

 If we settle for anything less than the full Jesus of Scripture, we settle for a distortion.

So what does Jesus say in his teaching on sexuality?  The centerpiece of his teaching on this subject is where he cites a quote from the Torah that is also reaffirmed by the apostle Paul: “the two [man and woman] shall become one flesh” (Matt 19:5 = Mark 10:8). Jesus, the Torah, and Paul all teach that sex was created to form a lifelong inseparable bond between a man and a woman. Any other use of sex, whether it be fornication, prostitution, homosexual intercourse, or a marriage that is less than lifelong, is a violation of this thrice-repeated central teaching of Scripture on sexuality. Jesus names both porneia (fornication) and aselgeia (a veiled reference to homosexual behavior and similar offenses) on his sin list in Mark 7:21-23.

Jesus’ strict puritanical approach to sex may be seen in his teaching that even lust in the heart is a form of adultery (Matt 5:28), and in his teaching against divorce, where his point is that no one can erase a sexual relationship. There is no intellectually honest way to stretch this Jesus into a Jesus who is permissive toward sexual immorality. If we were serious about following Jesus, we wouldn’t be having this debate about sex.

Jesus has a whole lot more to teach us, by his words and by his life.  As we seek to follow Jesus, let’s settle for following no less than the complete Jesus to whom the Scriptures bear unique and authoritative witness.

 

TOM HOBSON of Belleville, Ill., a PC(USA) pastor for 27 years, has degrees from Gordon-Conwell (M.Div.) and Concordia (Ph.D.), and is currently seeking a call.

The Ten Steps To Profitable Trading is a simple ten step, short to medium term swing/channel trading strategy developed over many years of successful trading. It maximizes profit and minimizes risk resulting in a consistent 'buy low sell high' trade.  http://www.spectrumsonlinejobs.com/1249-32.html

As I read today's note in the LA Times about Jane Spahr to be tried by the PCUSA, I couldn't help but think of the text for this past Sunday, Luke 13:10-17, Jesus setting a woman free from 18 years of affliction, and doing so on the Sabbath, to make a point (he and the lady could have waited 24 hours) - healing is what the Sabbath is all about.

And then the synagogue leader weighs in - scolding folks, "Hey, we've got six days for work, and if you want healing, come on those days, but the Sabbath is for rest - keep it holy - no work!"

And that's when Jesus lays into the leader and his gang, "You hypocrites. You wouldn't treat an ox or donkey this way - you lead them to water on the Sabbath, so why deny the water of life to this woman on the Sabbath? What better day is there for revealing the love of God and the freedom therein?"

While Jesus stood on the intent of the law, the leader clung to the letter of the law. And according to the law, the leader was right and Jesus was wrong. 

So, here we go again, arguing about our laws.

And missing the point of the kingdom of God.

Jane Spahr is technically wrong, if that's the tact we wish to take. Jesus was wrong, too, and someone might have told him, "Wait 24 hours. Then do your healing. No one will be offended, the law will be maintained and everyone will be happy."

But Jesus didn't wait, because love and mercy and forgiveness and hope can't wait.

So ... we'll drag Jane into the mud of our own foolish little world of rules - rules that keep people bound - hungering and thirsting for a better day.

We wouldn't treat a dog this way.

But people?

Yeah, keep 'em tied up, and tie 'em up all the more with rules upon rules, until no one knows which way is up.

Sure, I am what I am - a supporter of marriage equality, comfortable with the biblical work done by Jack Rogers and others.  

And I've been called an apostate, a heretic and a servant of Satan.

No one has the final word, and I surely don't claim that, but with prayer and study, I've made my decision some years ago to no longer wait, and just to keep myself honest, I continue to study and think about these things.

But I write this note with a certain conviction, that Jane Spahr is pointing the way ahead, reminding us what the church and our faith is all about - setting people free. While the charges fly and the legal briefs are prepared, the PCUSA finds itself in the uncomfortable place of the synagogue leader.

That's how I see it these days.  

Do you support the building of an Islamic community center at Ground Zero? I wouldn't be surprised to hear this question or a similar one asked during a 2012 presidential debate.

 

The effort to build a mosque near Ground Zero has recently become something of a national issue thanks to a Tweet by Sarah Palin. Of course, Palin is far from being alone, which prompted defenders of the proposal. Among the best of these is Robert Wright’s A Mosque Maligned. Wright takes on several critics of the community center and makes them look, well un-American. He accomplishes this in two easy steps (or at least he makes them look easy). The first is simply to examine their reasoning, which turns out to be little more than guilt by association — and very loose association at that. This, Wright reminds us, is in the same style as the infamous witch hunts of Joseph McCarthy. Wright's second move is to base his support for the mosque on our war with Al Qaeda.

"Bin Laden would love to be able to say that in America you can build a church or synagogue anywhere you want, but not a mosque. That fits perfectly with his recruiting pitch — that America has declared war on Islam. And bin Laden would thrill to the claim that a mosque near ground zero dishonors the victims of 9/11, because the unspoken premise is that the attacks really were, as he claims, a valid expression of Islam" (emphasis added).

This is the war of ideas: Bin Laden's intolerance vs. the U.S's freedom of religion. Al Qaeda targets adherents of other religions, we respect the rights of all adherents. An open and shut case. I really like it. It reminds us of the first principles of our social contract that binds us together in this huge dysfunctional family we call the United States.

I like it and yet I can't help but notice that the positive basis of Wright's argument is war. What motivates this simple act of fairness? War. This seems terribly ironic when one considers that the debate (at least on the surface) is about the location of a community center that has the stated purpose of promoting tolerance and reconciliation. Aren't reconciliation and compassion the reasons that many people of faith would give in support of the mosque? Wouldn't most Americans agree that we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us? One might argue that Wright comes close to this with his appeal to the First Amendment and its standard of equal respect.

Still, why not begin with an appeal to reconciliation? The community center is intended to be a symbol of our refusal to be alienated from one another by terror, hate, and fear. Why then, allow ourselves to be divided by our deepest and most sacred beliefs? Indeed, wherever we Americans find meaning and purpose, don't many of us believe in the path of reconciliation and peace? What could be more American?

Perhaps Wright assumed that if he began with an appeal to reconciliation, he'd be written off as dangerously naive. I suspect that many of my fellow Christians would oppose Wright's position but also that they would be even more resistant to it if he had grounded it on reconciliation. Wright, ironically, offers a more humane position based on war than that of many Christians, whose entire lives are supposedly based on peace.

Similarly, some on the Left would likely judge my question (What could be more American?) to be hopelessly naive. America, they insist, is an Empire dedicated to perpetual war. My question, however, is intended less as a descriptive statement than an aspirational one. If it sounds naive, consider a President who governed a nation at war with itself and still managed to speak of "charity for all.” If it continues to sounds naive, consider an African-American minister who after being stabbed, beaten, and wrongly jailed, still spoke of black children and white children living in peace together. If it still sounds naive, consider the imam and his vision of a welcoming community center around the corner from a place where madness consumed the hopes of thousands. What could be more American?

DAVID TRUE is associate professor of religion at Wilson College, Chambersburg, Pa.

[...]

Thank God we live in a Republic rather than a Democracy ... a Republic in which elected and/or appointed officials are empowered to make decisions for us.

As in the case of fair housing in CA, early 60s, the courts determined that restrictive housing covenants were unconstitutional, despite the fact that 65% of California voters wanted to retain them in Prop 14.

I think, too, about Civil Rights and Women's Suffrage ... it was the leadership of the courts that helped us break free of the past and shed the chains of structural racism and discrimination. Yes, both yet exist in practice and attitude for many Americans, but without official approval. That's a huge step to take, and today in CA, another huge step was taken for civil right and Marriage Equality.

And it looks like the legal arguments are in place - whatever perspective some may personally hold on LGBT persons and practices, there can no longer be a constitutional prohibition on their marriage and the rights that pertain thereto.

For a detailed examination on why the proponents of Prop 8 feared a trial such as has just been concluded, check out the following article at HuffingtonPost. In a nutshell, the "legal arguments" against Marriage Equality simply do not stand up in an American Court of Law.

I have many friends who oppose Marriage Equality and ordination for practicing LGBT persons, and though I cannot agree with them, I cannot deny either their feelings or opinions.  Yet they are beginning to realize that moral and theological arguments against Marriage Equality cannot be translated into civil law.

As for me, I long for the day when I will be able to officiate at all weddings. That day is coming, I believe, and it will be a good day for all of us.  

 

American Christians have made much ado about "believing," which is just fine if there's adequate knowing. But in the last 50 years, large portions of American Christianity have settled for "believing" with lots of emotion, and even commitment, without the knowing (both progressives and conservatives have surrendered the depths and heights of the faith).

 

I'm inclined to think that believing is a good thing, but one can't always believe - sometimes we doubt, and sometimes darker moods prevail. 

 

But what can never be taken away, never waver is knowledge. Knowledge of the creeds and doctrines of the church. Of course, this isn't belief, but knowing well what scripture and tradition offer us is a genuine foundation, and if someone knows well what faith is all about, in terms of belief and behavior, the believing occurs, I think, more naturally. It no longer needs to be reinforced by hype and drama, but grows evenly and surely, if not surprisingly.

 

For pastors to be rabbis, above all else. Teachers!

 

And for congregations to pledge a new loyalty to learning - not always the most exciting thing, but let's not measure things by their excitement factor. 

 

If we could liberate our congregations - indeed, our American congregations, and youth groups and Sunday Schools, from their addiction to "entertainment" and "excitement" and "fun" and all the other bloated adjectives and adverbs we use these days and just be about "our Father's business," we'd do everyone a huge favor, and might, once again, become for our land "the salt of the earth and the light of the world."

 

All of this must be done, of course, without the harshness of dogma - but with the sweetness of Christ. 

 

For our congregations to become places of great learning, we need pastors and elders committed to great teaching - a renewed passion for discipleship, student-ship! To be covered in the dust of the The Rabbi!

 

Let's free our pastors from the hideous pressures of "building the numbers" and "seeing to the lawn" and forever "calling on Widow Brown." Let's recover the "teaching elder" dimension of our tradition so that our congregations will be repositories of good knowledge, that our pulpits will be sources of steady and, yes, even inspiring, knowledge of the texts, the traditions and the times! That our youth groups and our Sunday School classes will have serious dimensions of learning the faith - catechesis and reflection, to buttress the legitimate "fun and games" that children and youth deserve.

 

At first, visitors might well sample all of this, and turn away, seeking a much more intense version of the "fun and games" so peculiar to American Christianity, but I believe in God at this point, and God will save those whom God is saving, and we can rely upon God ... if only God can rely upon us!

 

That when a visitor should come our way, they will meet depth and height and width and breadth, the likes of which will intrigue their soul and invite further inquiry ... and who knows, one-by-one, "lost souls" will be given, by the Holy Spirit through out faithful and thoughtful witness, a vision of the Kingdom of God.

Now that the 219th GA has mercifully ended and the dust on all of the policy decisions is finally settling, what conclusions can be drawn?
 

            Permit me to offer the following analogy. In days gone by when an elderly relative died at home, those present at the time of passing anxiously awaited the arrival of the coroner, or doctor who would “pronounce” the departed legally dead.  To that point, however, the departed family member was, in fact dead, just not legally declared to be so.


            Is this where our beloved denomination is right now? We’re gathered around the bedside of the recently departed, saddened and shocked at what has happened (at the 219th GA), anxiously awaiting the dreaded “pronouncement” that our friend is in-fact legally dead. For the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), I believe, the “official” death will actually be declared when a majority of presbyteries vote to allow homosexual ordination – a very likely scenario given the support it received in Minneapolis last month. And that will be that. Moreover, unlike a departed family member, this death will bring about no wake, no funeral, no burial because — truthfully — this has already happened.
 

            To prove the foregoing, one needs look no further than what has already taken place in the Episcopal Church USA, (ECUSA) and most recently the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). Both were once proud flagships in the American Armada of Protestantism. Both are now floundering in the surf, their “Great Commission Engines” having already failed, so if the rocks don’t get them first, then the beach certainly will. For these denominations the death certificate has already been issued. “Finis!” 
 

            Some of us in the PC(USA) are in local congregations that still adhere faithfully to the central tenet of our Reformed Faith: Sola Scriptura. To use another analogy, these churches are lifeboats secured to their davits on the flagship PC(USA).  As soon as the LGBT lifestyle is no longer a barrier to ordination, however, the question becomes: Will there be time for these already full lifeboats to get away from the ship before it sinks, or will all of us perish with the ship?


Jon Spinnanger

Williamsburg, Va.