Comments for Tough at http://pres-outlook.com , comment 1 to 3 out of 3 comments http://pres-outlook.com Thu, 20 Nov 2008 08:53:54 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://pres-outlook.com/opinion/commentary/4710.html#comment-3282 When I read Clay Allard's article I found myself thinking, 'Here we go again' followed by some of the thoughts expressed by Michael McCarty in his reply, though Mac did far better than I would do in giving those thoughts expression. Like Allard, I am one who is remaining in the PCUSA. I am seeking to help establish a covenantal community within the PCUSA, seeing the PCUSA as one more mission field where I am called. Others do not sense such a calling from God so we should not only grant them the freedom to follow as God is leading but bless them on their way. (A better path than extracting an 'offering' from such churches in exchange for their release would be for a presbytery to hold a special offering to give as a gift to the departing church in recognition of all their years of participation together.) I wish more of my brothers and sisters who are evangelical, orthodox, Reformed believers who feel led to remain in the PCUSA would come to understand what McCarty (and many others who have written to answer similar objections over the past year) is communicating in his reply. I know a number of folks who have left or are in the process of leaving. They are faitfhul followers who have prayerfully thought through their actions, knowing well the weight of their decisions. To argue against their action is to encourage them to be disobedient to God's calling for them. No, it is not the same calling we sense from God for our life but it is God's will for them. God's blessings to you, Matt Ferguson, pastor Hillsboro, IL - Matt Ferguson Mon, 07 May 2007 12:00:00 +0100 http://pres-outlook.com/opinion/commentary/4710.html#comment-3281 Thanks for standing, Clay. I'm right beside you! - Marie Bowen Mon, 07 May 2007 12:00:00 +0100 http://pres-outlook.com/opinion/commentary/4710.html#comment-3280 As I read Clay Allard's open letter, I confess that I am saddened and frustrated and confused. I am saddened because he counsels people to consciously choose denominational loyalty over obedience to God's call in their lives. I am frustrated and confused because he says he does not understand from where the authority to move comes. He harkens back to the day he took his ordination vows. Such recollection and reflection is important, both to keep one on track and to recall exactly what the individual promised . . . and to whom. Therein lies the crux of the issue. On June 8, 1968, I swore an oath of offcie as a Lieutenant of Marines. "I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.' Contrast this oath with the Fuhrer oath implemented by Adolph Hitler in 1934: "'I swear by God this sacred oath: I will render unconditional obedience to Adolf Hitler, the Führer of the German Reich and people, Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, and will be ready as a brave soldier to risk my life at any time for this oath.' The oath I took (and to which I am still subject) was to support and defend the Constitution, not the president, not the congress, not a political party. It required me to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution, and ensures that I have no reservations (scruples?) that temper the oath. In 1973, when some were concerned about the stability of the government in power at the time, my Commanding Officer conducted a class for all his officers to remind us that our oath was not a "Fuhrer oath;" it was to a higher loyalty that we were called. So Mr. Ballard, as have many before him on these electronic pages, raises the question: are our ordination vows made to God or the PC(USA)? A review of the "constitutional questions" that comprise the substance of the ordination vows (the "oath of office" if you will) leads me to answer Mr. Ballard's question ("Where is the Biblical authority to leave? ") thusly. The authority comes from both Scripture and from the vows themselves. Let's work backwards, starting with the vows. The seven substantive sections of the vows can be divided into two parts. The first four establish to whom the vows are directed and the authority to which the ordinand is subject. The final three are essentially a recitation of subordinate principles of application. The officer taking the vows commits himself (or herself (the use of one gender from hereon is intended to encompass both) to "trust in Jesus Christ your Savior, acknowledge him Lord of all and Head of the Church, and through him believe in one God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." Continuing, he "accept[s] 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 you." Next, the ordinand promises to " receive and adopt the essential tenets of the Reformed faith as expressed in the confessions of our church as authentic and reliable expositions of what Scripture leads us to believe and do, and [to] be instructed and led by those confessions as you lead the people of God." By the next vow, he promises to "fulfill your office in obedience to Jesus Christ, under the authority of Scripture, and [to] be continually guided by our confessions." So, in the first four parts of the oath, the individual places Jesus Christ, the triune God, Scripture, and the Confessions of the church supreme over any other call upon his or her conscience. Most importantly, he swears to be obedient to Christ, under the authority of Scripture, but to be merely guided by the confessions. This is, a crucial distinction. The first four parts of the vows put God's call on the officer at the forefront. The promise to "receive and adopt" the essential tenets of the reformed faith, in the context of the PC(USA) is a nullity, because the PC(USA) refuses to declare that which is essential. Adherence to the confessions is similarly diluted by, inter alia, the inclusion of C-67 in the list, but it does offer some concrete guidance to the officer who is trying to discern God's call on his life and leadership. When read with the right to exercise conscience set forth elsewhere in the Book of Order, the ordination vows mandate obedience to a call by God through the Holy Spirit before even considering a man-made construct such as a denominational polity. The final three parts of the vows also support the potential for departure. The ordinand promises to " be governed by our church's polity, and [to] abide by its discipline [and to] be a friend among your colleagues in ministry, working with them, subject to the ordering of God's Word and Spirit." Polity comes after the ordering of God's Word and Spirit! In his own life, he promises to "seek to follow the Lord Jesus Christ, love your neighbors, and work for the reconciliation of the world." He promises "to further the peace, unity, and purity of the church" and "to serve the people with energy, intelligence, imagination, and love." In other words, subject to God's call on the individual, he will submit to polity. But if the two diverge, he will follow God, not man. Furthering the peace, unity and purity refers to the church -- not a single denomination -- and is stated in the conjunctive. All three must be present. The current PC(USA) is not unified, it is not peaceful, and for the past 83 years it has been far from pure. Instead, the elder who seeks "to serve the people with energy, intelligence, imagination, and love," may find that the most faithful way to further peace, unity and purity is to lead the flock out of an increasingly secular and unfaithful PC(USA). John Calvin wrote the following in Chapter II, sections I and II of the Institutes. 'As soon as falsehood has made a breach in the fundamentals of religion, and the system of necessary doctrine is subverted, and the use of the sacrament fails, the certain consequence is the ruin of the Church.... In withdrawing ourselves, therefore, from the pernicious participation of so many enormities, there is no danger of separating ourselves from the Church of Christ.' Later in Chapter II, section VI, Calvin went on to say this: "It was necessary for us to withdraw from them in order to approach to Christ." Because Mr. Ballard (correctly, I agree) seeks Scriptural support for departure, I offer the following: 'If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.' 1 Timothy 6: 3-5 'I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people not at all meaning the people of the world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.' 1 Corinthians 5: 9-10 'Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. They are from the world; therefore they speak from the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.' 1 John 4:1-6 'I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them.' Romans 16:17 Ultimately, each elder and pastor must remember that he or he was sent by God to a particular flock. a flock entrusted to the collective care of the ordained leaders of the congregation. They promised before God and man to faithfully care for that flock. But the oath was one of faithfulness to God and promised to provide faithful care to the flock for God. Nowhere is there a Fuhrer oath to the PC(USA) or its corporate and bureaucratic leadership. History teaches us that when a Fuhrer oath is demanded by leaders, the Scripturally faithful response is to reaffirm that our first duty is to God alone. The leadership at Barmen recognized that rule. So should we all. Mac - Michael Mccarty Mon, 07 May 2007 12:00:00 +0100