The Reformed Pastor

You may have already heard that the PCUSA General Assembly, in a stunning and unexpected defeat for advocates of same-sex marriage, sent a proposal to institutionalize it in the Book of Order back for further study. This, along with the contradictory vote to send the deletion of fidelity standards for ordination to the presbyteries, was enough to garner the attention of the mainstream press, but I’m going to go to Alan Wisdom of the IRD for his account of the proceedings:

Earlier this week I told a couple of my colleagues at the IRD about how bleak it was looking at this General Assembly–how the defenders of traditional Christian teaching just didn’t have the votes, how the revisionists were determined to go ahead and there was nothing we could do to stop them. “I’m afraid we’re going down in flames,” I said. I added, however: “But God could surprise us. Pray for surprises.”

Well, God surprised us last night–beyond what I was expecting. All the proposals to redefine marriage were turned away by a single procedural motion. At 10:30 p.m., Commissioner Ryan Balsan from New Brunswick Presbytery in New Jersey moved to answer all those items with the assembly’s action in approving the majority and minority reports from the Special Committee on Civil Union and Christian Marriage.

I wasn’t expecting Balsan’s motion to be successful. It had seemed clear to that point that the advocates of same-sex relations had the votes to enact their agenda. At the end of the afternoon they had pushed through (yet another) proposal to delete the “fidelity and chastity” clause from the PCUSA constitution. (We can, again, defeat this proposal in local presbytery votes on ratification.)They were gunning for marriage next, and they showed no signs of letting up.

Sitting at the back of the assembly hall, I had already written on my notepad, “[Balsan's] Motion loses, __ to __.” I was just waiting to fill in the numbers. The only question in my mind was how bad the margin of defeat would be. But lo and behold, the numbers came up on the Jumbotron screen and Balsan’s motion had won–by the narrow margin of 348-324.

Suddenly all those overtures to change the constitutional definition of marriage from “man and woman” to “two persons,” as well as the overtures to issue an “authoritative interpretation” of the constitution allowing ministers to marry anyone who held a civil marriage license–they all disappeared. We had been expecting perhaps two hours of fierce debate late into the night, and probably eventual passage of those destructive overtures, and yet here was the committee moderator saying, “This concludes the report of Committee 12.” Everyone on all sides was stunned. Many of the same-sex advocates were crushed to see their high hopes so suddenly dashed. Many of the rest of us breathed a sigh of relief, as if to say, “We dodged a bullet.”

Now, before anyone goes off dancing in the aisles (my Consistory-mate Toby Brown, on the ground in Minneapolis, wrote on Facebook last night, “Just finished one of the most amazing days in my life as a pastor in the church. The awesome working of God in this assembly has humbled us, bound up our hearts with gratitude and chastened us in His abundant mercy. I’m stunned with the experience of God’s power today.”), everyone needs to keep in mind a two things: first, it is still possible for this undead creature to be resurrected today through a reconsideration motion, but, assuming that doesn’t succeed…second, this will come back again two years from now. As that guy from Men’s Warehouse says, “I guarantee it.”

Oh, actually, there’s a third thing to remember: people such as Janet Edwards and Jane Spahr have already done same-sex weddings, and the refusal of the responsible bodies (up to and including the denominational Permanent Judicial Commission) to enforce the standards means that last night’s results are only going to stop the scrupulous. Those who don’t care what the denominational standards are are going to proceed as they like, and dare anyone to stop them.

So is this just a Pyrrhic victory? No–it is good to know that there are still some people in the PCUSA unwilling to rush head-long into a repudiation of New Testament and historic Christian teaching and practice. But will it stop that rush in the long-run? Count me skeptical.

(Hat tip: Jeff Walton.)

UPDATE: According to the GA Twitter feed, the move to reconsider went down 60%-40%.

The PCUSA General Assembly is debating the foray into immigration politics and law called 11-11, “Regarding a Call to Stand with Immigrant Presbyterians in Their Hour of Need.” (I previously commented on this here.)

There’s a minority report that strikes the call to boycott Arizona, or otherwise grandstand on the Arizona law, and seeks to have the PCUSA respond to the issue with dialogue and education. So what does a pastor from New Mexico do? When the discussion of the minority report began, he moves to amend it to put in the boycott language, thus making the minority report say essentially the same thing as the majority report! Commissioners had enough integrity to vote down such stupidity.

The debate was about what you’d expect. Some argued that boycotting Arizona would both hurt those the Assembly wants to stand with, some argued that those most effected by a boycott are those who would want one, and of course there were the irrelevant personal testimonies. One young lady on the committee said that after reading the law the night after hearing a summary, she wished she’d voted differently, because the summary of the Arizona law was so biased. One woman clergy preferred the majority item, because it would mean ACTION! In the end, the minority report was defeated by 390-223, which means the majority will be approved. That provoked one commissioner to ask whether, if Pennsylvania passed a law similar to Arizona’s in the next year, would it mean that the General Assembly would have to be moved? To which Gradye Parsons, Stated Clerk, said he didn’t see the word “shall” in the overture, so nevermind.

There was more gas, but you get the point.

I’m watching the PCUSA General Assembly this evening, and my jaw dropped when I heard a representative of the Russian Orthodox Church, bringing ecumenical greetings, taking the Assembly to task for its actions regarding homosexuality, which he said looked to him to be at attempt at creating a new religion, “a modern form of paganism.” (He also indicated his disappointment that the assembly worship that used the Nicene Creed included the filioque.) I tuned in too late to hear who the gentlemen was (though he did refer to being from Belarus), but I can’t say enough about his forthrightness in bearding the lion in its own den.

UPDATE: Perry Robinson at Energetic Procession provides the missing information:

The Priest in question seems to be the Very Reverend Siarhei Hardun from the Orthodox Church of Belarus.

UPDATE: My mistake. It was Jeff Smith who actually provided the information; Perry provided the quote.

The PCUSA General Assembly has passed the proposed change in ordination standards that will further open the way to the ordination of gays and lesbians. The vote was 373-323, with 4 abstentions. Once again, the change is from this:

b. 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.

to this:

b. Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life (G-1.0000). The governing body responsible for ordination and/or installation (G.14.0240; G-14.0450) shall examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of office. The examination shall include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003). Governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.

Keep in mind that this still has to be approved by presbyteries. But if it isn’t, it will be back in 2012.

This afternoon, the PCUSA General Assembly voted (529-135-9) to send the “Christians and Jews: People of God” paper back for a re-write that is almost certainly going to result in an inferior product. The San Francisco Presbytery overture was amended to state:

1. Refer the report from the Offices of Interfaith Relations and Theology and Worship entitled: ‘Christians and Jews: People of God’ back to the Office of Interfaith Relations and Theology and Worship to rewrite the report after broader consultation to include the National Middle East Presbyterian Caucus, PC(USA) partner churches and agencies in the Middle East, relevant mission networks of the PC(USA), the Advocacy Committee for Racial Ethnic Concerns, and the Advisory Committee for Social Witness Policy.

2. That correspondence about this report between the National Middle East Presbyterian Caucus and the General Assembly Mission Council, and between the Israel-Palestine Mission Network and the General Assembly Mission Council be sent to these offices and committee working on the revised paper.

The mere fact that the response of the IPMN is being sent to the people doing the re-write, rather than being discarded for the propagandistic, borderline anti-Semitic nonsense it is, suggests that the final product will be an atrocity. The fact that the agencies and groups specifically mentioned in section 1 are all on record in one form or another as being anti-Israel certainly is an indication of what will be produced.

In a move that was no surprise whatsoever, the PCUSA General Assembly Committee on Middle East Peacemaking Issues approved (53-0-0) the report of the Middle East Study Committee entitled “Breaking Down the Walls.” The report, replete with theological flaws, historical errors and omissions, and one-sided analysis of current events, apparently remains intact. The recommendations made by the committee have been amended, however, and for the most part those have been a significant improvement over what was originally submitted. These include:

•Under “Affirmation of Previous General Assembly Policies and Statements,” there’s a new item that reads:

2 b. the reaffirmation of Israel’s right to exist as a sovereign nation within secure and internationally recognized borders in accordance with United Nations resolutions.

Yeah, they sorta forgot to include that one. I wonder why. Guess it just didn’t seem important at the time.

•Under “For the Witness of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), item b), the committee basically tried to perpetuate itself thus:

Authorizes the creation of a Monitoring Group on the Middle East for the next two years that will consist of the members of this study committee to assist the appropriate General Assembly Mission Council offices and the Middle East staff team in monitoring progress and guiding actions to ensure adequate implementation of policy directions approved by this General Assembly, given the growing complexity and interrelatedness of issues in the region.

In place of this paragraph is this:

b. Authorizes the creation of a Monitoring Group on the Middle East for the next two years that will consist of seven people appointed by the current and immediately past moderators in consultation with the GAMC staff persons responsible for global mission in the Middle East and for Interreligious Affairs to assist the appropriate General Assembly Mission Council offices and the Middle East staff team in monitoring progress and guiding actions to ensure adequate implementation of policy directions approved by this General Assembly, given the growing complexity and interrelatedness of issues in the region. This committee shall be appointed by the end of August 2010. The Monitoring Group shall include at least one but no more than two members of the existing MESC. New appointees shall be chosen on the basis of demonstrated experience with and knowledge of the complex dynamics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict within the larger concerns of the Middle East, and shall together comprise an authentic balance representing the fullness of the spectrum of commitments within the PC(USA) toward the people and issues in the region.

I’ll be surprised if that last sentence is anything other than ignored, but it’s a good effort. Potentially, if this were followed with the proper spirit, it would represent a big improvement over the Palestinian cheering section of which the MESC was largely comprised.

•Still under the “Witness” section,the endorsement of the anti-Israel, supercessionist “Kairos Document” becomes a commendation for study:

f. Endorses the Kairos Palestine document (“A Moment of Truth”) in its emphases on hope for liberation, nonviolence, love of enemy, and reconciliation; lifts the document up for study and discussion by Presbyterians; and directs the creation of a study guide for the document through the appropriate channel of the General Assembly Mission Council.

The substitute becomes this:

f. Commends for study the Kairos Palestine document (“A Moment of Truth”), and endorses the document’s emphases on hope for liberation, nonviolence, love of enemy, and reconciliation. We lift up for study the often neglected voice of Palestinian Christians. We direct the monitoring group for the Middle East to create a study guide for the document.

This is a marginal improvement. As I had said previously, even commending this for study without resources that offer another perspective is irresponsible, but at least it doesn’t endorse it.

•Under “Urgent Actions Toward Justice and Peace in Israel, the Occupied Territories of Palestine, and Jerusalem,” there’s what looks like a change that doesn’t make much difference. This:

b. Calls on the U.S. government to exercise strategically its international influence, including the possible withholding of military aid as a means of bringing Israel to compliance with international law and peacemaking efforts.

becomes this:

b. Calls on the U.S. government to exercise strategically its international influence, including making U.S. aid to Israel contingent upon Israel’s making U.S. aid to Israel contingent upon Israel’s compliance with international law and peacemaking efforts.

I guess the commissioners thought “contingent upon” was less pushy than “possible withholding.” I don’t see it, myself.

•Also under this section, a certain degree of reason prevailed with regard to the joint Israeli-Egyptian blockade (though events on the ground are probably also making this largely superfluous). This:

d. Calls on the Israeli government to end immediately its blockade of Gaza, and on the U.S. government to end any support it is giving to the blockade, and also calls on the Egyptian government to facilitate the passage of humanitarian supplies into Gaza as well as consumer goods from the strip.

becomes this:

d. Calls on the Israeli and Egyptian governments to limit their blockade of Gaza solely to military equipment/devices and to guarantee adequate levels of food, medicine, building supplies, and other humanitarian items, and to allow free commercial exchange in and out of Gaza, and call on the US government to end any support for the blockade that interferes with the adequacy of such items or such exchange.

This is a vast improvement. The first one, of course, says by omission that only Israel, and not Egypt, is blockading Gaza, which is as blatant an example of bias as you can find in the recommendations. The second names reality for what it is, and also does what the first doesn’t, which is recognize that there is a legitimate aspect to the blockade (preventing military equipment from getting to Hamas), while the first reflects the committee’s refusal to come to grips with Iran’s continuing efforts to get arms to Hamas so it can continue to kill Israeli civilians.

•Finally, on the last part, “Engaging This Report,” all three sub-points have been changed. The first, approving Part One of the report, changes from this:

a. Approves Part One of the report (Introduction; Letters to Our Church, Partners, and Engaged Parties; Biblical Theological Reflections; “What We Have Seen and Heard”).

to this:

a. Receives Part One of this report (Introduction; Letters to Our Church, Partners, and Engaged Parties; Biblical Theological Reflections; “What We Have Seen and Heard) as rationale for recommendations only, not as policy.

I’m not sure whether moving the report from “policy” to “rationale for recommendations only” will make any practical difference, but it sounds good. As for the other, it goes from this:

b. Receives Part Three (I. Notes from a Humanistic, Liberal Zionist: A Personal Narrative; II. A Plea for Justice: A Historical Analysis; and the Appendixes) and commends it to the church for study.

c. Authorizes the creation of a study guide by the monitoring group (see Recommendation 3.b.).

to this:

b. Delete Part Three, Items I and II  (I. Notes from a Humanistic, Liberal Zionist: A Personal Narrative;  II. A Plea for Justice: A Historical Analysis), and replace with a series of eight narratives of comparable length, four arising from the range of authentically Palestinian perspectives (including both Christian and Muslim), and four arising from the range of authentically Israeli perspectives, along with an annotated bibliography for additional understanding about the breadth and depth of both authentically Palestinian and Israeli spectrum of perspectives but above all authentically pro justice and pro peace.   These narratives and the bibliography will be collected and approved by the Monitoring Group on the Middle East.

This was a terrific move, at least potentially. The two items listed are completely one-sided, and the second especially is much more political advocacy than any kind of “historical analysis.” If nothing else, the result of this change will be to get two objectionable items out of the report, and open the possibility for something much better (the eight narratives mentioned) to replace them.

If I were a commissioner, I’d have to take a day or two to digest these changes, and I might well still vote against approving the recommendations and report. But I have to admit that the changes the committee members made to the former are a big improvement, and they are to be commended for not swallowing the one-sided partisanship of the MESC whole, but instead bringing a healthy dose of fairness and reality to an otherwise dismal enterprise.

There’s an old proverb that says it is better to be silent and thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and confirm the suspicion. Unfortunately, the PCUSA General Assembly Committee on Social Justice Issues B: the Exhibition of the Kingdom of Heaven to the World seems unaware of that advice. As a result, they have passed (43-8-0) an overture on the Arizona immigration law that confirms what many have guessed:

1.  Refrain from holding national meetings at hotels or non-PC(USA) conference centers in those states where travel by immigrant Presbyterians or Presbyterians of color or Hispanic ancestry might subject them to harassment due to legislation similar to Arizona Law SB 1070/HB2162.

That would be all fifty of them, given that Arizona’s law mirrors the federal law that already allows for actions by federal law enforcement officials that “might subject them to harassment” as defined (or not) by the committee. In order to implement this provision, the PCUSA would have to start holding all of its meetings in Toronto or Tijuana. They then compound the problem by advocating that PCUSA facilities deliberately set out to break the law:

b.  If such laws are passed in states where the PC(USA) camp & conference centers are located, the 219th General Assembly (2010) encourages those centers to develop ‘sanctuary’ responses that would create safe places for all participants, allowing the denomination to continue to support its own conference centers, and encourages the Presbyterian Peacemaking Program of the General Assembly Mission Council to offer support to partners across the denomination as they develop a process to train volunteers to document abuses and collect data on those abuses to share with the broader church.

I can understand and agree with the need for civil disobedience in the face of an unjust law. Problem is, of course, that the stuff in the Arizona law to which the committee objects have been part of federal law since FDR. If they weren’t unjust for the last seventy years, it is hard to see why they suddenly become unjust when enforced by a state. The result is that, if passed by General Assembly, it would be the official position of the PCUSA that its camp and conference centers should plan on breaking U.S. immigration law despite the lack of protest, or recognition of immorality in such law, for decades past. So what we have here is a combination of legal ignorance and moral grandstanding.

(Via the Presbyterian Outlook.)

The Peacemaking and International Issues Committee approved (39-6-2) an item today that I would support whole-heartedly. Entitled “On Protecting Christians in the Muslim World,” it simply says:

The Presbytery of Eastern Virginia overtures the 219th General Assembly (2010),through its proper offices singly, or in conjunction with other denominations and faiths, through our appeal to them, to jointly encourage the United Nations to use its valuable influence, and through its diplomatic channels, to exhort the religious and political leaders of Muslim nations to moderate extreme behavior and protect its religious minorities from such harm, and encourage brotherly harmony between each other.

I may not have their faith in the UN to accomplish anything, but the goal is unquestionably worthy. Just yesterday I came across a news item in the Times of India about Christian college professor T.J. Joseph, who was attacked and mutilated by Muslim fanatics in India’s Kerala state:

In a horrific instance of Talibanism, Muslim fanatics in Kerala on Sunday chopped off the right hand of a college lecturer, accusing him of setting a question paper with a derogatory reference to the Prophet.

Lecturer T J Joseph was returning home from church with his mother and sister around 8.30 am in Muvattupuzha in Ernakulam district when he was accosted by the attackers. “We had just got into our car when a van pulled up in front. Around eight people armed with swords and knives emerged and pulled out Joseph after smashing the windscreen. They then chopped off his right hand and stabbed him in the left thigh,” said Joseph’s sister, Mary Stella, a nun.

So this overture should have been completely non-controversial, right? Not according to the Advisory Committee on Racial Ethnic Concerns, which submitted the following objections to justify its recommendation that the committee disapprove it:

There is no context in this item for the situation of the Christians in Pakistan who have come to represent “The West” where they live. In all the countries mentioned, the U.S. has been at war in the area and any mention of this fact is glaringly absent. Christians have become a proxy representative of “The West” and even of America. The attacks on Christians are also an attack on the American presence and war in their region.

The call from this item only puts the Christian minorities in these countries at greater danger as it underlines the fact that these minorities do indeed have “guardian angels” in the West, which makes them unwelcome members of their own Eastern communities and turns them into outsiders.

This is the same “thinking” that caused the World and National Council of Churches to turn their backs on Christians in the Soviet empire after World War II. We dare not say anything, they claimed, because the Soviets already think Christians are anti-Soviet, so any voiced support for them would endanger them by confirming what the regime already thought. That’s utter nonsense, of course, and was (and is) exercised in a highly selective fashion. For instance, I don’t recall any worries being voiced by any mainline leaders about the response of Afrikaners to Western church support for the black struggle against apartheid. Nor is there any worry about the possible response of the Israeli government to the PCUSA taking the Palestinian side in their conflict.

I’m not sure what term best characterizes the ACREC response to this overture: cowardice, treachery, political correctness, dhimmitude, or simple foolishness. You be the judge.

UPDATE: I almost forgot to mention that the text above was amended in line with a suggestion from the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy. It now reads:

The Peacemaking and International Issues Committee recommends that the 219th General Assembly (2010), through its proper offices singly, or in conjunction with other denominations and faiths, through our appeal to them, to jointly encourage the United Nations to use its valuable influence, and through its diplomatic channels, to exhort the religious and political leaders of nations with Christian and other religious minorities to moderate extreme behavior and protect its religious minorities from such harm, and encourage mutual respect and forbearance.

So what had been an expression of concern for and call for intervention on behalf of Christians being persecuted in Muslim nations–a particularly apt expression for a Christian assembly, and one that would have addressed what is probably the most prevalent form of persecution based on religion in the world today–has been watered down into a general call that applies to every nation (since every nation has religious minorities of some kind or another). Heaven forbid that any Christian body should say anything that might be construed as in any way critical of the various Muslim dictatorships that blight the world, or any of their extremist citizens that cut the hands off college professors.

The Church Orders and Ministry Committee of the PCUSA’s General Assembly has approved (36-16-1) a proposal to subject presbyteries to their fourth vote in a decade in an effort to lift the ban on ordination of sexually active gays and lesbians. A whole collection of other items, including Beaver-Butler Presbytery’s attempt to give “broader but specific scope” to the ordination standard of G-6.0106b, were set aside in order to pass this on to the full Assembly:

b. Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life (G-1.0000). The governing body responsible for ordination and/or installation (G.14.0240; G-14.0450) shall examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of office. The examination shall include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003). Governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.

That would take the place of this:

b. 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 Advisory Committee on the Constitution rather drolly notes that we’ve seen this before:

The proposed language is clear and not inconsistent with any other provision of the Book of Order. The Advisory Committee on the Constitution notes, however, that the language has some similarity, and a similar intent, to the amendment submitted by the 218th General Assembly (2008) to the presbyteries and rejected by a majority of the presbyteries.

I fully expect this to be passed by the General Assembly. Whether it will be passed by the presbyteries I don’t know, but there’s one thing that I think is absolutely certain–if it doesn’t pass, it will be brought back again in 2012, and if it doesn’t pass then, it will be brought back again in 2014, and so forth. Folks who like to complain that the continuing debate over sexuality within the PCUSA is a distraction from mission are, in many instances, the same people who are willing to bring this back as many times as they have to to get what they want.

Alan Wisdom of the Institute on Religion and Democracy reports that the PCUSA General Assembly Committee on Civil Unions and Marriage Issues has passed (47-8-2) the report of the Special Committee on Civil Union and Christian Marriage. Alan writes:

That’s the report that says the denomination has “no consensus” on the topic, each local church and presbytery should develop its own policy, and we should all show “mutual forbearance”–i.e., not hold one another accountable to follow what the PCUSA constitution says about marriage.

The majority, I am convinced, did not want to hear the biblical and confessional witness on marriage. In one revealing early test vote, they deleted a sentence noting that the PCUSA confessions consistently define marriage as between a man and a woman. They knew it was true. The minority report put all the confessional citations in front of them. But they just didn’t want to acknowledge that truth. They wanted to pretend that the church’s teaching on marriage was undefined and subject to any number of icreative reinterpretations.

I suspect “icreative” in that last sentence is a typo, but it has a real appropriateness, don’t you think?

Alan will be reporting from Minneapolis throughout the GA. Be sure to check on his updates at the IRD web site.