The Reformed Pastor

I expect this will be a multi-part post, at least in part because there is so much bad stuff that can go on in the committees of a meeting such as the PCUSA General Assembly. First up, its the Ecumenical and Interfaith Relations Committee, which has taken two significant actions.

First, it passed (52-1-1) the “Recommendations Regarding the Evangelical Presbyterian Church” with slight amendment. This means that the report (previously discussed here, though not in the detail I had originally intended) with all its flaws–lack of evidence to support its claims, endorsement of PCUSA interference in EPC affairs, misreading of its own denominational polity, etc.–goes to the full Assembly essentially intact and endorsed. Whatever.

Second, it refused (23-31-2) to send on to the full Assembly the paper “Christians and Jews: People of God.” That’s bad enough, but worse is the apparent reasons. The “comment” section is from the Advocacy Committee for Racial Ethnic Concerns, and their recommendation for disapproval lists “content flaws” that come directly from the Israel Palestine Mission Network critique that I found so repulsive:

2.   Content Flaws

The ACREC also has concerns about the following topics discussed in the paper that deserve greater input from a wider and more diverse group of scholars and by those who are affected by the paper, such as the NMEPC.

·    The lack of Christology/ the Lordship of Christ

—Blurring the lines between Christianity and Judaism.

·    Theology of the Land

—Use of Scripture versus international law regarding Israel’s right to exist.

—Justifying Israel’s use of force through Scripture.

·    Endorsing Zionism, a political ideology

·    Separating theology from ethics

·    Demonization of Liberation Theology

They aren’t exactly giant papier mache puppets, I don’t think. Well, maybe one or two of them. Rather, they seem to be giant animal costumes meant to make a congregation of mostly older white Presbyterians feel like Native Americans, or something. The video quality isn’t great, but if you want to know what those wacky Presbyterians are doing out in Minneapolis, check out the opening worship service from this year’s General Assembly:

The Layman Online has a couple of pictures (none of the skunks, unfortunately):

The PCUSA General Assembly gave an indication of the direction that it’s heading today when it elected the new moderator on the fourth ballot. Cynthia Bolbach is a ruling elder from First Presbyterian in Alexandria, right up the road from me. According to the Layman Online, she told the liberal Covenant Network at a dinner this weekend:

“I have been a strong advocate of removing G-6.01016b (the fidelity and chastity standard for elected officers) from the Book of Order. I think it is a stain on the Gospel. I think it does not carry out the inclusivity that we need. And as a lawyer I think it’s pragmatically stupid because it means that we lose many faithful and committed people just because of their sexual orientation.”

The Layman also gives us this question-and-answer from Bolbach in response to a commissioner:

“How do the different parts of our constitution relate to each other and influence our decision making: The Bible, The Book of Confessions, and the Book of Order?”

“We live our lives together under a constitution made up of the Book of Confessions and the Book of Order. The confessions tell us of times in history when the church has witnessed to the Lord in a certain way. The Book of Order is the more practical, down to earth tool that we use in doing our work as Presbyterians. But the Book of Order has been revised more than 300 times since reunion and has become a regulatory manual.” Bolbach said the denomination needs to get the form of its government back to foundational principles. “We need to lift up our constitution so we can live and work together.”

What’s missing from that answer?

Bolbach, the only non-teaching elder among the candidates, lead on every ballot (her lowest vote was 30% on the first, and no other candidate received more than 23%–the Rev. Julia Leeth, the most conservative of the six, got that on the final vote). She was also the strongest supporter of same-sex marriage, according to the Presbyterian News Service. I could certainly be wrong, but if this is an indication, it’s going to be a long week in Minneapolis.

Never say the United Church of Christ doesn’t have influence. It appears their “Bring Betty Broadband” campaign (previously noted here and here, and which is hosted by So We Might See, which in turn was within the last week identified by Google as an “attack page” and distributor of malicious software–how’s that for irony?) has had the desire effect–in Finland. From CNN:

Finland has become the first country in the world to make broadband internet access a legal right for all citizens.

The legislation, which came into effect Thursday, forces telecom operators to provide a reasonably priced broadband connection with a downstream rate of at least one megabit per second (mbs) to every permanent residence and office, the Finnish government said in a statement.

“From now on a reasonably priced broadband connection will be everyone’s basic right in Finland,” said Finnish communications minister Suvi Linden. “This is absolutely one of the government’s most significant achievements in regional policy and I am proud of it.

“I hope that people will make use of the opportunity and turn to telecom operators in the area they live.”

Finland is one of the world’s most wired nations, and numbers corporations such as telecommunications giant Nokia among its successes.

“One of the world’s most wired nations”–they must be drinking way too much coffee in Helsinki, if they think that broadband access is a “basic right.” Next up, the Finns will be enshrining as “basic rights” the right to gold medals in cross-country skiing at the Olympics, the right to keep and bear moose, and the right to throw reindeer meatballs (Lihapullat) at Lutheran ministers.

In other news, the words “right,” previously buried at Forest Lawn, was disinterred and its mutilated remains dropped into Lake Saimaa, from which it would take a U.S. Navy mini-submersible to recover them.

(Via Diane Suffern of the Contrarian Bee and the Green Room at Hot Air.)

UPDATE: That should have been Diane, not “Debbie.” Must have had the second Addams Family movie on my mind, or something… By the way, I should also have said take a look at the whole post. Diane also scopes out the future of American education via Sweden. Chilling stuff.

Brian Walsh, a Christian Reformed campus minister in Canada, has done what lots of liberal Christians wish they could do and re-written Scripture. Specifically, he takes Romans 1:16-32 and re-writes it as he imagines Paul would have written it today, at least if Paul were reincarnated as a hip, post-modern, Marxist, extraordinarily angry campus minister. He does the usual pseudo-poetry thing, which I’ve made into paragraphs, and of course he has a lot more to say than Paul, or at least uses a lot more words to say it in, perhaps because our problems are so much worse than the apostle’s. It deserves to be savored in its entirety:

In the face of the collapse of the dominant worldview of the modern West, I’m ashamed when consumerism and greed is embraced in the name of a false Christian gospel of affluence.

In the face of the crisis of capitalism, I’m ashamed when Christians embrace free enterprise as God’s own choice for an economy.

In the face of thousands dieing [sic] daily of malnutrition, billions living in desperate poverty, and the world on the precipice of irreparable ecological despoliation, I’m ashamed that good Christian folks will appeal to “Romans one” to legitimate homophobic gay and lesbian bashing.

These are, I submit, shameful gospels. They leave me defeated, embarrassed, and angry.

But I am not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ. This gospel is nothing less than the power of God for salvation.
A power that blows apart the empire, dethroning its pretentious claims, unveiling its lies for what they are.

Why am I not ashamed of this gospel? Because through its power, life is put to rights.

Why am I not ashamed of the gospel? Because in it we meet a justice achieved not through imperial violence, but through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ who bore such violence on an imperial cross.

Why am I not ashamed of the gospel? Because such shame will paralyze me, render me unable to heed the call to faithfulness, and so disempower me that I will not have the energy to live for justice.

Righteousness, justice, faithfulness—all in the shadow of empire. This is the fruit of the gospel that we long to proclaim and engender in this community.

So let’s be clear about what is going on these days.

Let’s not engage in cover-up with talk of market corrections or market misbehavior. Let’s not try to salvage this leaky ship of fools with billions of dollars of tax payers’ money. No, my friends, that’s way too cheap and doesn’t begin to address the problem.

What’s going on in the present economic crisis is nothing less than the wrath of God being revealed against all ungodliness, all injustice, all greed, all false gospels, and the distorted lives they produce.

But an empire of deceit, an economy of lies, is no surprise when we have become so adept at suppressing the truth of God that is plain from the very nature of creation.

What part of the finite and gift character of creation didn’t they get when they adopted an ideology of infinite greed,
insatiable consumption, and an ever-expanding and ever-growing economy?

Doesn’t the very nature of creation bear witness to a God of abundance rooted in justice? Doesn’t the very goodness of creation bear witness to the generosity of this God? Doesn’t the very place of humanity in the order of things teach us that all are called to image the Creator through loving and careful stewardship?

So here’s the sad truth, my friends: this empire of greed, this narrative of economic growth, this whole house of cards is based on lies and deception.

This whole culture of consumption, this whole empire of money is based on self-willed ignorance.

Creation proclaims a better way because creation bears witness to a God of grace. But we have suppressed this truth,
engaged in denial and cover-up.

Refusing to live a life of gratitude, refusing to live a life of thanks to the God who called forth such a rich creation,
refusing to honor this Creator God, and embracing a culture of entitlement and ingratitude, we abandoned the God of light and embraced the dark.

And in all of our complex theories, in all of our sophisticated and incomprehensible economic talk, we became futile in our thinking we ended up with lots of talk but no sense, theories that are empty, vanity of vanities.

And we thought that we were so wise, we thought that we had it all figured out, but the joke has been on us, and it is now clear that we have been fools.

You see , that’s what happens when you get in bed with idols.

That’s what happens when you don’t image God in faithful justice but embrace graven images, cheap imitations, that look so good, look so powerful, but will always fail you, will always come up short because they are impotent.

Empty idols, empty minds. Dumb idols, lives of foolishness. Betrayal and disappointment. Fear and terror.

Embrace the idol of economism, believe its false promises of abundance, allow your lives to be shaped by the greed of this idol, and you will reap the bankruptcy of that false faith, you’ll be “hooked on avarice,” you’ll be caught up in an idolatry of ideology, and your life will be reshaped in the image of that pitiful idol.

Embrace the idol of economism, believe its false promises of wealth and power, and you will find yourself facing “No Options,”

You will find your life constricted and bound, stuck in a moment that you can’t get out of, and the economic freedom that you dreamed of will awaken to the reality of lost value, international terrorism, and a despoiled planet.

And God says, “To hell with you.” And God says, “Make your bed and lie in it.” And God says, “Go ahead and screw your idols.” And God says, “I’ll let those idols screw you right back.”

My friends, we are not facing an economic crisis. We are facing a spiritual crisis. The issue isn’t fundamentally the markets. The issue is idolatry at the very root and foundation of our society, at the very root and foundation of our very way of life, at the very root and foundation of our very souls.

We are called to live in the truth, we are called to embody truth in our lives, but we have traded in the truth for a lie.

Our imaginations have been taken captive, we can hardly dream of what life outside the grip of idolatry would look like;
we can scarcely imagine a life that isn’t enslaved to consumption; we can’t even begin to get our heads around justice and righteousness; generosity and contentment are alien to us, and an economics of enough is impossible to conceive,
let alone live.

And it is all so empty, it is all so foolish, it is all so senseless.

We have got into bed with idols, and not known the Lord. We have bent the knee to idolatry and not worshipped the Creator who is blessed forever. (Amen.)

Having embraced an insatiable idolatry of greed, having been taken captive by an idolatry of consumption, our desires are perverted, our passions run wild, and we are lost in a sexual fantasy land that is deathly.

Our young women package themselves as sexual products, ready for consumption. Our sexuality is divorced from covenantal intimacy and reduced to cheap carnal entertainment. But this is not why God created us as sexual beings.
All of this is a betrayal of who we are called to be. The image of God is perverted by such sexual idolatry.

And remember, idols are insatiable. They always require sacrifice and they are never satisfied. And they have a terrible appetite for children. There is no idolatry apart from child sacrifice. This is the devastating truth of our culture.

Just as the economy will require the sacrifice of all of creation to fuel its ever-expanding growth, so will an insatiable sexual idolatry require the sexual sacrifice of children.

This is a predatory culture, and children are the most vulnerable victims. This is the bitter fruit of idolatry. This is the sexuality of empire.

So it is no surprise that the God who gives us up to insatiable lust, and who gives us up to perverted desire, also gives us up to a debased vision of life, a mind of debauchery. That’s what happens when you refuse to know God because you are too busy screwing with idols!

But make no mistake! Such idolatrous copulation bears the bad fruit of a deeply distorted life, full of evil longing, greed, hatred, envy, death, breaking community and destroying families, arrogance, insolent disrespect, foolishness, infidelity,
and a ruthlessness that is borne of a heart that has turned its back on love.

All of this—this imagination, this worldview, this cultural practice, this way of life—all of this is in service to a culture of death.

So don’t be surprised if this culture dies, and don’t be surprised that this way of life will kill you, even as you applaud and cheer everyone who lives this way.

And let’s be clear. I’m not talking about them somehow in contrast to us. No, my friends, we’re in this shit together.
I’m talking about me. I’m talking about you.

Eugene Peterson he ain’t.

(Via Theolog.)

The latest installment of the Theocrat Watch focuses on the Rev. Janet Edwards, the PCUSA pastor whose actions and writing have caused her ancestor to posthumously change his name to Jonathan Moskowitz. She’s writing as a panelist at the “On Faith” column at the Washington Post in answer to this question:

In the wake of Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal’s dismissal as chief commander of American and NATO forces in Afghanistan, Congress is evaluating our policy and presence there. Is it time for the U.S. to get out of Afghanistan? Do we have a moral responsibility to stay or to leave?

Edwards starts off with a conviction that embodies a perfectly legitimate Christian position:

I know it is silly to expect the United States of America to beat its swords into plowshares, but that does not change my utter conviction that following Jesus requires me to be a pacifist. I take to heart the words of the Psalmist, “Some take pride in chariots, and some in horses, but our pride is in the name of the Lord our God” (Psalm 20:7).

I have all the respect in the world for the Christian pacifist who sees her stance as a witness to the ethics of the Kingdom which is not of this world. When I was in seminary I developed a deep admiration for the early Anabaptists such as Menno Simons and Hans Denck, Pilgram Marpeck and Michael Sattler. That’s not the school of Christian pacifism for which Edwards speaks, however.

So what, then, do I, as a Christian, conclude about U.S. military policy and presence in Afghanistan?

The value of care and respect for others is not limited to Christian understanding. We all recognize it as the Golden Rule — that most basic moral guideline that calls on each of us to treat others as we would like to be treated.

Here I believe the moral code that applies to individuals also applies to countries and governments. We, Americans, do not want another nation’s military within our borders, just as the Afghan people have demonstrated again and again that they do not want any foreign military presence lingering within their borders, either.

The idea that the Golden Rule (and any pacifist implications one cares to draw from it) also applies to nation-states and their governments is, shall we say, novel. The Anabaptists would have thought such an idea bizarre, and there’s certainly no New Testament evidence for it (it would certainly make it difficult for the state to “bear the sword,” as Paul puts it in Romans 13, wouldn’t it?). And her assertion that “the Afghan people have demonstrated again and again that they do not want any foreign military presence lingering within their borders” is just that, an assertion. I don’t doubt that there are many Afghans–lots of them supporters of the Taliban and its reign of terror–who would like U.S. military forces to leave. I also don’t doubt that there are many–including many, many women–who would rather that they stay, if the alternative is for the Taliban to return to power. In any event, Edwards is simply projecting her own politics on to the Afghans.

And so, whatever name it goes by — loving your neighbor, or the Golden Rule — the moral responsibility is the same. Reflect on how we would like other nations to treat us. And listen to what the Afghan people are saying.

Love is our moral responsibility to Afghanistan. Loving means our military leaves.

The idea that “love” should be the defining characteristic of any government’s foreign policy is also bizarre. Governments don’t engage in self-sacrifice, and they don’t normally put the interests of foreigners ahead of the interests of their own people. Genuine love is a characteristic that defines a regenerate believer, and the idea that it would define the public policy of an institution made up largely by non-believers is ridiculous. Edwards also doesn’t come to grips with the question, is the loving thing to do to the Afghan people to allow them to fall once again under the domination of the Taliban and its al-Qaeda allies? Instead, she again simply asserts that her conclusions are self-evident. I genuinely don’t know whether continuing American participation in military operations in Afghanistan is a good idea or not–but Edwards’ nationalized pacifism, and its easy answers to hard moral questions, isn’t going to provide much guidance.

Here’s the point I most want to make: what Edwards (along with other politicized pacifists such as those at the American Friends Service Committee) want to do is apply what they see as the pacifist principles of Christianity to American public policy. In other words, they want to impose the view of a small minority within what has become a minority faith within our country on the non-Christian majority as well as the non-pacifist majority of Christians. Is that not the very definition of a theocrat, according to the religious left, at least when it is speaking of anyone with conservative political convictions?