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…

As heard (and reported) by Tony Marr. Thanks to Jim the church geek for the pointer.

My favorite:

7. “How dare you try and bully my daughter. We have be preparing and planning her future for years and I am not going to let you persuade her away from our plans. I could have you fired for this.”

Said to me by an elder at our church when I talked to his daughter about not going to a state university to study biology, but to go to a Christian college and be a missionary. She felt it was what God was calling her to do. Dad did not. Dad won.

The Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops has responded anew yesterday to the crisis in its worldwide communion. Here’s the sum and substance:

It is incumbent upon us as disciples to do our best to follow Jesus in the increasing experience of the leading of the Holy Spirit. We fully understand that others in the Communion believe the same, but we do not believe that Jesus leads us to break our relationships. We proclaim the Gospel of what God has done and is doing in Christ, of the dignity of every human being, and of justice, compassion, and peace. We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ there is no Jew or Greek, no male or female, no slave or free. We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God’s children,
including women, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ’s Church. We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God’s children, including gay and lesbian persons, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ’s Church. We proclaim the Gospel that stands against any violence, including violence done to women and children as well as those who are persecuted because of their differences, often in the name of God. The Dar es Salaam Communiqué is distressingly silent on this subject. And, contrary to the way the Anglican Communion Network and the American Anglican Council have represented us, we proclaim a Gospel that welcomes diversity of thought and encourages free and open theological debate as a way of seeking God’s truth. If that means that others reject us and communion with us, as some have already done, we must with great regret and sorrow accept their decision.

I’m impressed with their faithfulness and their stand on this matter.

News this morning that prominent conservative “evangelical” (in scare quotes because of my earlier caveats with that word, since I’m using it here to denote a form of American right-wing Christianity) Ted Haggard has been caught in a sex scandal. This pastor of New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, and president of the National Association of Evangelicals ostensibly has been regularly soliciting sex from a male prostitute.

Its not looking very good for Haggard:

Haggard, 50, initially denied the allegations, telling 9News Wednesday night that “I’ve never had a gay relationship with anybody, and I’m steady with my wife. I’m faithful to my wife.”

But KKTV in Colorado Springs reported that New Life Associate Senior Pastor Ross Parsley told a meeting of church elders Thursday night that Haggard had met with the church’s overseers earlier in the day and “had admitted to some indiscretions.”

Parsley told the elders that Haggard had said some of the allegations were true, but not all of them.

This is a fast breaking story, and these are currently just allegations. But if true, Haggard will be the second high-profile “defender of traditional marriage” (read: against marriage and/or same sex union rights for gays and lesbians) to be exposed as homosexual in the past several months. Like Foley before him, this will stun the religious right. And maybe it should.

There’s something deeply troubling about people denying who they are and feeling forced to live a lie. Let me be clear, I’m not sure that’s the case here. And these people are all fully responsible for their behavior. I know that Foley was molested as a child, and that’s likely a catalyst for his behavior. But what the Haggard and Foley cases have signified for me, as well as the recent book tour by ex-Governor of New Jersey Jim McGreevey, is just how wrong it is for us to continue to suppress gays and lesbians and to try to make them into something they are not.

Andrew Sullivan has long been an advocate for these things. I think he’s right on in his assessment today:

I’m afraid I feel for Haggard. This is what happens to a man psychologically and spiritually destroyed by actually advancing a lie he knows to be a lie about homosexuality as a “chosen lifestyle” while being gay himself.

… Denial is a very powerful psychic force. When combined with addiction, it can fuel destructive behavior. In a human being, it can destroy a person, a family, a marriage, an entire life.

One more obvious lesson: The religious right’s lies about who gay people really are must end. Surely now. The victims are also Christians like Haggard. They are countless kids and teens in places where they are taught to hate themselves, and subsequently act out the psychic damage years later. I am not saying Haggard isn’t morally accountable for everything he has done, for the lies he has spread, for the hatred he has enabled. That hatred will now come back to him, like the sorcerer’s apprentice whose magic of electoral homophobia soon overwhelms him as well. It’s brutal pay-back, as it was for Foley, as it often is for every closeted gay man in the end. In the end, their lives lose integrity; and they know it; and then misery; and they feel it more than anyone. I’m praying for Haggard, as I hope he is praying for me and every sinner. But the lesson of this to the religious right surely is: go and sin no more. Stop the lies. Stop the bigotry. Deal with the reality of gay people, our souls, our wounded hearts, our humanity, our right to be treated equally by our own government. It’s what Jesus did. And it is your true calling now.

So there you have it. Oh, and also of somewhat tangentially related note, Bill Tammeus has an interesting comment on Pastoral Care to Homosexuals on his blog. For the record, Bill and I share a similar exegetical understanding of scripture with regard to homosexuality.

To get an idea of what at least some NWI folks are aiming for, just read this comment from “Larry” to the last of Full Court Presby’s NWI convo updates:

I believe the various conservative organizations could easily co-exist. The problem has been that each of the conservative organizations have had a “winner take all” mentality.

I would have no problem if there were a mix of the following churches constituting the majority of all the churches in our Presbytery:

1.  CCM Churches
2.  NWI Churches
3.  PFR Churches
4.  Global Fellowship Churches
5.  PLC Churches
6.  Constitutional Churches
7.  VOW Churches
8.  One by One Churches
9.  San Diego Essential Tenet Churches
10.  PPL Churches

While each of the above churches have a slightly different focus, we could be assured they all have similar reverence for Biblical doctrine.

Such a majority coalition could clean up the mess currently in the PCUSA.  Such items as:
1.  Withdrawing from the WCC.
2.  Withdrawing from the NCC.
3.  Withdrawing from WARC.
4.  Closing the Washington Office.
5.  Closing the UN Office.
6.  Closing the 16 Synods.
7.  Repealing the property held in trust.
8. Changing the process for selection of GA Commissioners from primarily a rotational system to a system where the presbytery commissioners know where the nominees stand on vital issues.
9.  Reapportioning the Presbyteries so those areas that have lost membership also lose presbyteries.
10.  Dissolve relationships with seminaries pushing a radical leftist agenda.
11.  Repeal PUP #5.
12.  Reject the Trinity Report previously received.

Until the conservatives realize they need to first co-exist with other conservatives, the conservatives will never have enough votes to take control of the denomination.

Those two in bold are particularly striking and appalling. Gone is the reformed idea that God’s will is heard when we get together and listen for the spirit; rather we must eviscerate God’s will and impose our own, which MUST be in line with God’s will because it is the way that THEY read scripture. Gone is the respect for and freedom of the individual conscience before God (and they claim to embody the true spirit of the reformed church!); instead we must impose it upon our members and our leaders. Instead you see a desire to take over, control, impose. Look, friends, the Southern Baptist Convention is over there.

I know that this is one comment, but read what is going on over there. The hubris is breathtaking. I can understand faithful conservative members of the church trying to embody fully what they feel God is calling them to do and to be. Many do just that, and are willing to engage those with a different read on things but with the same faith, the same baptism, the same love and devotion and trust in God. But all of us should take care that we do not subsitute God’s will for our own. Danger lies on that path.

And I’m tired of working to maintain my abilities to trust and communicate with those pastors in “renewal” groups that continue to question my faith and love for Jesus Christ, my dedication to him, and my integrity as a pastor because I don’t read the scripture the same way they do. May God continue to grant me the ability to do so; because on my own, I’m sure I could not.

The New Wineskins Initiative (NWI) is one of those “rewewal” projects that is questioning whether to leave the Presbyterian Church. They claim, as of this week, 121 “endorsing” congregations, representing some 65,000 church members. Information about the NWI is available at http://www.newwineconvo.com/, and what it takes to become an endorsing congregation is session approval of their formulation of essential reformed tenets, a declaration of ethical imperatives, and a draft vision statement.

Pastor Lance is liveblogging the NWI meeting in Tulsa. (So far, day one, day two, day three, and day four) Its important reading, particularly for those of us who resist what the NWI is trying to do. Note what Gangon is reported to have presented, and what the projected agenda is for NWI over the near term. (FWIW, I find myself able to agree with much of their ostensible list of reformed essentials, if that matters to you, noble reader, but I am certain that the ethical imperatives are not logically derived from those essentials, and I’m still strongly against what an essentials list represents).

Something in particular intrigued me. Note this comment, so common in the trope that the renewal groups continue to outline:

The remainder of the morning and first half of the afternoon were on “networking.” The backbone of the NWI is going to be networks. We met in regional gatherings to set the foundations for the formation of those networks. I was in the Washington/Oregon group. My sense I that EVERYONE there was ready to leave the PCUSA (if certain/different situations could be achieved). Several churches are having a hard time keeping members since the approval of the PUP report. A formalized Washington network could be established as soon as noon tomorrow. (Emphasis Added)

We’ve not had anyone leave my church because of the approval PUP report. We’ve not had anyone threaten to leave because of it. I don’t think that this is a major problem, frankly. But the idea that our denomination’s perceived liberalism, which as Gangon sees it (according to Lance) fails the worldwide communion of Christ, is causing people to leave in scores doesn’t seem right. The people who care about that have already gone to the conservative churches, and the denomination continues to decline.

Its more likely that we fighting cultural forces that make the practice of faith hard, we aren’t providing creative ways to feed the hunger that so many people have (by meaningful mission, communal, and worship opportunities for people who are too busy, too tired, too addicted-to-media, too disconnected from neighbor), and we aren’t making a strong enough apology for how to exercise authentic christian faith in a pluralistic world (one which, I’d argue, requires some deference for others’ faith traditions; we have much to learn from other minority religious groups in America on this score–whether Jewish or Muslim or Catholic). Churches who do that–liberal or conservative–are growing. Many more, liberal or conservative, are not.

I think this is why I’m intrigued by the emergent communities which are popping up, since I think they are focusing on these things. I’m struggling with some of their theological emphases, and their answers might not be right, or not the only good answers out there, but the focus on mission and the needs of 21st century believers is quite helpful.

…Turns out that NPH is thinking about these things too. His thoughts over on his blog.

…Meanwhile, worth pondering about our “denominational decline” is Peter Wagner’s observation over at brokenbonds loosedchains.

Andrew Sullivan, who has been providing his analysis on the comparison between what he calls Radical Islamist movements (the roots of international terrorism) and Christianist trends in the United States, points us towards Phillip Yancey’s comments in Christianity Today:

Hearing firsthand about Islamic culture increased my understanding, but it also made me nervous about my own society. The very things we resist in Islam, some Christians find tempting. We, too, seek political power and a legal code that reflects revealed morality. We, too, share a concern about raising our children in a climate of moral decadence. We, too, tend to see others (including Muslims) as a stereotyped community, rather than as individuals. Will we turn toward our own version of the harsh fundamentalism sweeping Islam today?

Its an interesting delimma. I, too, am concerned with the sweeping vision of the Christian Right here in America, but my own faith views, as well as my work in ethics, lead me to also have strong public arguments regarding morals and civil policy. I, also, in some way, seek “a legal code that reflects revealed morality,” though I always assume that I need to make that argument on “universal” grounds, that is, on reason and shared experience, not on revelation (e.g. scripture) alone. I’m not sure, really, how Christians of my Reformed Tradition can argue otherwise. (Calvin’s view about the intersection of reason and revelation, though, will be tabled for now.) Christ, as well as the Hebrew Prophets and the early chruch, had a concern for public structures and how they treated the disenfranchised. We have an obligation to see that agenda advanced in public discourse.

But what is required for faithful people to engage government and the public realm and yet resist theocratic impulses?

Sunday I preached the first of a four-part sermon series that our lead pastor and I are doing on Church and State. This first sermon was on Romans 13, and I talked about Paul himself challenging Roman government unto his death (meaning that Romans 13 cannot be about blind obedience to totalitarian power), and about Calvin, whose thoughts about the church and state laid some of the foundation for our American form of government–checks and balances, in particular, the importance of an educated citizenry. Calvin also cherished the inviolate right of the individual conscience, which leads to important protections for free thought, free exercise of religion, and, in general, protections for diverse points of view among the minority. (He also cherished the rule of law, and the provision of order that the state and the church provides, each for their own realms, of course).

American Democracy, while riddled with flaws, is a blessing. The structures it provides makes possible, I think, both robust attempts to shape the public sphere and to protect the rights of minorities. But we need to protect that structure, particularly from attempts to weaken those protections.

I quoted Reinhold Niebuhr’s insightful comment: “Man’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible. Man’s capacity for injustice makes democracy necessary.”

In the current climate of religious extremism, I think that this thought is particularly germane for our time. Now, more than ever, we need to secure the aspects of our democratic system that provide both for the governing by the majority and robust protections of minority points of view and practices. Religious voices, whether from the left or from the right, can’t be expected to turn inward. They shouldn’t. But they must always be humble, must cherish the rights to a free conscience, and make their arguments in publically accessible ways.

For a great summary of Presbyterian views regarding our involvment in politics, I’d commend Rev. Cynthia Campbell’s article. Its pretty good!

Newsweek has the following to say in an article about how American denominations view women:

When Nevada Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori this month became the head of the U.S. Episcopal Church, she wasn’t just the first presiding bishop of that faith—she became the first woman in American history elected to lead a major Christian denomination…But there are indications that times are changing. Just this month, the U.S. Presbyterian Church elected the Rev. Joan S. Gray as its”moderator,” a one-year position akin to being named ambassador.

Sounds like the Presbyterians are behind the 8-ball on this one, huh? Truth of the matter is that the first woman elected Moderator of the Presbyterian Church was Elder Lois Stair, way back in 1971. (Should have been earlier, I know, but still.)

Stair passed away in 1981; Here is her obit. An interesting quiz (in PDF format) about the ordination of women in the presbyterian church is available, too…

…Sorry, I forgot the link to the Newsweek article, which is here.