I recently posted on my twitter feed about this, but for my money, two of the best bloggers writing about the intersection of faith, culture, the Presbyterian Church (USA), and authentic living are Carol Howard Merritt at Tribal Church and Jan Edmiston at A Church for Starving Artists. I’ve mentioned the latter here before, and both continue to be pushing important issues forward through their reflections on their respective blogs. I’m constantly finding their posts thought provoking, regardless of whether we’d agree on every point (we wouldn’t, but we would on many).

I think its important to hear what they have to say, so I wanted to highlight it. Check out their blogs. A few interesting posts of late:

@A church for starving artists:

• Never Been Kissed: on the Susan Boyle phenomenon and what it says about us spiritually.
• ISO Edgy Interim Pastors: on what makes for a good interim pastorate, what makes for a crappy one, and how to tell the difference, plus a plea to the church to get to work on improving this important ministry.
• Sabbatical as Worship: well, just read it; on what is cringeworthy about “contemporary worship” and expanding our ideas of what worship is to go beyond Sunday morning at 11am (or whatever)…

@Tribal Church

• Better Vision: On present statistics about pastors seeking calls and available positions, and our the Presbyterian Church (USA)’s abysmal trackrecord of late with New Church Developments.
• Pointers for Pastoral Nominating Committees: Really, really, really good advice for those who might find themselves sitting on a PNC.
• Hot Passionate Conservatives and Icy-Cold Liberals: Tackling some stereotypes about church growth, pastoral makeup, and some future trends of our churches.

In the meantime, buy and read Carol’s book and get ready for both her next one and the one Jan is wrapping up. It will be worth it to spend some time with these really wonderful thinkers…

I wish I had started this on Saturday, because I’m already losing some of the detail to the corners of my mind that memory has abandoned. Demands of a full Sunday and sick toddlers, though, trump blogging.

On Saturday, Heartland Presbytery met in a called meeting to consider proposed amendments to the shared polity that structures how we are church together, the Book of Order, as well as to ratify ecumenical agreements for our denomination. In the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the General Assembly receives recommendations for such amendments through an overture process, and if it deems the amendments commendable, they are sent to the Presbyteries for consideration. If a majority of the Presbyteries agree to the changes, they become part of the Book of Order.

Collectively, Heartland Presbytery voted on 10 amendments Saturday, and four ecumenical agreements (a collective agreement on the Sacrament of Baptism with the Roman Catholic Church, some shared ministry with the Episcopal Church, and full covenantal relationship with the Moravian Church and the Korean Presbyterian Church in America). A summary of our presbytery’s meeting was helpfully prepared by our stated clerk (pdf).

For the most part, there was little debate over most of the business before us. The ecumenical agreements were discussed with only one person rising to the floor–to mention that she was baptized in the Moravian church and was well pleased we were moving to recognize our common ministry. We had some discussion about the potential ramifications of two different amendments pertaining to Certified Christian Educators. A proposal to clarify Book of Discipline language so that accusers cannot veto Alternative Forms of Resolution was challenged, and there was some discussion about the suggestion to require a public profession of faith for new members in the context of worship. Generally, though, all of this was amicable, and as expected. (For Presbygeeks out there, at the end of the day, and not including the matter below, Heartland Presbytery voted to ratify all of the proposed amendments except 08A, 08F and 08I. You can see all the proposed amendments at the special page on the PCUSA website.)

The real debate, as expected perhaps, when we turned to the amendment that would modify that portion of the Book of Order that contains the so-called “fidelity and chasity” clause in G-6.0106b:

Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament.

The new language proposed by amendment 08-B would replace all of the above with the following:

Those who are called to ordained office in the church, by their assent to the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003), pledge themselves to live lives obedient to Jesus Christ the Head of the Church, striving to follow where he leads through the witness of the Scriptures, and to understand the Scriptures through the instruction of the Confessions. In so doing, they declare their fidelity to the standards of the Church. Each governing body charged with examination for ordination and/or installation (G-14.0240 and G-14.0450) establishes the candidate’s sincere efforts to adhere to these standards.”

Heartland voted to pass this change by a vote of 127-90, and if a majority of Presbyteries (87) vote likewise, it will become the new standard. I strongly favor this new language, for a number of reasons. Had I had the opportunity to speak in debate on the floor (I was in line, but the vote was brought before I could speak), here’s roughly what I would have said on the floor:

I want to share three of the reasons, among others, that I support this amendment. The first is theological. When I was a teenager, involved in youth ministry in my Presbytery and becoming familiar with how the church engages in all sorts of controversies, I could hear from every quarter “theology matters!” And it really, truly does. The current G-6.0106 advances bad theology, and particularly a theology that fails to articulate that our obedience is to Jesus Christ the Head of the Church. It is bad theology to pledge to live our lives in obedience to Scripture. We pledge ourselves to God, to Christ Jesus the living Word as testified to us through Holy Scripture. This amendment corrects that mistake, and in itself makes this section of our Constitution much stronger.

The second is personal. Two fellow friends of mine as a teenager, likewise engaged in youth ministry, had the same call to ministry I had. They had more gifts for it, and both are lesbian. One endured much pain and suffering and somehow, by the grace of God, is now a PCUSA minister, working for Presbyterian Welcome to advance the cause of inclusion in the church. The other, the sister of an esteemed, former minister member of this Presbytery, has abandoned the church and the faith that she sensed abandoned her. These capable, called women make me think of my own daughters, now two-and-a-half  years old. Should, as they grow older and find their faith nurtured in the church, they hear the call of God and the church to ordained leadership someday, and should God have made one or both of them a lesbian, I would find it unjust for there to be a formal bar for an ordanining body to consider their gifts for leadership. So I think of my more capable peers; I think of my daughters; I think of the sons and daughters of those in this sanctuary. This singling out of a single class of ostensible sins as a bar to ordained office makes little theological sense to those of us who claim the Protestant and Reformed mantle.

Which leads to my third reason: I believe that God is working in our church and that, if we listen to the Holy Spirit, that now is the time for us to end this practice, and to consider that our Gay and Lesbian brothers and sisters might well be just the people God is calling to lead us and our congregations.

That would have been, more or less, what I would have said in my allotted two minutes. Nothing particularly novel or groundbreaking, and in some ways characteristic of much of what was said by proponents of the amendment. Many who lined up to speak did so by appealing to personal stories. The reason for this, I believe, is that it is the personal relationships that often cause those who strongly argue for the sinfulness of homosexuality and/or homosexual activity to rethink their position. And accordingly those who rise to debate for their two minutes often talk about their brother, or their cousin, or their friends, or their children. This is not to say that there aren’t solid theological, biblical, ecclesiastical, and missional reasons for holding a more inclusive view on this matter, but for many who are opposed, it is the fact that one’s loved ones are gay that gets them rethinking the whole “homosexuality is mainly a choice” meme.

But what struck me on Saturday, and what I wanted to blog about, was the tenor of the voices opposing the amendment. I’m not really interested in the one or two particularly vile remarks (such as the one painting Kansas City’s First Friday celebrations as a locus of homosexual debauchery), and concentrate on the rest, because I think these other remarks have more merit to them, and I empathize with all who are wrestling with this, even if we do not agree on these positions we passionately hold.

When these other voices spoke against the amendment, it seemed to me that they revealed more about what they thought we on the other side assumed about them. Their arguments often started with apology for their position. So, for instance, many started with a claim that their position was not about hating Gays and Lesbians, that they all felt that Gays and Lesbians were welcome in their churches, that this was about a higher standard for ordained officers.

Perhaps this was in reaction to the opposition’s first speaker, but this litany of apology struck me. I’ve never thought, for most who hold a view similar to those who resist broadening the rights of ordained office to GLBT folk, that hatred or flat denial of basic Christian love and charity for them was involved. Perhaps in some instances fear (or more to the point revulsion of the idea of the particular sexual acts involved). But not hatred. So, I wanted to just state that for the record. I know that many conservative Presbyterians are more motivated by their understanding of what they think Scripture lays out for human sexuality and church leadership (even though, after long study, much prayer, and I would argue an equal reverence for God, I come to a strongly different conclusion). I mourn that they don’t believe that we, on this side, think that they are motivated by the best impulses of Christian faith. I think they are; I just think they are wrong, and that their error has hurt scores of people in the process.

This goes both ways, of course: I also mourn that their side too often cannot call my view a biblical one, or a faithful one, or a Christian one, or somehow diminish the notion that I am coming to it with all the effort to listen to God’s desire for me, for the church, for the world that I can muster.

There were other highlights of the opposition arguments that I could highlight. For instance: the claim that a biblical sexual ethic brings one to wholeness of life in a way a secular sexual ethic cannot (which assumes, falsely, that those who support GLBT rights have loose sexual ethics simply because we think that GLBT’s are being ontologically discriminated against in many so called “biblical sexual ethics,” and also assumes, again falsely, that our sexual ethics are not biblically based). Or the argument that this is about breaking down all rules, all guidelines, and that the passage of this might as well mean no ethics at all (which is just hyperbolic on its face).

In general, I respected the debate and was proud of many of the participants, on both sides of the matter. I am glad that Heartland Presbytery voted for better theological standards and the removal of this barrier to Gays and Lesbians holding ordained office. May the rest of the Church continue to listen for the will of Christ as it deliberates..

So, so pleased for Mission Bay Community Church in San Francisco. This is the New Church Development community where Bruce Reyes-Chow, current moderator of the 218th general assembly of the PC(USA), is pastor.

This Sunday, MBCC will officially become a PC(USA) congregation. Here is their video invitation:

Very cool! I wish I could be there myself… Peace and grace to all the members of MBCC!

Just a small blurb about Ghost Ranch that I found interesting…

Ghost Ranch is a Presbyterian-affiliated conference center in Abiquiu, New Mexico. I love Ghost Ranch. I went there several times as a child with my family, and I volunteered there a summer as a College Mission Worker. My wife and I have been there a few times, too..

I was interested when I got an email from them about their fall 07 plans, including this commercial:

I think this is cheesy, frankly, and the voice-over sounds downright scary. But no mention that Ghost Ranch is a Presbyterian conference center? A bit strange. It was paid for in part from a cooperative grant from the New Mexico Department of Tourism, so perhaps that was discouraged. Still….

Is there any other way to read this?:

Today the Council of Europe makes it official: Poland and Romania hosted secret detention facilities on behalf of the CIA.

In a just-released inquiry approved by the Council, investigator Dick Marty of Switzerland confirms Dana Priest’s Pulitzer Prize-winning report for the Washington Post that unnamed Eastern European countries allowed the CIA to hold suspected al-Qaeda detainees on their territory, without access to legal protections or the International Committee of the Red Cross. For the first time, the Council on Europe’s report names some of the detainees in the secret facilities: they include 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and former al-Qaeda military committee chief Abu Zubaydah. Both, Marty writes, “were questioned using ‘enhanced interrogation techniques,’” making his report the first documentation by any public official to state definitively that such techniques have in fact been employed. In 2005, ABC News reported that such techniques include waterboarding, in which a detainee is forced to believe he is drowning.

Previous inquests by the European Parliament, most recently in February, stopped short of reporting definitively that the prisons existed, thanks mainly to lack of cooperation by U.S. and European intelligence officials, allowing the U.S., Poland and other suspected countries to maintain deniability over the prisons. In April, CIA Director Michael Hayden chastised the Parliament for what he called its “unbounded criticism” of CIA detentions, renditions and interrogations, which he and the CIA have consistently defended as both legal and necessary to combat al-Qaeda.

People of faith have something to say against torture. Let’s say it. Here’s a start by the PCUSA (pdf of Resolution Against Torture: Human Rights in a Time of Terrorism, A Call for a Commission of Inquiry adopted by the 217th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A).)…

Much to my dismay, my reservoir of blog posts-to-read has overflowed. To be honest, I have a pile in my office of really good posts-to-read from before the turning of the new year. I’m not sure I’ll get to them; they may be either pitched or filed away. We’ll see.

But today I read a very good entry I wanted to commend and pass along: this truly wonderful exposition by Kim Frabricius entitled Twelve Propositions on Same-Sex Relationships and the Church from back in January. Here are her first three propositions:

1. Let it be said at once that the question of same-sex relationships and the church is a question of truth before it is a question of morality or discipline. Is the church’s interpretation of scripture true? Is the church’s traditional teaching true? If they are not, then they have to go, otherwise the faith of the church becomes bad faith. As Milton said, “Custom without truth is but agedness of error.” One other thing in anticipation: Jesus said that the truth will make us free (John 8:32); Flannery O’Connor added that “the truth will make you odd.” But before we say anything more, we must know what we are saying it about. In most discussions on the issue of human sexuality we talk at each rather than with each other; in fact, we talk past each other.

2. I take it that homosexuality – and certainly the homosexuality I am talking about – is a given, not a chosen (a “life-style choice”); a disposition recognised, not adopted; a condition as “normal” as left-handedness – or heterosexuality (whether by nature or nurture is a moot but morally irrelevant point). I also assume an understanding of human sexuality that is not over-genitalised, where friendship, intimacy, and joy are as important as libido, and where sexual acts themselves are symbolic as well as somatic. Needless to say, the “Yuk” factor deployed in some polemics has no place in rational discussion, while the language of “disease” and “cure” is ignorant and repugnant. Fundamentally, homosexuality is about who you are, not what you do, let alone what you get up to in bed. This is a descriptive point. There is also a normative point: I am talking about relationships that are responsible, loving, and faithful, not promiscuous, exploitative, or episodic.

3. What about the Bible? This is the Protestant question. “The Bible says,” however, is a hopelessly inadequate and irresponsible answer. Nevertheless, we must certainly examine specific texts – and then (I submit) accept that they are universally condemnatory of homosexual practice. Arguments from silence – “Look at the relationship between David and Jonathan,” or, “Observe that Jesus did not condemn the centurion’s relationship with his servant” – are a sign of exegetical desperation. No, the Bible’s blanket Nein must simply be acknowledged. But Nein to what? For here is a fundamental hermeneutical axiom: “If Biblical texts on any social or moral topic are to be understood as God’s word for us today, two conditions at least must be satisfied. There must be a resemblance between the ancient and modern social situation or institution or practice or attitude sufficient for us to be able to say
that in some sense the text is talking about the same thing that we recognise today. And we must be able to demonstrate an underlying principle at work in the text which is consonant with biblical faith taken as a whole, and not contradicted by any subsequent experience or understanding” (Walter Houston).

I’d demur a bit about this last point, because the next several go on to show how, for most of the scant references cited, the Biblical material isn’t in fact saying a Nein to “homosexual practice” for various reasons. Kim’s point is that there are Neins being said, but to different things, really.

Nevertheless, this is a great read. Check it out. [...Ed Note: If you've got time, check out the comments too...]

Also, tangentially, I just worked through the Strategy Report adopted by the New Wineskins Association of Churches. I’ve got some comments that I might put into an upcoming post. I am trying to distance myself from the initial reaction to having my position repeatedly called unfaithful to the bible and then reading the authors of the report decry the arrogance of their interlocutors.  How does one react to that? How does one attempt to maintain a charitable and grace-offering relationship with fellow clergy and elders who willingly distort the theological convictions and views of others? Anyway, I’d encourage everyone to read that strategy report, remembering that it is also a rhetorical document.

I have a place in my heart for pastors and churches who are torn by their conscience to remain in our connectional body. There is likely a way to process their schism as faithfully as possible on both sides. (And yes, it is a schism). My greatest concern is with pastoral pensions and medical care…

On the other hand, I’m deeply wounded and ashamed by the tact many of them are taking in their argumentation; they ought be more honest with the true differences on both sides and what that means for the church. And I think that the language used here is simply inaccurate:

• such as with the case of the word ‘coersion’ that comes up with regard to our property trust clause in our Consitution which both defines our connectional system (we’re not congregationalist, nor truly hierarchical) and which defies the history of churches that voluntarily assented to the current constitution and its trust clause when we merged as a denomination in 1983;
• so too the purported arguments about the PUP as “changing” what is in fact a reaffirmation of historical Presbyterian practice (local examination with higher-governing oversight, acknowledging that the scruple issue muddies the waters);
• so too the language that the Trinity Report is “unscriptural” when it is in fact rooted in biblical hermeneutics and full of biblical citation, an exercise (not universally successful) of lifting up the biblical resources for thinking about the trinity while upholding the classical trinitarian formula “Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”

And there are others; those are just the ones heavy on my mind.

Why mention all this here? Well, this group, among others, argues that there is “clear teaching of scripture” on the homosexuality issue, among other things. This has been the recent trope, since most of them adopt Robert Gagnon‘s argument that this is in fact clear cut. But Fabricus is more on point.

That’s enough for the day. May all who read this have a grace-filled Lenten season…

Adam Cleaveland of pomomusings has created a new website venture, presbymergent. Here’s the site description:

Presbymergent is the online community for those who live in both the Presbyterian and Emergent/emerging church worlds and want to try and find a balance between the two.

We are pastors, lay people, seminarians, theologians, youth directors and people who generally care about both the Presbyterian Church (USA) and Emergent and the emergent conversation.

Feel free to join and post articles, questions and thoughts to the community. Grab the RSS feed and stay updated with information about presbymergent news. Post, discuss, share and support those who are working in and thinking about ministry in the margins.

It might be of interest. Check it out…

I’ve been busy with life: family mainly. For instance, this post has been interrupted no fewer than five times (diapers, dropped pacifiers, etc). But fear not. I’m planning a return to blogdom in the near future, likely next week.

In the meantime, I note with approbation that the Very Left Reverend has been reading the Gruntled Center‘s reflections on what Presbyterians should say about Homosexuals, marriage and same-sex unions, and VLR has been less than impressed. Go find out why. (More here and here) (Ed Note: VLR is no longer blogging at these links…)

VLR is concerned with a functional definition of family. I appreciate that tact, but even so, I find Gruntled’s arguments on their own weak. Particularly his latest effort to defend his statement that “Marriage is the complementary union of a man and a woman to make and raise children.” I’ve posted a bit on this “good” of marriage, and wonder why Beau isolates this “good” above the others in his “social ideal”. There doesn’t seem to be a good reason to do so, and his attempts to rationalize why we still let people who have no chance of having children marry anyway shows that this so called ideal is selectively applied. One could just as easily allow gays and lesbians to marry, like we might allow a sterile couple to marry, and still argue in some sense the positive social role of marriage for bearing and raising children. And in particular, I think this is both hyperbolic and wrong as a justification of keeping “marriage” for heterosexuals:

However, if all children were produced without marriage, society would disintegrate. And if no marriages produced children, society would end.

Please. Allowing gays and lesbians into the “social ideal” of marriage in itself does nothing to bring this apocalypse upon us…

Okay, back to my babies. More soon…