The Reformed Pastor

I’m not entirely sure how big an honor this is, but a Web site that offers information about online Christian higher education has named me as one of their “100 Top Theology Blogs.” I’m in the category of “Clergy,” along with the good (Real Live Preacher), the bad (Shuck and Jive, by a Spongian PCUSA pastor), and the previously unknown, at least to me (as I’m sure I was to them). Anyway, the complete list has some interesting sites on it. Joe Bob says check it out.

I know he’s no longer relevant, perhaps never was relevant, but I couldn’t help but laugh when I read this item from Episcopalian Catholic comedian author Hans Küng:

The dissident theologian Hans Küng has suggested that Barack Obama would be a better pope than Benedict XVI. “The mood in the church is oppressive,” Küng told a German outlet. “Benedict is unteachable in matters of birth control and abortion, arrogant and without transparency and restrictive of freedom and human rights.” The theologian who once argued for greater democracy in the Church suggested that the Pope should follow Obama’s example and issue executive orders to bring about radical changes in Church doctrine and discipline, “using the power of his executive office to issue decrees.”

Sooo….the church is oppressive, but Benedict should remake it in the image of Katharine Jefforts-Schori through “executive orders.” But of course Benedict is also “arrogant” (pot, meet kettle) and “unteachable” (defined by the likes of Küng as “doesn’t agree with ME!”), so it’s not likely he’s go down that path. He refuses to throw in with the minions of Molech and endorse the wholesale slaughter of in utero children, and won’t let Hans claim to be a Roman Catholic theologian because the latter is actually a liberal Episcopalian, no matter what the sign on the door of the church he genuflects in says. All in all, a pretty funny shtick–he needs to take it on the road. There are some mainline denominational leaders in America who would love it.

(Via MCJ.)

Moderator Bruce Reyes-Chow of the PCUSA has appointed members of a special committee that is charged with preparing a study of “Israel/Palestine.” According to the Presbyterian News Service:

The membership of two General Assembly special committees have been released, bringing the total of special committees named by the Rev. Bruce Reyes-Chow, moderator of the 218th General Assembly (2008 ) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)  to three this week.

The 218th General Assembly (2008 ) also asked the Moderators of the 218th, 217th, and 216th General Assemblies (2008 ), (2006), and (2004) to “select a nine-member committee from a broad spectrum of viewpoints from PC(USA) members to prepare a comprehensive study, with recommendations, that is focused on Israel/Palestine within the complex context of the Middle East.

The Assembly said the study “should include an evaluation of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s mission and relationships, including an assessment of the future for the Christian presence and witness in the Middle East; an overview of the complex interactions among religions, cultures, and peoples that characterize the region; an analysis of U.S. policies that impact the area; and steps to be taken with our partners in the Middle East and the United States to foster justice, improve interfaith relations, and nurture the building of peace toward a secure and viable future for all.”

Now, one would think that “broad spectrum of viewpoints” would mean that it would include strong supporters of both Israel and the Palestinians, as well as folks with more moderate positions. The make-up of the committee suggests otherwise:

Minister members are the Revs. Susan R. Andrews (Hudson River Presbytery), John Huffman (Los Ranchos Presbytery), Rebecca Reyes (New Hope Presbytery), Marthame Sanders (Greater Atlanta Presbytery), Ronald L. Shive (Salem Presbytery), and John W. Wimberly, Jr. (National Capital Presbytery).

Elders serving on the panel are Frederic W. Bush (Los Ranchos Presbytery), Nahida H. Gordon (Muskingum Valley Presbytery), and Lucy Janjigian (Palisades Presbytery).

Staffing the committee will be the Rev. Christian Iosso, coordinator of the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy; the Rev. Victor Makari, coordinator for the Middle East, Asia Minor and the Jinishian Memorial Program for the General Assembly Council; Elder Doug Dicks, a PC(USA) mission co-worker in Israel Palestine; and the Rev. Kerry Clements, director of  Communication, Development, and Technology for the  Office of the General Assembly.

I hadn’t heard of a lot of these people before seeing this article, so I’ve been Googling this morning to see what I could find on them. Needless to say, I was not surprised by the results:

Susan Andrews is a former PCUSA Moderator. She was a strong advocate of the ill-fated Israel divestment policy passed by the 2004 General Assembly, and tried to maintain that the 2006 repudiation of that policy was actually a reaffirmation of it.

John Huffman, an evangelical, nevertheless supported the General Assembly’s actions in calling for divestment from Israel back in 2004. Shortly after the passage of that action, he told his congregation, “I must speak up clearly, though briefly, to support the stand of our denomination in regard to the Middle East.” He justified this by saying that “Considerations of divestiture of Presbyterian investment in companies contributing to this violence is not exclusively directed toward Israel, but a policy also suggested to be used in a number of the other troubled areas of the world,” a statement which was either dishonest or the height of naivete.

Marthame Sanders is a former missionary to the region. He has referred to Israel as a “militaristic, unjust and racist nation,” and considers the Jewish state to be a practitioner of “apartheid.” He, of course, is also a strong supporter of divestment.

Ronald Shive was an opponent of an overture at the 2008 GA that called for the PCUSA to be “non-partisan” in the issue, to not take sides, and supported a one-sided approach embodied in this overture.

Frederic Bush is a Fuller Seminary emeritus professor. He has long been an anti-Israel campaigner, and has connections both to the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation and the anti-Semitic Jerusalem-based Sabeel Center.

Nahida Gordon is a professor of bioethics at Case Western Reserve University. She has accused Israel of seeking to ethnically cleanse itself of Arabs.

Lucy Janjigian has thanked Jimmy Carter publicly for his book calling Israel an apartheid state.

I couldn’t find any information about Rebecca Reyes.

So, near as I can tell, John Wimberly will be the only member, or possibly only one of two members, of this nine-member committee (which will also be staffed almost exclusively by PCUSA personnel who have made careers out of bashing Israel) who is not firmly and unequivocally identified with just one side in the Israeli-Palestinian struggle, or supported PCUSA in its efforts to carry out the one-sided action of divestment. That, apparently, is how they define “broad” in the PCUSA.

The Presbytery of the East took action today that will have a significant impact on the future of some  PCUSA churches in the Northeast that wish to transfer to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. After much courteous and respectful debate, POTE passed the following recommendation from an administrative commission:

1. The Presbytery of the East of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC) will honor the Christian liberty of individual congregations to call their ministers and, therefore, will not prohibit candidates for ordination as Teaching Elders from being processed and presented to Presbytery due to their gender.

2. All candidates will be processed as set forth in the Book of Order of the EPC, the EPC Procedural Manual for Ministerial and Candidates Committees, and the Presbytery of the East By-Laws.

3. All candidates will be examined in accordance with the EPC’s specific criteria for ordination and ministerial preparation and must agree with the Essentials of Our Faith and subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith;

4. Once presented on the floor of Presbytery, candidates will be questioned as set forth in the Book of Order of the EPC.

5. Members of Presbytery will be allowed to vote their consciences in regards to their Biblical convictions concerning an individual’s ordination.

6. All members will be treated during the entire process with charity, grace and the respect due to one who seeks to submit themselves to Scripture and the calling of the Holy Spirit.

I voted for this, and believe that it is the right thing for POTE to do. Our presbytery was one of two in the EPC that had previously ordained a woman to the teaching eldership, and I think we could not refuse to consider women for ordination in the future without suggesting that there was something invalid in the one that had been done before. The decision to be open to future ordinations implicitly indicates that female teaching elders among potential PCUSA transfers will not find their gender an impediment. At the EPC Web site, there is further information about the current state of play on the issue within the denomination:

In the EPC, we currently have two presbyteries that prohibit women teaching elders, two that will not use gender as a consideration in approving ministers and candidates, two others who have a procedure in place that allows consideration of women ministers and candidates without violating conscience, and two that are still working on the issue and will have come to a conclusion by the second week of February 2009.

We are one of the two mentioned in the last sentence. I’ll let you know how things go at the last one as soon as I hear.

American United for Separation of Church and State is all bent out of shape over a Texas law mandating a moment of silence at the start of each public school day. Personally, I couldn’t care less about such laws, and I’ve never been sure why some conservatives think they’re important. At the same time, they hardly present a threat to the foundations of the republic. But you’d never know that from AU’s rhetoric:

The court will soon rule on whether the law is constitutional, but Americans United already weighed in earlier this year with a friend-of-the-court brief. We made it clear that this Texas law is just another way to interject religion into public schools—a blatant violation of church-state separation.

In 2003, Texas legislators enacted amendments to the education code, making the moment of silence mandatory. They also changed the list of designated options for students during the moment of silence from “reflect or meditate” to “reflect, pray, meditate, or engage in any other silent activity….”

In 2006, David and Shannon Croft sued Gov. Rick Perry and Carrolton-Farmers Branch Independent School on behalf of their children who attend the school. They have now appealed the district court’s ruling upholding the law to the 5th Circuit.

Adding the word “pray” to the statute shows that the purpose of the law is no longer secular, W. Dean Cook, attorney for the parents, explained to the panel of judges yesterday.

Actually, it was probably a way of offering examples–unnecessary, perhaps, but given that there’s no way to either force or prevent someone from praying when everyone is supposed to be silent, I’m not sure what real difference it makes. As for the “blatant violation” of the Establishment Clause, it’s hard to see that one, too, since prayer isn’t made mandatory for anyone, and in fact, again, no one will know whether prayer is taking place or not.

“Students were already allowed to pray, meditate, or reflect under the statute before it was amended,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, AU executive director. “The addition of the word ‘pray’ where it wasn’t needed clearly shows that legislators intended to promote religion, and that’s not their job.”

Well, no, it doesn’t actually. What it does show is that the legislators thought it appropriate to offer examples of what a child could do with the time that would be permissible. That in turn goes to the matter of coercion, which I’ll get to in a moment.

There are many concerns over “moment of silence” laws, which have now popped up in 26 states around the country. Texas’ law is especially problematic because it is the only one that requires the “moment” every day along with the Pledge of Allegiance. There are no safeguards to ensure that those who do not wish to participate in the “moment” are not harassed or ostracized for being “anti-religious.”

So, what do you do as a child in the public school if you “do not want to participate in the ‘moment’” of silence? Make a racket? The fact is that any teacher can require a “moment of silence” at any point in the school day, whether legislatively mandated or not, just by saying, “shut your mouths or it will be extra homework for everybody!” Under those conditions, you’d better believe that every kid will be silent, and lots of them will start praying, too!

But AU is worried about coercion, so how about if we try this on for size: maybe the Texas legislature stuck the word “pray” in the statute to let teachers know that they weren’t to stop any child from using the moment for prayer, if that’s what the kid wanted to do. We’ve all heard about teachers in school around the country who found a child saying grace over lunch, for instance, and stepped in before they could topple the wall of church-state separation. What if the Texas lawmakers were simply trying to stop over-zealous church-state separators from disciplining children for using the time in a way that AU (or the ACLU, or the NEA, or People for the American Way, or some other group) might disapprove of?

As I said above, I hold no brief for these laws, and don’t think they make one bit of difference in terms of the way public schools run, child discipline, or much of anything else. But surely they are not a signs of the coming of theocratic America, either.

Sandhurst, in Great Britain, is one of the world’s most prestigious military academies. Unfortunately,it may be on the verge of having to go to war with those who think its Anglican chaplain has sold out to political correctness. According to the Daily Mail:

Sandhurst military academy has dropped the Church of England Creed [also known as the Nicene Creed--DF] from services over fears that it may offend religious minorities.
The move has outraged worshippers who say centuries of religious tradition have been sacrificed for the sake of political correctness.

Senior chaplain Reverend Jonathan Gough dropped the Christian declaration of faith in God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, when he took office earlier this month.

Mr Gough – nicknamed the ‘Right On Rev’ by some of his flock – says he wants avoid offending non-believers.

But Christian cadets and civilians were furious when the traditional Anglican service abruptly ended without the Creed being read last Sunday.

Although no official announcement was made, a fellow Chaplain said it had been removed ‘to stop upsetting cadets who do not believe in God’.

So let me get this straight: there is evidently the possibility that atheist cadets will attend a voluntary Christian worship service so that they can become upset when that Christian worship service actually involves worshiping the Christ Deity. And the chaplain, who is allegedly a Christian minister, is worried that atheists will attend the worship services he leads and be offended that he leads his audience in worshiping God, and wants to pre-emptively remove any reason for them to get upset. Presumably he will next order that Christians hymns no longer be used (because they refer to God), the Book of Common Prayer be banished (because it refers to God), and will stop preaching, because he has nothing to say. In fact, worship services will be banned at Sandhurst for fear of scarring the sensibilities of the cadets, who would be put off their best combat abilities if they were offended by Christians worshiping God. The Reverend Gough will not, however, be resigning from his phoney-baloney job, because, as he would no doubt say, “I need the money, and I like playing dress-up.”

(Via Stand Firm.)

The U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation is complaining on their Web site that DirecTV is refusing to show an ad of their on their satellite system. They state:

After detailed discussions with DIRECTV, including agreement on rates, times, and network placements of the ad, when we gave them the final product, they abruptly decided not to do business with us.

This blatant act of censorship is preventing millions of U.S. households from learning the truth about our government’s crucial role in enabling Israel’s war on and siege of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

They obviously know as little about the First Amendment as they do the Middle East. Censorship is an act of the government. A private company such as DirecTv is under no obligation to sell air time to anyone. It also doesn’t seem to occur to them that the reason DirecTV decided not to run it was because they actually saw the final product.

After watching it, I can see why the satellite provider decided as it did:  it is propagandistically one-sided, contains inaccurate and unverified information, and calls on the president to take an action designed to ultimately render Israel defenseless by cutting off the aid it needs to maintain its military strength in the face of terrorist groups as well as the hostility of Syria and Iran. The U.S. Campaign, which includes representatives of the United Methodist General Board of Global Ministries and American Friends Service Committee on its steering committee, is in the habit of referring to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank as “apartheid,” and refuses to criticize Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, or any other anti-Israel terrorist group for anything they do or say. Here’s the ad–just consider it mainline church leadership at work:

The General Secretary of the United Methodist General Board of Church and Society, Jim Winkler, is demonstrating the extent to which the Religious Left is a mirror image of what they most despise, namely the Religious Right:

Staff members of the United Methodist Church’s General Board of Church & Society (GBCS) participated in about a dozen meetings with the Obama transition team in the weeks leading up to the inauguration. The meetings addressed a wide variety of matters including torture policy, the Middle East, domestic human needs, the stimulus package and health care.

President Obama has told his staff he wants faith groups to have a seat at the table. That stands in complete contrast to the past eight years.

Apparently conservative Christian organizations such as the National Association of Evangelicals, the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, etc. are not “faith groups” in Winkler’s eyes, since they’ve had “a seat at the table” for the last eight years. Their possession of that seat is one of the things that have been driving people like Winkler crazy. In fact, he and others of his political (not necessarily religious) persuasion have argued for years that there was something sinister, something subversive, something unconstitutional about the fact that the Bush Administration had an open door for Christian conservatives through which they walked. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, everything is cupcakes and butterflies.

Of course, the incongruity of this would go right over the heads of Winkler and his friends, because they are on the side of the angels. And because they are, they must go forth to slay the dragons of unrighteousness:

Let me give an example: The United Methodist Church supports a single-payer health-care system for the United States somewhat similar to the health-care systems in Canada and Western Europe where all people are cared for.

As President Obama made his way down Pennsylvania Avenue on Inauguration Day, up on the balconies of office buildings were fancy receptions paid for by corporate lobbyists. Many of the inaugural balls and receptions were paid for by big corporations. President Obama has been clear that he wants to reduce corporate influence on government’s decision-making process, but he’s got a tough fight ahead.

If we’re going to get a single-payer health-care system in the United States, it will be because The United Methodist Church and its allies overcome corporate opposition.

I’m sure that socialized medicine is only the start of what the United Methodist Church (translation: Winkler, his friends in the social justice bureaucracy, and a few hundred people who vote at General Conference every four years) wants to push on the American people. Their attempt to ram through their faith-based agenda ought to be an offense to every Establishment Clause strict separationist fanatic (see Americans United, Interfaith Alliance, ACLU, etc.). But the silence (if not enthusiasm) that the latter have for the left-wing politics of the Winklers of the mainline demonstrates that it isn’t the First Amendment that is their primary concern, but very specific policy preferences. They are free to hold to those, of course, but they shouldn’t portray their constant braying over the “Religious Right” as being about the law. It’s about politics and policy, and little else.

To most of you, that headline is meaningless. To those of you who are aficienados of Mystery Science Theater 3000, it is a time to grieve. The New York Times reports today that one of filmdom’s great auteurs, a man whose name will go down in movie history alongside such giants as Ed Wood, the director/writer/lead actor/grip/caterer of the classic The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-up Zombies has shot his final scene:

“SEE: the hunchback of the midway fight a duel of death with the mixed-up zombies! SEE: the world’s first monster musical!”

So urged an ad for “The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies!!?,” the 1964 cinematic tour de force by Ray Dennis Steckler, a director whose surrealistically impossible plots went beyond zombies to display superheroes, rockers, bikini-clad beach girls — and flourishes of what some saw as inspired moviemaking.

So when his wife, Katherine, announced Mr. Steckler’s death of heart failure, at 70, in Las Vegas on Jan. 7, the Internet buzzed with comments on him.

“He is not dead,” insisted a blogger on MetaFilter Community Weblog (metafilter.com). “He lives on in every dark glimmering heart of movie maniacs; his soul flickering across the surfaces of corneas and psyches scarred by the brilliance of his fiendishly bloody, brilliant cinema.”

In 1963 he began producing and directing “Creatures,” with himself (credited as Cash Flagg) as the star. The picture combines a carnival fortuneteller, disfigured zombies, trigger-happy cops and acid thrown in people’s faces — spiced with Las Vegas-style musical numbers.

Crystal Guillory, vice president of the New Orleans Worst Film Festival, perceived a message in all this. Writing on horror-wood.com, she summarized:

“Don’t go to fortunetellers with huge moles with a sister who works as a stripper, or you will be a zombie. This may not be as important as the Golden Rule, but it is a final point to think about.”

If you aren’t familiar with Steckler’s masterpiece, here’s the thrilling finale (don’t worry about what came before this, it doesn’t make any sense anyway):

(Hat tip: Rebecca.)

Do any of you have more than two children? Any of you thinking of doing so? You should be ashamed of yourselves. According to at least one global warming hysteric, you’rebeing “irresponsible.” According to the Britain’s Daily Mail:

Couples who have more than two children are putting an ‘irresponsible’ burden on the environment, the Government’s leading green advisor has warned.

Jonathon Porritt called on ministers to divert money away from curing illnesses towards contraception and abortion services to limit the country’s population and help in the fight against global warming.

And he criticised fellow green campaigners for dodging the issue of population growth and its effect on the environment because it is too ‘controversial’.

Mr Porritt, chair of the Sustainable Development Commission, which advises the Government on green matters, said he was due to publish a report in March calling on ministers to reduce population growth through better family planning.

‘We still have one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancies in Europe and we still have relatively high levels of pregnancies going to birth, often among women who are not convinced they want to become mothers,’ he said.

So we should see to it that more sick people kick off, and that fewer children get born, all in the name of a scientific theory that is garnering more opposition among scientists every day. Kind of makes one wonder why Porritt stopped at two children–why didn’t he go all the way and advocate that Britain adopt China’s one-child policy, complete with financial penalties, forced abortion, and involuntary sterilization for the “irresponsible.”

It sounds like Porritt gets his view of humanity from Agent Smith:

(Via Hot Air.)