The Catholic writer Evelyn Waugh wrote a historical novel about Helena the mother of Constantine; I was reminded of a conversation in that story as I thought about last night’s plenary session. In the novel Helena visits the holy sites of Jerusalem where she later, according to Catholic tradition, finds the cross of Christ.
But the conversation I was thinking of was about those Christians who languished in prison during the last Roman persecution (250 A.D.). Some in the leadership of the Church, while their sisters and brothers accepted death and prison, collaborated with the officials, in order to avoid prison. In a conversation between Helena and another person it is explained to her how the Christians in prison watched their pastors and bishops enter the prison in conversation with their persecutors, walking by their cells without a care.
Many of those who betrayed the sheep of their particular pasture were later forgiven and allowed back into the Church. (As an aside, there were those who did not want to allow them back. This became the Donatist controversy.)
But how this connects with last nights plenary session is how the commissioners were treated by those who officiated over the General Assembly debate on several of the overtures concerning Christians and Muslims, or as one person put it the Muslims and Jesus.
As some on the floor of the Assembly attempted, by amendments, to make sure the church did not enter into apostasy by saying that Christians and Muslims worship the same God ,the Moderator of the Church and others attempted to keep them from their witness.
In particular, the moderator of committee 7 and the new Moderator of the General Assembly, unfairly, paid little attention to parliamentary rules.
As one commissioner gave a strong defense of not using the term a “common God” on the basis of neither offending her Saudi relatives nor her own faith, the committee moderator interrupted her and was not ruled out of order. (Although the commissioner did finish)
The committee moderator was allowed to ask to have a Muslim clergy person who was on the platform speak to the commissioners. This was permitted without the vote of the commissioners and then, although there was someone waiting to speak for the motion, the Assembly Moderator called on a commissioner who was asking to call the question. That meant that after the Muslim speaker no one was allowed to refute anything he said.
Needless to say this means that in both the committee and the General Assembly a member of the Islamic faith actually was allowed to be the largest influence on the voting Christians. When one lists all of the broken parliamentary rules it is breath-taking.
Now several leaders of the Church have various modern & Western Muslim scholars and laity to stand for their progressive views. For the orthodox of the Church it is like being in those ancient prison cells while the progressive leadership of the church walks by hand in hand with those who care little for Jesus Christ.
It is important to point out that 07-01 and recommendation 2 were changed on the Assembly floor to a much better statement, that is, “2. State that though we hold differing understandings of how God has been revealed to humankind, the PC(USA) affirms that, as children of this loving God, we share the commandments of love for God and neighbor, the requirement to care for the poor” However the other amendments would have clarified the item and made it even more reformed and orthodox.
It is troubling when the congenial moderator becomes the congenial dictator. Perhaps it is simply a lack of experience. But nonetheless it does leave one thinking of ancient pastors and bishops who needed forgiveness.
How do you witness to those who need Jesus Christ when what should be pastoral leadership stands between you and the lost?
For complete details on how the three items on Muslims and Christians were handled see, “General Assembly Makes New Statements and Encourages Common Worship for Christian-Muslim Relations” by Michael R. Walker on the Presbyterians for Renewal Web page.
38 comments:
"Dictator" is extreme.
But accurate.
gotta love the grace being shown by Christians to other Christians...
"For the orthodox of the Church it is like being in those ancient prison cells while the progressive leadership of the church walks by hand in hand with those who care little for Jesus Christ."
That is really inflammatory rhetoric.
How are we to bring peace to a broken world if we use that kind of language when talking about members of our own faith?
Ritchie Jones
Wow, the Progressive Language Police are fully deployed against Viola's blog.
Michael Walker's piece is quite good. The 'Common Word' document is problematic at several levels.
I question if we, as a body, really understand who Jesus claims to be, and what the church has proclaimed him as for close to 2000 yrs.
I commend to all Timothy George's four part DVD study on Christianity and Islam, specicifically addressing the question, "is the Father of Jesus, the God of Mohammad?" Muslim scholars (real ones, who don't think Allah might be a 'she') speak for themselves. Very irenic, very fair. I wish the committee would have been able to use that as a resource.
Keep it up Vi...
dm
I know I often resort to more extreme language or exaggerated analogies in order to get across my point, and that's how I understand Viola's point. It can feel like a silencing when moderatorial actions go bad.
On the Muslim point, I highly doubt many commissioners or many in our denomination truly understand Islam, even to the point of understanding the differnces between religions.
Already today I've written to the PCUSA News service to complain that in one article they actually wrote that a Muslim gave "ecumenical greetings" to the Assembly. How ill-rendered is that? A Muslim leader can only give, at best, interfaith greetings. (The News service wrote back acknowledging the mistaken use of the term.)
I think we've got a long way to go to figure out how to move forward in both evangelism and dialog with Muslims.
Presbyman,
Try answering the question
Ritchie
It didn't really seem like a question.
Like it or not, while Christians and Muslims are all monotheistic we do not worship the same God. I am sure Muslims would be happy to tell you that Christians are not really monotheistic because we believe in the Trinity. In fact that is one of the problems with one of the actions the GA took. While the letter from the Muslim scholars seems gracious they ask us to join with them in dialogue on the basis of the agreement that God needs no helper. To Muslims this means that Jesus is not the divine Son of God. How can we have dialogue when we are asked to deny our faith in order to have dialogue?
As for the leaders of the GA, it would be nice if they followed parliamentary procedure. The Moderator should have corrected the chair of the committee for interrupting the commissioner. The Moderator should have asked for a vote from the floor before allowing the Muslim cleric to speak. The Moderator should have given the commissioner at the microphone a chance to speak before accepting the request to call the question. Those are the rules by which the Assembly is run. The rule are meant to be fair to all.
As for Viola's seemingly harsh statements, denying the faith, which saying that Christians and Muslims worship the same God does, is a serious matter. It calls for serious language.
Richie,
we can't bring peace to a broken world, when our own denomination is broken; when the words of Paul in 1 Cor 6:9-10 are ignored; when the words of Christ No one comes to the Father except through me. (NIV) are ignored in a resolution that is supposed to represent the opinion of the entire church.
RC,
"we can't bring peace to a broken world, when our own denomination is broken"
That is not true, not true, not true.
We celebrate the broken body of Christ as the very vehicle by which peace is brought to the world. Fundamental assumption that is not even up for debate. But do we fail to understand it's most basic implication?
The Church remains the broken body of Christ and it always will be! At least to the end of the age. Maybe longer, if the vision of the butchered Lamb sitting on the thrown in Revelation is true.
But if we do not learn to live in peace through our brokenness with our fellow disciples then we have failed as disciples and failed in our calling.
All the rest is inconsequential.
Ritchie
Make that a "throne", not a "thrown"
Ritchie
PS Will, it very much IS a question. I quickly browsed over your blog and it seems devoted to endless polemic. Maybe you would like to take a crack at answering the question?
Seemed more rhetoric than anything else - designed to silence legitimate complaint and disagreement.
Thing is, by inoculating yourself against it, you guarantee that the immoral actions of the corporation, the PC(USA) remain unchanged.
I do not believe there is intentionality in this issue Viola mentions - but there is a very good reason to have rules for a meeting that need to be followed. People often act in biased ways without being aware of it - and the rules provide a check to ensure fairness. Perhaps if commissioners were actually trained on parliamentary procedures - some of which are counter-intuitive and many of which are unknown, things would go more smoothly.
Were it not simply rhetoric - let's consider the issue.
If the organization has extremely serious moral problems - as I believe - remaining silent is not a moral option.
Are you suggesting that everyone in this organization believes in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior? (Or in any organization that styles itself 'the church') That is possible, but unlikely - and the New Testament argues against it.
Are you suggesting that such organizations always do good things? Inquisition, crusades, etc. Again not a tenable position.
Are you suggesting that the PC(USA) gets it right in some way so that it is morally correct? If so, then I suppose that is defensible in some ways. But for persons of conscience who see actual harm done in the wider world by some actions of the PC(USA) and some official representatives - to remain silent would be unacceptable.
Yes, people employ rhetorical excesses - and that is a mistake. But the fact remains that to communicate the depth of the actual harm done in the wider world in certain cases by the corporation will always be regarded excessive by the corporations boosters, loyalists, and cheerleaders.
Will,
I am suggesting that if you are looking for things to fight about you will always find them. People always have and always will.
The Gospel is not about making those things go away, or fixing them. It is about turning them over to Christ, it is about accepting a higher calling, and learning to share the classroom with other students of Christ with whom, if you look, you would disagree with. Our relationship with each other is through Christ, not through a mutual meeting of the minds. It is in fact because we cannot meet on any playing field that the work of Christ is necessary. It is also sufficient. So that through him and only through him we learn to live with each other in peace.
But if we refuse to do this, then the hope that we bring to the World is null and void. We have nothing to say.
And if we have nothing to say, then who cares about all the rest?
Ritchie
One cannot advance evil in the name of Jesus Christ.
That is not the business of the church. Nor does it offer any hope to the world.
To support corporate interests, even those that claim to be Christian, when they are actively harmful - cannot be construed as moral.
One cannot serve both God and corporations.
Will,
In His own words, how did Jesus teach us to fight evil?
Ritchie
Agreed.
But I'm rather sure that was not a justification for failing to confront evil. Otherwise the actions of Jesus would have been extremely inconsistent with his teachings. And the apostles would have gotten it completely wrong as well.
What fellowship has light with darkness?
Viola, you have asked exactly the right question. "How do you witness to those who need Jesus Christ when what should be pastoral leadership stands between you and the lost?" It would be one thing if the leadership, and the unified direction supported by per capita payments, were neutral in this. Per capita is often seen as the equivalent of an instrument of unity or a way of making real the covenant that united Presbyerians. But how should Presbyterians respond when that instrument of unity supports leadership actively opposing a witness to Jesus Christ as the way, the truth, and the life?
Will,
"What fellowship has light with darkness?"
The reformed answer to that question is in John. Light marches fearlessly into darkness and the darkness does not overcome it. Contrary to the Greek theory of opposite dualities, (and you find it in the Holiness tradition as well) darkness is not the opposite of light. Light, in fact, has no opposite. There are no flashlights that can shine darkness. There is only less light and more light. Light overcomes darkness simply by being light.
The purity laws said that if the pure had fellowship with the impure, they became impure. Jesus showed time and again that if the pure had fellowship with the impure, it was the impure that became clean. And as Viola pointed out, in the presence of evil, it is Him who keeps you pure and blameless (and none other).
Therefore, the way light prevails is precisely by seeking fellowship with darkness. That is the paradigm of the Gospel.
A hand-in-glove match to what Jesus has to say about his way of overcoming evil.
“you are the light of the world… Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father” Mat 5:14-16
Ritchie
Ritchie,
I am preparing for a very long nap but felt I should respond to your last comment. It isn’t our fellowship with darkness that overcomes darkness. It is our fellowship with Jesus Christ who is the Light, (and also the Truth and the Way). This doesn’t mean that we don’t befriend those in the world; we are called to care for and proclaim the gospel to those who do not know Jesus Christ.
The purity laws are in the Old Testament to remind the Israelites that God is holy and that we need a Savior to redeem us from our un-holiness. If a sinner does not repent and turn to Jesus Christ they have no hope and no part in the life of Christ. The Jews looked forward to the promise that was Jesus Christ who came to ransom us from the bondage of our sinful nature. We are all still sinners but those who claim the righteousness of Christ instead of their own will begin moving toward the holiness that Jesus Christ calls them to. That is how darkness is overcome.
Dave thanks for reminding everyone about “Timothy George's four part DVD study on Christianity and Islam” I have the book and use it all the time. It is kind, fair, and honest.
Dave Hackett, I totally agree with this, “I think we've got a long way to go to figure out how to move forward in both evangelism and dialog with Muslims.” I think in some of the dreams Muslims in Islamic countries are having of Jesus we can know that He is pointing us all to the great need of evangelizing them. I have a feeling it will be Christians from other countries that will carry the largest share of such work. Just some of my thoughts.
Thanks everyone else.
Viola,
I understand what you are saying, but I was trying to stick to the words of Jesus in how to combat evil.
Much has been written on the topic, and in doing so, the specific teachings of Jesus often get lost.
We are tempted to pick up our swords and join the battle before we understand the battle plan. We are tempted to take matters in our own hands instead of following our orders. We are tempted as you were, to use inflammatory rhetoric to vilify and demonize those with whom we disagree, even those who are servants of Christ as us.
Jesus gave us some very different instructions. If we drink of his water then we ourselves become fountains of living water. That is what we were called to do. To be the light, and to be the water, and to be one with him as he is one with the Father.
Unless we repent first and follow His ethic, what repentance can we ask of anyone else?
We are just noisy gongs and clanging cymbals.
Ritchie
Ritchie -
I apologize for taking your first as rhetorical; that was probably unfair because it implies motivation you may not have.
That said, I find your point problematic. If the teachings of Jesus on this subject genuinely mean what you assert, then Jesus was a chief offender against his own teachings - in both action and word. His statements to liberal and conservative alike and his decision to drive the money changers from the temple both don't really mesh with what I take you to be saying. (Lines like, you are of your father the devil - seem pretty much vilification to me).
Similarly, the other apostolic writings are filled with various kinds of invective and warning against false teaching. Look at what Paul says of those who teach gentile circumcisions, or of those who accept the teaching. Look at the injunction against even wishing false teachers godspeed.
As good as it may sound, non-confrontation conflicts with the New Testament.
I am also probably overly suspicious in that people who usually advance this argument advance it on one side only. Often people are content to criticize those with whom they disagree with as much vitriol as they please. [Theological conservatives in the PC(USA) are the usually recipients of this. But in the wider culture Christians who advance this argument often feel perfectly content to vilify, say, political leaders with whom they disagree. It becomes circular - how might one criticize the criticism of others? Or does one retain the ability to, say, oppose the teachings and actions of those like Fred Phelps?]
Additionally, I agree that Jesus did not display qualms about association with those who sinned - otherwise, He'd have been obliged not to be in the world at all. However, I can see nowhere where Jesus actually joins others in their sin. If a person believes certain actions to be objectively wrong, harmful to others, unjust, or similar - he or she dare not join in those actions, retain membership in groups that do, or financially contribute to them.
Will,
"As good as it may sound, non-confrontation conflicts with the New Testament"
The issue is not whether but how.
Paul does not give us permission to engage in unbridled conflict with other followers of Jesus. He is in several place very concerned with the level of fighting going on. As I said, there have always been and always will be good reasons to fight. The body of Christ is a broken body and always will be.
This is why we must examine very closely the rules for conflict laid down in the Gospels. And if Jesus is Lord, then the rules He lays down must be followed. Otherwise we lie about Him being Lord.
And everybody knows we are lying.
When Jesus threw the money changers out he was taking upon himself a prophetic Old Testament role ascribed to God Himself. That is how it was understood and it led directly to charges of blasphemy. It was not permission to go and do likewise.
A servant is not greater than His master.
Ritchie
Ritchie - that thinking could be applied to all of the actions and statements of Jesus. Many of which are self-evidently of the same type. And it still doesn't account for the behaviors of the apostles.
Though of course, one could argue this was an effect of their apostolic office, and therefore also justifiable hypocrisy ...
I just don't buy it. It seems to be a way to evade criticism of things that are actually pretty vile - "not even done among the pagans" to borrow from Paul.
If your concern is with tone - then I agree. If it is with substance - up to and including observations that certain teachings are outside the bounds of Christianity - then I don't see it in the New Testament.
Yes Will, in as much as tone is part of method, it is with tone.
As I first stated, comparing the proponents of gay ordination to people who sent their brothers in the faith to the gallows is sickening hyperbole that has no place in this discussion. It creates rancor, it overstates the issue by orders of magnitude, and it diminishes the tragedy of the past and the forgiveness that followed it. It makes a mockery of the past and of the present, and makes Christians look like pathetic little squabbling children who have nothing to contribute to adult problems and issues.
Bottom line is that it is self-defeating.
You need to read closely the whole body of Paul’s works. He is not satisfied with the level of discourse among the apostles. He warns against it. He shows a more perfect way. As do the gospels. All of them portray the disciples as not understanding what Jesus was about. Why do you think that forty years after the fact this is what the writers of the gospels wanted to remind us about the apostles? The early church left a warning to future generations. They did not mean for us to imitate them in fighting. They learned hard lessons and left us a record of those lessons. If what you get from that is that we should follow suit and consume ourselves in endless polemics, then you learned the opposite of what they were trying to tell you.
If you want to take a stand against evil, there is a way to fight evil. You fight it by doing good.
There is no other.
Ritchie
Ritchie,
I believe that Will has answered you quite sufficiently. You are not taking the Scriptures for what they plainly say. The Voices of Orthodox Women when assessing others Bible studies start out with this first criteria, “Does the author take the scriptural context seriously? That is to say, does she carefully note when the passage was written, why it was written, and to whom it was written? Further, does she set forth the clear and plain sense of the passage before she attempts to apply its meaning to the lives of women [others]today?”
You have failed. I am now closing this thread because I think this debate has become redundant.
Viola,
Obviously you are not listening.
But even gentle water can break through hardened rock, one small drop at a time.
I believe you are a good person with good intentions. I pray the Lord will soften your heart to hear the words you use and see the real harm they do.
Will, I believe the conversation was fruitful. I hope you will take to heart the need to be faithful to Christ's instruction in dealing with brothers in Christ at least as graciously as he instructs us to deal with true enemies. God Bless.
Ritchie
Ritchie,
you can show your good will by allowing me the last word on my blog. What has happened at this GA is devastating to all orthodox believers. You are making light of it by your remarks as though this was simply an argument about words. It is not. It is an argument about the authority of Scripture and the redeeming work of Jesus Christ. It is a time for those who love Jesus Christ to stand for the true message of the gospel which is about the transforming work of Christ's death on the cross. That work calls the sinful (which we all are) to repentence, to turn around and walk away from their sinful lifestyle. It calls the Church to proclaim Jesus Christ as Lord. There is no other Lord of the Church.
Ergh, I don't want to get in the way of letting you, Viola, have the last word on your blog, but it's only now that I read through your posts about the General Assembly.
Since you speak of moderators' disregard of parliamentary rules and undue influence being leveraged, I invite you to take a look at my blog posting centered on the same two issues. It appears that debate was improperly closed on a fairly contentious main motion having to to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in effect, preventing any arguments against the main motion from being voiced.
I wonder if others, keeping tabs on their favorite motions, also found flagrant lapses in parliamentary procedure.
Viola - I will try not to be defensive hoping that there is some grace to be extended. You were not the only one that called me on that one, so apologies for those that felt like I swayed from procedure. In those moments we make the call as is our role and hope to faithful. While I should have taken the "will of the body" vote, I do know that the commissioner who was certainly speaking her heart, ran out of time. While some felt I was far to strict with the time clock, I do believe that I was uniformly fair to all sides of all issues over which I moderated. When it came to time tracking. Of course, that is all up to opinion and perspective. As with all things about ME - and there has been much said - I try to hear it all, good and bad and grow. At the minimum, I will stay in the conversation. Thanks for the push back though, it is good for us all.
Oh and one more thing ;-) I did try to swing by the booth and meet ya, but we missed each other. I think putting some faces to all this online interaction can do nothing but help. And since we share a state, hopefully there will be opportunity to meet.
And AMEN to wanted the last word on your own blog. Good luck with that ;-)
Bruce,
Thanks for trying, but you had not told the commissioner her time was up. I'm not sure it was. You did not rebuke the vice-Moderator of the Committee for interrupting her (If anything that made her go longer because she was interrupted.)
And most of all you did not give anyone speaking for the amendment (I said motion in my posting but I meant amendment.) a right to speak after the Muslim spoke. I stick by my posting because you have not really apologized.
I am sorry I missed you at the booth, perhaps another time under better circumstances.
Gee whiz.
Viola,
Such grace in the face of such an illustrious appearance.
Bruce: "apologies for those that felt like I swayed from procedure"
Viola: "I stick by my posting because you have not really apologized."
And, it should be noted, neither have you for the tone of your rhetoric.
You've accused me of making light "as though this was simply an argument about words". Strange choice of words since Jesus IS "the Word".
In order for you to substantiate your claim that you are arguing about the authority of Scripture, your words need to be faithful to The Word. It's the starting point.
May I suggest you use the last word on your blog to make a gracious apology?
Ritchie
Ritchie,
I haven't had my second cup of coffee yet so I might have counted wrong but I believe you have now commented twelve times on my posting, generally saying the same thing. I consider that rude. On a blog comment section you should contribute to the conversation without being boring. Please do not comment again on this particular posting.
the previous comments about your tactics are accurate. Making a statement and slapping a question on it is not really asking a question.
Saying "I'm" sorry for how "You" feel is not an apology for what "I" did.
Lastly as for how Jesus handled conflict - just one example that does not match your model - which appears to be "If you disagree with me you are argumentative."
Matthew 23:27-28 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
27"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. 28In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.
Despite all claims to the contrary the pharisees and teachers of the law in this context are the liberals who hapve place the rest of us unter the tyranny of their so called tolerance (pluralism).
Post a Comment