I misunderstood. After checking with a friend this is the right information: "the appeals process against the decision of the Roseville/Fair Oaks superior court case has not yet begun The cases for the two churches were consolidated, remember; and the synod was granted permission to intervene; and the final judgment was reached at the initial level. So now we wait – I don’t know if the synod has already begun filing paperwork or not. It will be a process of probably over a year, once that happens. So continue to keep us in prayer." (I have changed my text below.)
Saturday, the twentieth of September, was certainly “a day the Lord made” and I am grateful for the day simply because his sovereignty is always over all of our affairs. But this does not mean that we are always obedient to the Lordship of Christ.
I was in pain yesterday from shingles, but there was a deeper pain, which was experienced by many Evangelicals at Sacramento Presbytery's meeting.
Yesterday, the twentieth, Sacramento Presbytery voted on a resolution to ask the Synod of the Pacific to appoint an administrative commission to act on behalf of the Presbytery regarding the suits by the First Presbyterian Church of Roseville and Fair Oaks Presbyterian Church. (And other pending and future suits) My Presbytery passed the resolution after almost three hours of new motions, attempts at amendments and debate.
One of the amendments was an attempt to confine the administrative commission’s concerns to only Roseville and Fair Oaks. It did not pass.
My Pastor, Dr. Donald Baird, offered a substitute motion that would have fulfilled the "gracious witness resolution" passed by General Assembly. It was defeated.
In the midst of our deliberations we found that the directive by our Synod’s PJC for the leaders of our presbytery to file an appeal in the case that Roseville had won was not a legal or binding move. They did not have to file the appeal. That did not seem to matter to those pushing this resolution.
There were other painful actions at this presbytery meeting. Perhaps the most painful was the refusal of the Council on Ministry to renew the contract with a Pastor of a very small church . It is a development funded Church in our Presbytery. The Pastor has been an unwavering leader among the Evangelicals in this Presbytery. He has also been a faithful and kind brother to all in the Presbytery, and his session and congregation have tried for two years to get the Council to allow him to be their permanent pastor.
After a member of the Church, myself, and another Presbytery member protested, Dr. Keith Posehn, the pastor of the Church, walked down to the microphone and said he had to honor the Council's motion. The Moderator was silent asking another member to hold his question. Then he told us that that was the bravest action he had ever witnessed. Pastor Baird prayed a very beautiful prayer of healing for all of us.
The Presbytery voted on this motion and passed it. All may correct me if they care to but I call this persecution.Some Evangelical and orthodox Presbyterians are writing about realignment (theological synods rather than regional synods) or various means for staying in the Presbyterian Church(USA) and still being faithful to Jesus Christ. After Saturday’s Sacramento Presbytery meeting I believe, at least for such presbyteries as Sacramento, that may be a very important option for the orthodox and Evangelical Christian.
28 comments:
I am so sorry to hear this, Viola. And unfortunately, not the least bit surprised. So much for polity being an instrument of unity among people who can't agree about God.
You all are in our prayers.
So if I understand this the presbytery voted to have the synod take over any cases against churches that seek to leave the denomination, both in civil court and in the courts of the church. But on the other hand the two churches that have left have already won their cases? Does the presbytery think the Synod is going to appeal?
Ya know we did this so much better in Philly. We had a church announce they were going to leave, tell the Stated Clerk, and we appointed an administrative commission. But the commission held their responsibility as a pastoral task. Ultimately after a couple of executive sessions we gave our blessing for them to leave, charged them a tithe of what the property was worth, and then all worshipped together and had the Lord's Supper together. I was proud of us
And I understand that Sacramento Presbytery wanted to be as or more gracious but a couple of pastors and a session brought charges. What a mess!
Thanks Chris.
An interesting aspect of this particular meeting was that most of the morning was filled by a Baptist Pastor who was moving his Church from a seeker Church to a Church interested in discipling members. In doing this he had lost over a thousand people. It was an interesting talk and he made some good points.
But it seems to me like the leadership of the Presbytery was giving us an example that they themselves refuse to follow.
We did release a tiny Church in Winters with their property. But one of the Pastors from Westminster complained that he had not been given the chance to speak. so we did it over. And when he did speak he complained that the Church's assets had not been listed in the agreement. Hopefully there will not be another complaint filed.
Pastor Bob,
The Resolution was all about the civil cases. But the interesting thing here is that the Presbytery is asking for the Synod to take over all civil cases dealing with Church property, even those cases not yet filed. And if you will notice in the resolution mention is made that the out come, for California, may effect all Church Property.
“WHEREAS, the issues in the Original Suits and the Additional Suits (collectively, the "Suits") involve or may involve the validity and enforceability in the State of California of the trust clause of the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) (G-8.0200) and, upon appeal, it is likely that the law of the State of California will be interpreted in a way that will establish precedent applicable to Presbyterian churches throughout the State of California;”
I am certain that the Presbytery leadership thinks the Synod will appeal. Don Baird’s resolution would have brought an end to this and would have given Roseville and Fair Oaks rest so that they might go ahead with ministry. That is what is so infuriating, we don’t really seem to care about the furtherance of God’s kingdom unless it is a PCUSA church.
A major problem is that the PCUSA has a clergy over-abundance. Too many people with REV in front of their name, but no CHURCH listed after it, on the rolls of the presbytery.
There is a pastoral shortage - but plenty of clergy. It's Medieval Romanism all over again. (Notice that specialized clergy can get away with ANYTHING...but a pastor trying to love his/her people and shelter them gets demonized?)
Wow. Just, wow. This is startling.
To see how far a presbytery can go down the path of vindictive insanity so fast should humble us all.
I am thankful for your witness in the midst of the disintegration.
Toby be assured there are many good witnesses in this Presbytery, just not enough : )And as far as being a good witness, when I asked the person bringing the report on the Pastor they were pushing out how he thought this would help the trust problem among the Evangelicals and insisted he answer the question, I was probaly not being a very good witness! I need to repent often!
I guess you didn't say good so that helps.
"That is what is so infuriating, we don’t really seem to care about the furtherance of God’s kingdom unless it is a PCUSA church."
Viola, I would argue that the liberals, neoliberals and neoorthodox that have infected and dominated the leadership of the denomination do not care in the slightest about the "furtherance of God's kingdom." At least not as you and I would define it. Rather they are looking for resources and prominence to further liberal and political agendas. They are for church growth only in that it brings more money in the coffers and prominence to their denomination, which they represent. They will fight tooth and nail against congregations leaving for those same reasons (remember the Louisville papers). I do not believe they are attempting to punish the congregations that are leaving but to control and frighten the others that might be considering the same path.
In fact, I am convinced that the majority of denominational leaders are in two minds over evangelical PCUSA congregations evangelizing and making disciples. They cannot stand the idea that these churches are producing (by the grace of God) bible-believing conservative Christians. But they love the fact that it brings more money and prominence through numbers. It is a tension that they choose to live with as long as they can control them and benefit from them.
Adel.
I make some distinctions here that I don’t think you do. In some cases I believe people in all Presbyteries are not really theological at all. They are just pragmatic about doing good; it isn’t really connected to a theological position therefore whatever seemingly works for unity is good. Christ is not the central theme. I would not classify these people under any term, perhaps for some the unconverted--but only God knows.
Then there are the progressives that are wildly heretical. They are different than old fashioned liberals. And they are willing to do anything to advance their position and care little for right actions or any kind of theology except pluralism and a sexual revolution. And they have no pastoral regard at all for Churches leaving. Its just about the property.
On the other hand I see those who are liberal as having more compassion although they do want to change the standards of the Church and are not orthodox in belief.
As for the neo-orthodox there are some distinctions there also. For instance I have little regard for Bultmann’s theology but as you can tell I highly regard Karl Barth as do many orthodox Reformed theologians etc. I will not take the time to explain this on a comment--its just that I want to be clear that as an Evangelical I believe Karl Barth has a lot of answers for the days problems. And those who are progressives reject him with great vehemence.
I will add that the progressive theologian generally rejects Karl Barth because Barth insists that it is God who reveals himself through Jesus Christ in the Old and New Testament.
Viola,
Not sure the Progressive Evangelicals would agree with that last assessment.
Sorry your Presbytery and Synod are having so much trouble.
Carl
Carl,
Hmm--"progressive Evangelicals"? Isn't that an oxymoron? Its new to me can you explain or give a definition?
This is not the place to be critical of neoorthodoxy (stay tuned to my blog for this), but I believe that neoorthodoxy and neoliberalism is a much greater danger to historic orthodox protestantism than old school liberalism is today. I will leave it at that.
On the other hand I would have to disagree with you on your point on most are not theological. I believe everyone is theological -- the issue is whether they are good at it and understand where they are and other positions. I do believe that most people are a mixture, completely inconsistent, and often very syncretistic.
I would also indicate that in systematic theologies like those of Lewis and Demarest or Grudem, theological liberalism and Neoorthodoxy are clearly at opposed to historic reformed protestantism on nearly every essential belief.
Well Adel,
At least we can agree on this.
"I do believe that most people are a mixture, completely inconsistent, and often very syncretistic."
And hopefully we can agree on the deity of Christ, the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, his virgin birth, the inspiration of the Scriptures, salvation by grace alone because of Christ's death on the cross-- and that our righteousness is the righteousness of Christ.
I could go on, but I do think we are in agreement on our Christian faith.
Viola,
I am guessing that we do agree on the essentials of the faith. On my blog, I am working on a series of what I believe are essentials, come by and check it out.
I believe that it is absolutely essential that we clearly define what we mean by these statements, because as you have listed them anyone whether extreme liberal or extreme conservative would agree. They just define the words differently. Liberals have gotten where they are by redefining to mean the opposite of what you and I mean.
Adel,
I will come by. But,I am laughing a little bit. I don't agree with all you have just said and I know a few liberals and progressives who would not either. I said a bodily resurrection, many liberals and all progressives would not agree with that or the virgin birth, etc. We have certainly gotten away from my subject. So perhaps we should wait until you post.
Your post really got me ticked. I've known Keith for a couple of decades now, and he's nothing if not a class guy. For the COM to pull such a stunt is a sign that Sacramento Pres. is going the way of Cascades, National Capital and a few others. I had always seen Sacramento Presbytery as a moderate [right leaning] Presbytery with fair executives and leaders. I'm no so sure now.
Good luck Keith,
Alan
Viola - You mention that Roseville won the appeals suit on Setember 11th. I have not been successful in locating mention of this anywhere else. Do you know if any source has posted any details of the ruling that you could point me to? Thank you.
James, the information is in the resolution which is posted on my last posting before this one.
"WHEREAS, on September 11, 2008, a judgment was entered in the Original Suits in favor of the Plaintiffs" also go to the The Sierra Mission Partnership at http://www.sierramissionpartnership.org/content/view/194/61/ and click on the pdf file and then onto the resolution.
Now as I reread that I believe Fair Oaks is a part of that win.
On top of that I wonder if I am mis-reading the resolution. So I have e-mailed some one who will know. I will let you know if I am wrong.
James as you can see from my up-date I made a big mistake. The case has not even begun yet.
Viola,
Thanks for the clarifications.
Just one point on Karl Barth and your clarification on belief in a bodily resurrection.
Carl Henry in an article published in 1986 titled "My Encounter with Karl Barth" wrote the following after asking Barth if there were journalists (like those around Barth during his visit) covering the resurrection of Jesus would it have been news in the way that the man in the street understands news:
"Barth became angry at me...'And what of the virgin birth? Would the photographers come and take pictures of it? Jesus appeared only to believers and not to the world.' Barth correlated the reality of the resurrection only with personal faith...For Barth, the resurrection of Jesus did not occur in the kind of history accessible to historians."
This is just a teaser of what I will be posting in upcoming weeks. I hope that what you see here is a correlation with postmodern forms of Christianity that deny objective truth in favor of relational truth, while whole-heartedly embracing inclusivistic and pluralistic philosophies.
oh Vi, this is so sad... what are people thinking?
May the Lord have mercy on his saints there...
dm
Adel,
First off, my posting was meant to be a news item, and hopefully some comfort to those in this Presbytery who are feeling very down by what happened this last Saturday. It was not meant as a place to debate about Karl Barth.
But because you insist here are two quotes by Karl Barth. And then please let this be all on Barth, etc., for this posting.
The virgin birth
"...there would be the danger that, by eliminating the sign [the virgin birth], we thereby eliminate the thing signified [the Incarnation]. Exactly this seems to have hapened to all those who have wanted to get rid of the miraculous birth: they have lost the incarnation along with it. It might even be said that the denial of the virginal conception necessarily entails the abandonment of revealed theology for the sake of natural theology [the one thing Barth was always warring against].
Conversely, wherever the incarnation and the free grace of Christ's existence as the secret of our union with God are properly understood, it will not be strange to find just this miracle. On the contrary, it would be surprising if it wre not there." The Faith of the Church A Commentary on the Apostles Creed according to Calvin's Catechism. by Karl Barth
The bodily resurrection
“Resurrection of the flesh is spoken of. In the Creed as in the New Testament, the notion of flesh designates the whole man. The resurrection of the flesh is therefore identical neither with immortality of the soul, nor with resurrection of the body alone. It means the resurrection of the whole man, such as he is and not such as he ought to have been, of the real man, miserable and sinful, and not of any ideal man. This real man shall rise again; his future lies beyond death. The end of his life is not death but resurrection, which is a new beginning, and the life everlasting.” (my emphasis) For reference see above.
Adel it is always best to first quote a primary source no matter how good that source. (And Carl Henry is a great source but in this case not good enough)
I meant no matter how good your secondary source is.
Dave,
Thanks for your words.
Good points Viola. Thank you.
And again I do not want to belabor this either. Only to say that the Carl Henry article quotes Barth directly -- so while not written by Barth, it is an accurate record of Barth's clarifying statements making it a primary source, with Henry's reflections being secondary. Also, I would have your read Barth in context, as he contradicts himself in Church Dogmatics on both these points, highlighting his belief that Christian faith has nothing to do cognitive rational propositional statements. He makes this quite clear in several areas -- I will explore this on my blog.
I am sorry to make a nuisance of myself here on this issue, but I do believe it is vital for us to understand this. On the CPM committee I have had several Barthians, who when pressed reject a literal heaven and hell, reject a "historically verifiable" bodily resurrection, etc.
You want a direct quote from Barth on this. Here it is:
“If you ask about God and if I am really to tell about him, dialectic is all that can be expected from me. . . . Neither my affirmation nor my denial lays claim to being God’s truth. Neither one is more than a witness to that truth which stands in the center, between every Yes and No. And therefore I have never affirmed without denying and never denied without affirming, for neither affirmation nor denial can be final. If my witness to the final answer you are seeking does not satisfy you, I am sorry. It may be that my witness to it is not yet sufficiently clear, that is, that I have not limited the Yes by the No and the No by the Yes incisively enough to set aside all misunderstanding – incisively enough to let you see that nothing is left except that upon which the Yes and the No, and the No and the Yes, depend. But it may also be that your refusal of my answer arises from your not having really asked your question, from your not having asked about God – for otherwise we should understand each other."
Neoorthodoxy is rooted in the belief that one must believe both A and non-A at the same time. Both that Jesus rose bodily from the dead and that he did not.
This is Neoorthodoxy at it's heart.
Therefore, direct quotes from Barth are often meaningless, for one can almost always find a direct quote from him in the opposite direction, by the very nature of his belief. I believe it is very dangerous (more so than old school liberalism), because it resonates so well with postmoderns today.
Anyhow...I apologize for burdening this blog discussion and I am not sure how things moved in this direction.
huh?
Post a Comment