The PCUSA’s Heartland Presbytery recently passed several overtures having to do with gay marriage and ordination, sending them along to this summer’s General Assembly. Loren Golden of Overland Park, Kansas wrote to the Layman Online about them, and I found them on the Heartland Web site. One of them, seeking to amend G-6.0106b and G-14.0450 (on ordination and ordination preparation, respectively) caught my eye. The striking thing is in the rationale:
The opening paragraphs of the Form of Government are a powerful statement of the fundamental Christian and Reformed affirmation that Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church. In support of this primary affirmation, Chapter I of the Form of Government calls Christians to attend to the Scriptures, insofar as they set forth “Christ’s will for the Church,” and Chapter II identifies the church’s confessions as its guides, subordinate to the Lordship of Jesus Christ as revealed to us in Scripture alone. Our church thus has bound itself to a hierarchy of authority in which we are to obey Jesus Christ its Head, and, the Scriptures as the authoritative witness to Him, and then the confessions, to the extent that they accurately bear witness to Christ’s will. This fundamental hierarchy of authority is accurately and eloquently reflected in the first three of the constitutional questions, the assent to which is required of each candidate for ordination and/or installation.
Although the hierarchy of the church’s authority is clear, it is subverted by the current language of G-6.0106b, which substitutes for our obedience to Christ two concepts that are foreign to Reformed understanding: “obedience” to Scripture and “conformity” to the confessions. We do not confess, “Scripture is Lord” nor “the Confessions are Lord.” Instead, we boldly confess that “Christ is Lord!” The proposed amendment would substitute new language, which (1) reflects the church’s historical understanding of where its authority is to be found, and (2) reaffirms the church’s reliance on the examination of candidates by its governing bodies as the principal means by which to ensure the commitment of its ordained officers to the duties of faith. The amendment additionally would insert appropriate language to ensure that each such examination would include discussion of the constitutional questions and the governing body’s determination of the candidate’s readiness to accept their principles and faithfully live by them to the extent any of us is able.
In order to be able to rely on Jesus Christ as its Head and as its chief guide in all of life, the church must shed any human-made, subordinate source of authority that would bind its ability to follow where our Savior leads. [Emphasis added.]
Translation: having fully embraced the Benny Hinn* model of revelation, Heartland Presbytery believes that both the Scriptures and the church’s confessions need to be “shed” or set aside so that they are free to make up any theological, ethical, or pastoral stuff they want, and be able to claim that they are doing so in order to “follow where our Savior leads,” even if the Bible, in particular, indicates that He would sooner throw Himself off the pinnacle of the Temple than march off the cliff the presbytery wants to plunge from.
*Benny Hinn, a Word of Faith preacher, has repeatedly claimed “revelation knowledge” that directly contradicts the witness of Scripture. For instance, he has claimed that each Person of the Holy Trinity has His own individual spirit, soul, and body, and that Jesus took on Satan’s nature when the sin of the world was placed on Him. Hinn and Heartland are talking about different issues, but the methodology is the same.
The “On Faith” column in the Washington Post presents an unusually rich target this week, as Jon Meacham and Sally Quinn ask the (loaded and unfairly worded) questions, “Proselytizing overseas: Religious freedom or coercion? What is the real problem with proselytism overseas by U.S. religious groups? Isn’t sharing one’s faith part of religious freedom? When does it cross the line into manipulation and coercion?”
Let’s begin by stipulating that seeking conversions through the use of force, threats or bribery is completely unethical, at least as far as Christians are concerned. The latter two of these need some definition, however. So let’s start with Chris Seiple, an evangelical who is president of the Institute For Global Engagement. He makes an excellent point:
Proselytism now connotes an asymmetrical power relationship, a quid pro quo where the one with more power exerts an undignified influence over the one with less. You can have this bowl of soup, this amount of money, etc., but only if you make this profession of faith. It is the worst of religion, threatening to create a sacred public square that coerces uniform belief.
Sharing, on the other hand, suggests a relationship of mutual respect; a relationship where individuals are honored that people would care so much that they would share their faith with them…even if they end up disagreeing agreeably about irreconcilable convictions (theological and political). It is the best of faith, encouraging a civil public square that invites all beliefs to the conversation.
I think his distinction is a good one, certainly in the context of a Christian view of religious freedom. So let’s keep it in mind as we go on to Robert Parham of the Baptist Center for Ethics, who starts out with the truth, and then slides into vague finger-pointing:
Christianity is a religion of evangelism. Christians have a divine imperative to share their faith in word and deed.
Christianity is also a religion of ethics. Christians have a divine imperative to share their faith with integrity and transparency.
Unfortunately, some Christians and Christian organizations follow the former and ignore the latter. They think that the ends of conversion justify any means–concealment or manipulation or taking advantage of folk during emergencies. They even think that they can trick government officials and local citizens in foreign countries into believing they are not really Christians or not really proselytizing. Such an American Christian mindset represents the worn-out colonial attitude that “the natives” aren’t really smart enough to know what’s going on. And that’s plain wrong.
Who do you suppose he’s talking about? I can guess. Pretty much anyone to the right of Parham, in his definition, is a fundamentalist, and hence evil. It’s fair to say that he’s talking about organizations such as Samaritan’s Purse, and missionaries from the Southern Baptist Convention and other conservative denominations. Of course, he presents no evidence for these charges, nor does he demonstrate any understanding of the dangers that some Christians risk by seeking to spread God’s love among people living under totalitarian, and especially Communist or Muslim, regimes. Maybe he thinks that, if a government objects to people exercising the freedom of religion guaranteed them in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, they should go along with that. Give Caesar what is God’s, as it were.
Then there’s UCC pastor Susan Smith, who is against proselytism and for sharing, but who suggests that sharing that seeks to bring others to knowledge of the truth is unnecessary:
I have been taught that Roman Catholics feel their religion is THE religion, the only religion, the only right religion. Christians think that confessing Jesus is the only way to get to heaven. For Muslims, adhering to the tenets of the Qur’an and living the Muslim life constitute a life of Truth. [Note the difference between "Roman Catholics" and "Christians"--once again, it's apparent that anti-Catholicism is the last respectable prejudice on the left.-DF]
These religions in effect limit the capacity of God to embrace all of the people God created, seeing as how religions do teach that God created all people. These religions, through their proselytizing, serve to confuse and coerce people into THEIR way, and suggest that all who do not commit to THEIR way are apostates.
Would it be a fact that this God, the creator of us all, would have created people of different cultures who would create different religions based on their cultures would ban those people, condemn them to hell or eternal suffering?
So for Smith, “proselytism” is suggesting that universalism is not true, and that God might just have one path of salvation–namely, faith in Christ. Of course, if universalism is true, there’s no need to tell anyone, so that means that Smith can engage in “sharing,” and leave the “proselytizing” to those mean, arrogant, no-necked Neanderthal evangelicals and Catholics.
Then there’s the Rev. Janet Edwards of the PCUSA’s More Light Presbyterian caucus, who bizarrely manages to turn questions about faith-sharing into a screed on homosexuality:
There would be no problem with religious proselytizing if it remained as Thomas Farr describes it at its most humble: “Peaceful persuasion, respectful of human dignity, culture and tradition.” But speaking from my Christian tradition, the moment believers took to heart Matthew’s report of Jesus’ Great Commission to His followers “to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them and teaching them all I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19-20), there has always been way, way more to it than that. And, almost always, it quickly crosses the line into manipulation and coercion.
A current example of tremendous concern to me is the situation in Uganda, where a bill is pending in the Parliament — in part due to the activism and influence of American evangelicals — to punish people convicted of homosexuality with death or, as a concession to international uproar, life imprisonment.
Huh? What does one of these things have to do with the other? The anti-homosexuality law in Uganda–which I do not support, by the way–has nothing to do with Christianity per se but rather cultural norms that people like Edwards are normally hot to defend. It also has nothing to do with Christian evangelism, whether coercive or not, and so is irrelevant to the entire discussion, except inasmuch as for folks like Edwards, everything has to do with homosexuality.
Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite begins by noting that “dangerous ideas” (like evangelism) are not always bad ideas, but ends up condemning evangelistic efforts anyway:
[R]eligious proselytism in a rapidly globalizing world is an even more dangerous religious idea than in centuries past. Globalization, fueled by the speed of the Internet, is creating widespread anxiety and a sense of cultural threat around the world. Religion, especially, but not only, conservative religion, offers itself as a refuge from the destabilizing and even dehumanizing effects of globalization. Proselytizing in a globalizing world shakes the foundations of security that religion offers and it has a profoundly unsettling effect. Since increased anxiety often manifests itself in aggression and even violence, religious proselytizing is an ever more dangerous religious idea, and a bad one at that.
It is unquestionably true that those whom Christians seek to evangelize–Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, secularists–sometimes get violent in response, as has happened within the last year in India, Burma, Pakistan, China, and elsewhere. It’s also true that sometimes that violence is not because Christians were seeking to spread their faith, but simply because they exist. Thistlethwaite is in effect arguing here for the “heckler’s veto“; in other words, Christians should allow the possibility of violent reactions to their speech and actions to force them to give up their religious freedom. That’s what you call a dynamic defense of individual rights and civil liberties.
Aseem Shukla of the Hindu-American Foundation, a Minnesota oncologist, also takes the view that your religious freedom must take a back seat to his:
Article 18 of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR), is often held up as the rationale–the green light for proselytization. That every individual “has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”
But adherents of the pluralist religions–Dharma religions, paganism and native religious traditions–have long argued that there is a very basic asymmetry at play rendering the Declaration deeply flawed. Abrahamic religions–the non-pluralist traditions–claim exclusivity in their belief system’s legitimacy as the only religious and spiritual path and demand absolute adherence. In contrast, pluralist religious traditions subscribe to a more expansive ethos–that one’s religion may not be the exclusive source of Truth and which acknowledge the potential of multiple legitimate religious and spiritual paths. Most pluralist religious traditions allow for the assimilation of beliefs and traditions of another religion without demanding repudiation of one’s own religion or conversion to the other.
And your point is what? That adherents of the “Abrahamic religions” must bow to the pluralist view? Sounds like a claim that Hinduism’s historical syncretism is superior to the exclusivism of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, and a call to conversion to an Eastern theological perspective. Throughout his article, Shukla certainly sounds as if he arguing that only the pluralist approach is correct, and that any religion that seeks converts is somehow illegitimate if not evil.
Finally, there’s Arun Gandhi, who as usual goes completely over the top:
I call proselytizing evil because it is responsible, in a tangible way, for all the violence that we experience today.
Anyone out there want to buy Mr. Gandhi a one-way ticket to Pyongyang or Harare so that he can discover that there actually is violence in the world that isn’t based in “proselytizing”? Of course, what do you expect from a guy who once wrote in this very same “On Faith” column, “We have created a culture of violence (and Israel and the Jews are the prime instigators) and that Culture of Violence is eventually going to destroy humanity.”
In the wake of the District of Columbia opening its marriage license office to gays, a United Methodist church has declared that it prefers Caesar to God, or at least to the denomination’s Book of Discipline, according to a press release found at the Religion News Service:
The pastor and 12 other ordained clergy who attend Dumbarton United Methodist Church in Georgetown said they would conduct such ceremonies after Congress failed to override D.C.’s new law on March 3. The larger United Methodist Church does not permit same-sex weddings, and no other Methodist congregation in Washington has taken the same step.
“As a pastor, I am called to extend care and grace to all people even as Jesus did,” said Rev. Mary Kay Totty, pastor at the 238-year-old church. “We celebrate love and loyalty wherever it is found.”
Dumbarton’s Church Council, in a 28 to 0 vote February 10, pledged “to honor and celebrate the wedding of any couple, licensed in the District of Columbia, who seek to commit their lives to one another in marriage.”
Totty said the church is aware the clergy are at risk by performing same-sex weddings in a denomination that does not sanction them. “However,” she said, “marriage equality is about justice and civil rights. The District of Columbia acknowledges that it is wrong to discriminate against people based upon sexual orientation.”
So here’s a test of the strength of United Methodist church discipline: as soon as Totty or one of her fellow pastors performs a same-sex wedding, he or she should be brought up on charges. Then we’ll see if United Methodists are as feckless in enforcing their denomination’s stands as Presbyterians. I’m guessing the answer will be no, which is to say that the officiant at such a ceremony will be found guilty (what punishment would follow I couldn’t say) without all the nonsense about whether such a wedding is actually possible.
Got my weekly e-mail from the PCUSA/Democratic Party lobbying firm Washington Office today, and it takes up the issue of the Murkowski resolution that would have Congress roll back the Environmental Protection Agency’s power grab in declaring greenhouse gases (most notably carbon dioxide) a “pollutant.” In this e-mail they urge action:
Call your members of Congress and ask them to vote “no” on Senator Murkowski’s Congressional Review Act resolution and its corresponding measure on the House side. Members of Congress are hearing from the coal industry and other corporations who would like them to support this resolution but they need to hear from their constituents that protecting creation from climate change is your concern.
Since God is obviously asleep at the switch, it is up to us to “protect creation from climate change.” Uh, huh. I have just one thing to say to that:
The “hockey stick” has been completely discredited–it was a production of manipulated and dishonest data. So if the second graph, which takes into account the “medieval warming period” (the time during which, for instance, there was arable land in Greenland, which is why the Vikings called it that, not because they had a sense of irony), is correct, the Earth has been a lot warmer in the past than now, has seen much larger changes in temperature than we have, and–here’s the point–those changes weren’t caused by humans. Now, here’s the really amazing thing: notice the steep drop between the peak temp in 1200 to below the 20th century average, which the world was under for the vast majority of the next 500 years. That drop came about without any help from the UN, Congress, or the Presbyterian Church (USA). I know that isn’t really conceivable–I mean really, Pastor, you actually expect the planet to be capable of natural climate change sans the help of God’s Little Helpers?–but there it is.
I think this would be a good place to insert a compendium that Ed Morrissey at Hot Air put together. (I know it’s a conservative site–just check out the links to liberal media such as Britain’s Guardian to see this isn’t just some fundamentalist/neocon/coal industry/oligarchical disinformation campaign.) In this post he’s talking about the failure of the American media to cover the story, but my point is for you to notice how many issues are stacking up that mitigate against the anthropogenic theology of the Religion of Green™:
That’s a lot to ignore, even for the Washington Office, the NCC, or the other mainline climate hysterics.
