Enough is enough. Over at Shuck & Jive, John Shuck, a Presbyterian Pastor PCUSA), for those who don't know, has a posting entitled, Obama Picks Warren for Invocation. In the posting he is deriding Obama for picking Rick Warren, the pastor from Saddleback Church, to give the invocation during his inaugural.
John is giving Warren the extreme put down, as he so likes to do with Evangelicals. He writes:
"Obama is making one dubious choice after another. His latest? Selecting fundamentalist celebrity Rick Warren to invoke his homophobic, war-mongering, narrow-minded god at the inauguration."
When Shuck writes like this he incites others to vile conversation including a person who often goes by the name Captain Kona. Captain Kona likes to use rabid and violent language, such as this remark toward Rick Warren:
"When you "throw a bone" to vermin like Warren, you aim for the face."
This is my plea that Shuck's presbytery, the PCUSA, the Presbyterian Bloggers, etc. will do the faithful thing and speak out against this as well as speak to Shuck. What I am asking for is for leadership to stand up and say this is not right, it is unacceptable. And do it in the name of Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace.
93 comments:
Yeah...let me tell you how well appealing to Holston Presbytery is going to go.
He said farewell to the Christian faith years ago. I guess he's in it for the pension.
I agree with you entirely, Toby. There is nothing even remotely "Christian" there, as with much that is PCUSA.
His is a wholesale abandoning of everything that is essential.
I'm not a big fan of Rick Warren, but that's not a slur on Warren--it's a slur on the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Pathetic.
David Fischler
Woodbridge, VA
One of my professors at Denver Seminary, Dr. Douglas Groothuis, has an important blog entry about the whole Obama Warren connection, which I believe is important for all to read. His interpretation is a little different, but right on the money:
http://theconstructivecurmudgeon.blogspot.com/
Thanks for your information Chris. I think I remember when you posted that. I did write to the Stated Clerk once but it was about Captain Kona, who went by another name at the time. He had made threatening remarks about a Church in that Presbytery and I was concerned.
The funny thing is, Rick Warren has almost certainly done more to help people who suffer from a still-stigmatized disease (AIDS) than anyone who is bashing him. In other words, they talk about compassion and being for marginalized people. He actually delivers.
(And so does, horror of horrors, President Bush, who has done more than any President to combat AIDS in Africa. He'll never get any credit for it, of course.)
It is funny to see every liberal go batty over this gesture, when it is very unlikely that President Obama will follow social policies that evangelicals approve of. The only guy who seems to understand this is Alan Kiste. He does not confuse a gesture with actual policy. Good for him being more level-headed.
John Erthein
Erie, PA
Adel,
I generally like what both Dr. Douglas Groothuis and his wife write. I don't have time to read at the moment but I will read it. Thank you.
Adel,
I just read what Groothuis wrote and I partly but not completely agree. We do need a prophet. But we also need a pastor like Rick Warren who will still keep speaking truth to Obama. Remember Obama had sat under Wright's teaching for his whole Christian life, and he does say he is a Christian. He needs someone to reteach him the faith. I have known people who were slowed in their Christian faith by a liberal Church. But when a real evangelical Pastor that they related to came along they began to grow and change. I am praying this for Obama.
"...I guess he's in it for the pension."
Gee Toby - And here I thought that was the only reason you had not moved on to the EPC.
John McNeese
Thanks for the vote of support, John...
Actually, I'm IN the PCUSA because I am a Reformed Christian and the PCUSA is a Reformed Christian denomination.
Unlike false teachers like Shuck, the heritage of the PCUSA belongs to me and all who hold to the Reformed faith.
I'm sorry you choose to think of the PCUSA as a watered-down Unitarian Universalist group with more money in the bank.
"The only guy who seems to understand this is Alan Kiste. He does not confuse a gesture with actual policy. Good for him being more level-headed."
Thanks for the plug, John. :)
I did write about this on my blog this morning. I think this is a clever political move, and the fact that it ticks off some on the left and and the far right is all upside. In fact, there are many pro-life groups on the right who are ticked off with Warren for agreeing to do it. This is a great way to increase the split between the rabidly anti-abortion far right, and the more moderate, more pro-choice moderate Republicans and Democrats.
By ticking off the left, Obama has just shown to the moderates that he's not beholden to so-called "special interests."
Meanwhile, moderate Republicans who love Warren, but are wary of Obama can convince themselves that God is going to use Warren to help "change" Obama. So they love it.
I think another good choice would have been the former head of the NAE, until he got booted, but Warren has bigger profile, so it gets the story out there.
It's all upside. He gets all this upside with a choice that means absolutely nothing. It's three minutes. Two, if it's cold.
He can hire Fred Phelps to give the invocation, if he wants, because I'd much rather have an LGBT person on the Cabinet. ;)
BTW, John, I have seen a few liberal blogs give Warren credit for his outstanding AIDS work.
By the way Alan I am a Democrat: ) And yes I am praying that Rick Warren brings Obama along in his Christian walk. But it won't matter what either Republicans or Democrats think, God will only allow His will.
and here I was thinking: "Now we know who will be filling Billy Graham's shoes".
I find some of the parallels betweent he two interesting.
Both Southern Baptists
Both humble
Both accoustumed to preaching to large crowds.
Both preach rather simple messages
Both were/are organizational geniuses
Both believe in the exclusivity of Jesus
Both understand(stood) the need to be defined narrowly and to associate widely
Bill - Fine observation.
Bill,
Excellent insights.
dm
On the one hand, I'm rather annoyed at the flak that Obama's been getting (some from the Right, but mostly from the Left) for choosing Warren to do a prayer at his inauguration.
Warren involvement does not, in any way, imply a repudiation of Obama's beliefs on various issues, as liberals seem to be taking it. What it does represent is Obama's willingness to dialogue and have friendships even with those with whom he differs greatly on those issues.
Obama should be applauded for this (and Warren should be applauded for accepting the invitation), not criticized for it.
However, it is this same principle that we should be willing to be in dialogue and friendship with those with whom we differ that dictates that I cannot agree with the calls for Shuck's censure at Presbyterian Bloggers. He is one voice among many, and we strive to treat each other with respect. To the extent he fails to do this, several of us will no doubt push back to regain that tone of respect. But since this particular post wasn't even on the Presbyterian Bloggers site, I think most of us can be forgiven for being completely unaware of it until now.
B-W,
I think you for coming and writing on the issue. I know it took courage to do so. I am aware that most people on Presbyterian Bloggers are not aware, that is why I commented as I did. (However I will have to say that one of those who commented, the one that suggested I was trolling, was commenting with the rest on that awful posting of John Shucks.)
And I also believe that people who disagree should be in dialogue--but insulting other people in such a disgusting way and allowing others as John does to use violent language is simply unacceptable and does not at all further the peace of this Church or even of the world in general. As long as others in the PC(USA) think its just fine for John to do this sort of thing and will say nothing about it most Evangelicals who do know about it will feel very unwelcome in the Presbyterian Church USA. I know John doesn't care and hopes we all leave but I am hoping that others do care and will speak up.
And by the way I am not leaving.
Suffice it to say, I've had a disagreement or two with Shuck myself in my comparatively short tenure at Presbyterian Bloggers (and, of course, I can't really speak for the rest of them in any kind official sense). It bothers me that he seems to disagree with the idea that the Resurrection is THE essential doctrine of the Christian faith (and, for the record, whether or not we were even talking "bodily resurrection" wasn't established, so he was free to take the term however he wanted).
But it's not my place to do more than disagree. I have no standing with his home presbytery (as others do). I'm not even ordained.
Getting off the topic of Shuck (which I'm a little uncomfortable going on about without his own input), I want to go back and comment on something you said earlier:
(Obama) needs someone to reteach him the faith. I have known people who were slowed in their Christian faith by a liberal Church. But when a real evangelical Pastor that they related to came along they began to grow and change. I am praying this for Obama.
I've known more than a few people who could relate the opposite story. They'd been in evangelical environments that they found oppressive, and found "new life in Christ" in a more liberal church.
Now, I'm sure I occupy a rather odd place theologically. I'm probably to the left of you, but I'm certainly rather far to the right of others. It saddens me that folks have felt that "evangelicals" have been oppressive to them, and that they would rather abandon that term (but not "Christian" thank goodness!) to those who are to the right of where they currently are, even though they also are not by any means especially "liberal." (I'm quick to point out that the terms "conservative" and "liberal" depend on what issues you're talking about.) The term "evangelical" is a term worth saving, and traditionally has had a definition wide enough to encompass a fairly diverse group of people, provides certain core tenets are upheld.
None of which is to say what Obama should or shouldn't do/believe. Whatever "the truth" is, I pray that God will lead him to it, and I pray the same for the rest of us, as well.
Pastor Toby,
I know that I've certainly had concern, and strong words with John Shuck. But, I sense that there's more in him than what is there on the surface. We can only discern by outward appearance, and confession, but God knows our heart.
I think God is present, and working in John's life. He's not just in it for the pension.
The persons I was speaking of, many of them did not even understand what it meant to be a Christian, faith in Jesus Christ. They were just connected to the Church as a social institution they had grown up in. Some did not believe that Jesus was God as well as human.
But I am also speaking of two big social issues which you may very well disagree with, and that is abortion and the ordaining of anyone practicing (habitual) sin and not repenting of it. And here I am of course not only speaking of homosex but also of adultery and fornication or sins that are not sexual such as greed. But today in our Church the sins that most do not want to repent of or call sin are sexual so those are the ones that get brought to the discussions first and the ones I think of first.
On the other hand, my husband came from a very conservative Church where you could not go to movies, dance, etc. But the hard part was that they were not reformed and were constantly losing (or so they thought) their salvation. Those two things combined can make life very hard.
I keep forgetting. I have a rule because of some problems I have encountered that each person must put their name, city and state.
Sacramento, CA
Grace,
I don't think John is in it for the pension either, but it isn't because of his devotion to Jesus Christ. After all he doesn't even believe in a personal God. However, I do believe that the Holy Spirit is constantly tugging at him so in some sense God is there.
I believe John feels he does have a mission to help people; it just isn't connected to the saving work of Jesus Christ. When we are not tethered to him it is no telling where we may wander. I do pray for John and will continue to do so.
Sacramento, CA
I keep forgetting. I have a rule because of some problems I have encountered that each person must put their name, city and state.
Sacramento, CA
My apologies for the inadvertent violation.
My name is Mark Baker-Wright. I currently live in Monrovia, CA.
Thanks Mark,
I don't think any one on here this time has followed my rule including me!
Sacramento, CA
Viola,
The person who basically accused you of trolling has an annoying habit of putting any words or actions by conservative under his microscope and then lecturing us about how to express ourselves. But when it comes to progressives behaving like exploding toilets of hate, he has nothing to say. It's transparently one-sided.
John Erthein
Erie, PA
Thanks John,
I had seen his name a couple of places but didn't really know any thing about him.
I notice that John Shuck has a softer toned posting about Rick Warren, but since he has not apologized for the earlier one nor removed the comments that were violent by Captain Kona I still stand by my posting. But I am glad that he is softening on this.
Sacramento, CA
For the record, I don't have a problem with Obama choosing Warren for the inaugural invocation. I think Obama is and will be Obama, and I think this is just another symbol of that: he's trying to build bridges and show people that he wants to work together, despite and because of differences of opinion.
B-W, I think you're conflating two contributors at the PC(USA) blog: John Shuck and John Stuart. Their names are similar, but they're very different! One's liberal, one's conservative, but they work well together and treat each other with respect on the blog. (FTR, it was Stushie - Stuart - you tangled with over resurrection, not Shuck.)
Viola, what specifically did you find most objectionable about Rev. Shuck's post on his personal blog? Regardless of whether or not I agree with him or with his characterization of Warren's ministry, I don't think he engaged in any kind of ad hominem attack against Warren.
He disagrees with Warren about some issues that are very important to him. Is it not appropriate to say so? Why should the Presbytery get involved with that?
Further, I think that comments by some of those here about Rev. Shuck are indeed hateful ad hominem attacks. Despite his disagreements with Warren, Shuck never suggests that Warren himself is not Christian. Yet that's what some here have done:
He said farewell to the Christian faith years ago. I guess he's in it for the pension.
and
There is nothing even remotely "Christian" there, as with much that is PCUSA.
Unlike false teachers like Shuck, the heritage of the PCUSA belongs to me and all who hold to the Reformed faith.
(And that's not even quoting your own comments above about Rev. Shuck's lack of belief in and dedication to Jesus.)
Should you be held to account for your commenters' words, as you suggest Rev. Shuck be for "Captain Kona's?"
Shuck considers himself Christian and Presbyterian; who are others who know not what's in his heart to decide otherwise?
I have serious problems with the tactic of claiming that just because someone behaves/believes/practices differently than I do, that they are not Christian! Respectful discussion is not possible if we can't even agree to respect each other that much.
--Sarahlynn
St. Louis, MO
Sarahlynn,
Does anything anybody here has said sound at all like this "Obama is making one dubious choice after another. His latest? Selecting fundamentalist celebrity Rick Warren to invoke his homophobic, war-mongering, narrow-minded god at the inauguration."
And what I said wasn't meant at all as an insult. John has stated his beliefs often on his blog. He doesn't even believe in a personal God.
And also Warren isn't a fundamentalist he is an Evangelical.
Sacramento, CA
Hi Sarahlynn,
I am very curious. What is your understanding of Christianity? How would you answer the question, "what must I do to be saved"?
The reason I ask, is that your question seems to indicate that ultimately it does not matter what one believes or does. You wrote, "I have serious problems with the tactic of claiming that just because someone behaves/believes/practices differently than I do, that they are not Christian!"
I believe that it absolutely does matter what one believes, how one behaves and what one practices. And I believe that I am in good company with millions of believers in the last 2000 years.
Here is a good summary of what is essential for Reformed Christians to believe: http://www.newwineskinsassociation.com/documents/Essential-Tenets-Annotated.pdf
Now the main issue with Mr. Shuck is that he is an ordained Presbyterian minister, actively pastoring a church. He is therefore a leader, and an outspoken one, and therefore a higher level of responsibility is required. And on many an occasion on his blog and elsewhere he has denied nearly everything that is essential to the faith.
He certainly has a right to believe and proclaim what he likes, but to do so under the auspices of a Presbyterian minister is another matter. And when he proclaims a faith that is entirely foreign to our confessions, then he should expect and find heavy scrutiny and serious discipline, for the purpose of correction and reconciliation.
Sarahlynn,
While I agree with Adel that John denies all Christian docrine that is not why I wrote this posting. I believe John was inciting to violence and I believe all moral persons ought to be against that.
And on B-W arguing with Stushie instead of John you can go here and find that is not true.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=20587008&postID=1736358677609961228.
Adel, the New Wineskins Association vision is certainly one valid understanding of what it means to be Christian, and to be Reformed.
I believe that there are others. And, yes, I do believe that there are various beliefs that are core tenants to being Presbyterian, including, the sovereignty of God, the authority of the scripture, justification by grace through faith and the priesthood of all believers.
I also believe that these things can be interpreted in different ways.
And I believe that we Christians spend far too much time focusing on labels, on who is one of us and who is not. I think is divisive and gets in the way of doing important work in the world. (I do not think that labeling - and judging - others is important work that I am called to do.)
I think that we should be far more charitable with one another and not be so quick to exclude others from the table.
Viola, to me, it sounds worse. Various groups of Christians draw their lines in the sand in different places. Is this OK? How about this? Must we all be celibate or just our clergy? Where do we stand on slavery? Clean vs. unclean?
I have no interest in debating any of those lines tonight, nor in debating what you might mean by the term "homophobic" vs. what Rev. Shuck might mean. I suspect that you'd define the terms and what they represent differently. (I don't know Rev. Shuck except through his Dancing Jesus posts at the PCUSA Blog, which are delightful. So I've never heard him explain that he's not Christian - along with the entire PC(USA)! - or considers himself to be a "false teacher.")
I do believe that there's a big difference between saying that you dislike and are angered by what someone else believes, vs. defining for them who they are - and what they are not.
My Dearest Viola,
I must warn you that you are embarking on a dark and dangerous path and could be leading others into the darkness as well.
Shuck and Jive has but one Law:
Thou Shalt Not Involve Presbytery Officials in Thy Blog Wars Or Thou Shalt Be Forbidden Entrance Into the Comment Section, Forever and Ever. Amen.
One individual has committed this grave sin. He is among you in this comment thread!
(Audible gasp! No! Not I! Is it I, Lord? Surely not I?!)
Although I did let said person comment one time when I posted a funny video he put on his blog. I will show mercy to those whom I will show mercy.
But those who contact presbytery officials go beyond the bounds of decent blog skirmishing and if I find out about it, are cast into the outer darkness where there is much weeping and gnashing of teeth.
They may look upon Shuck and Jive but may not comment. What torment to see the promised land that one may never enter?!
Before you cross this Rubicon, this Styx, this River Jordan, beware!!
Be careful little blogger what you do.
(Oh be careful!)
For the Father up above
is looking down with Love.
So be careful
very careful
what you do.
In His Service,
John Shuck
Elizabethton, TN
Sarahlynn,
I agree that as Christians we should be loving, slow to judgement, and pitch a pretty darn wide tent.
But, I think there is a difference between harsh, unjust judgement which Jesus condemns, and practicing honest spiritual discernment.
Can someone truly be a follower of Jesus who rejects the reality of the incarnation, mocks, and scorns the cross of Christ?
The problem is really not so much with John Shuck or teachers like him in the church. They are generally totally sincere, often wonderful folks, who really can't see the wrong, or harm spiritually in what they're about.
The real issue, and grief for me lies with those in the church, especially in leadership positions, who don't love enough, care enough, to open their mouths one way or the other.
It is not at all uncommon to see on these progressive blogs, orthodox Christian people, who will actually praise, and affirm these folks in heresy, and unbelief, when they should be praying for them with tears.
God have mercy!
Becky
Wellsboro, Pa.
Grace,
Thank you for that thoughtful, well-balanced and sensitive comment.
The ultimate problem within the PCUSA is our unwillingness to set very clear, well-defined essentials, that set those clear boundaries, from which we can appropriately administer discipline for the purpose of correction and reconciliation. We are doing a disservice to all, when we cannot or will not set those boundaries.
In Mr. Shuck we are speaking about a person who has adamantly and often mockingly denounced nearly everthing that would be on that list.
Some seen to think that ambiguity about everything in the Christian faith is O.K.. In reality this is madness, and it is what is creating all the exodus of the last decades.
I love when heresy and unbelief are equated with progressive theology. That one just never gets old, does it?
Doug Hagler
San Anselmo, CA
Doug,
While some comments here have certainly been more strident than I am comfortable with, there is a world of difference between "progressive theology" (much of which many people here would have little problem with, at least in terms of considering those who hold such beliefs as still "Presbyterian" or "Christian") and heresy.
To the extent that "anything that disagrees with me" is called "heresy," I agree that this attitude is unhelpful and unwelcome. But to say that there are (or perhaps "should be") some beliefs that are "out of bounds" for Christianity (i.e., "heresy") is something I am forced to agree is not only permissible, but necessary. I say this without prejudice to whether or not Shuck or anyone else actually holds such "out of bounds" beliefs, myself.
Doug,
I'm being honest about my observations over the last few years. I understand that not all self-identified progressive Christians teach heresy. My own priest would probably see herself as progressive, and she is preaching the gospel.
"Progressive," can mean different things to different people. For some, it just has more to do with political and social, rather than theological views.
But, I truly think among many folks who identify as progressive Christians there really is this reluctance to speak out against heretical teaching in the church. There is a spirit of ambivalence, and compromise.
Many times I"ve seen folks often become totally offended, and defensive toward other Christian believers who do express concern, and give affirmation, or encourage the heretical teacher instead. This makes little sense to me.
I can't understand it, and I'm unable to see how this expresses the love of Christ, true caring for people, or a committment to the gospel
I'm more than open to hearing your views, if you can help me to understand this.
Wellsboro, Pa.
B-W,
I am curious as to what you would consider as "progressive" that is acceptable, and what is "progressive" that is heresy? Or, if you put heresy and progressive in different camps, can you give an example of a theological position that is "progressive" and acceptable and one that is heresy?
For instance the traditional "theological liberal" position as expressed by Adolf Harnack (a very influential leader in the progresive liberal movement at the end of the last century)-- He drew a clear distinction between the “Easter message” of the empty tomb & the “Easter faith” that death has been destroyed. According to Harnack, faith must abandon the Easter message, but “the Easter faith is the conviction that the crucified one gained a victory over death; that God is just and powerful; that he who is firstborn among many brethren still lives.”
Faith is not based upon historical evidence of the risen Christ, but in the impression Jesus made on the hearts & minds of the N.T. writers. Theological liberalism rejects a physical bodily resurrection, in favor of a type of "spiritual" resurrection, that calls for faith. The reality is that Jesus' body decayed in the grave. But on a "spiritual" level, we can affirm the power of resurrection life in the church and the one who believes.
Would this very traditional "progressive" tenet be acceptable to you, or would you consider this heresy?
I am curious as to what you would consider as "progressive" that is acceptable, and what is "progressive" that is heresy?
OK. Given the controversy in the PC(USA) right now, let's go for the jugular. I would consider a theology that allows for the ordination of practicing homosexuals as "liberal" or "progressive," but not "heresy." As important as doctrines on sexuality may be, I do not see misinterpretation or error here (should you disagree with the "progressive" understanding, as I expect many here do) to be "out of bounds" of Christianity itself. Indeed, there are very few doctrines that I believe we should consider "essential."
If you read the other thread (which was linked when Sarahlynn thought I might be confusing two Johns I've had disagreements with: one conservative and one liberal), you may be responding (based on the rest of your post) to my debate with Shuck over resurrection being (in my words) THE essential doctrine of Christianity, including my apparent willingness in that thread to hear non-traditional interpretations of the resurrection. I will say that I personally do believe in a bodily resurrection. My concern with Shuck's statements (I haven't read hardly any of the statements on his own blog that most here are responding to. I was responding only to what was in that particular thread on "Presbyterian Bloggers") was that he dismissed the resurrection as essential without even so much as an attempt to define his terms (i.e. "if by resurrection you mean X, then I disagree, but I do affirm Y").
I am unwilling to comment in the abstract on what concept of the resurrection I would consider "out of bounds" and/or "heretical." I would need to ensure that I understood what the other person was trying to say, first, and I simply don't know enough what Shuck (or Harnack, to be honest) believes/disbelieves on this matter.
But I AM willing to say that I still consider the resurrection essential to Christian faith. I simply don't see why someone would want to call one's self a Christian without it.
Thank you B-W,
I truly appreciate your candor and your thoughtful response.
When I gave the example about the resurrection, I did so in the abstract and did not have any particular person in mind, other than Harnack, who states his position very clearly and is one that is often held up in theology books as representative of the position of "theological liberalism" on this issue.
Not long ago I taught a basic class on theology at a challenging lay-level, and a dear friend who always referred to himself as a liberal, about mid-way through the year-long course came and told me that he was wrong, and that he was not a liberal at all. I agree with Grace that many who consider themselves progressive are often thinking of social issues, and not theological ones.
Those who hold ordained pastoral leadership in any denomination, though should be fully aware of what theological liberalism means, and therefore, if they self-identify as a theological liberal, with no qualifications, then I must assume that they hold this position on the resurrection and on many other issues. All I have read of Mr. Shuck's blogs place him clearly in the camp of theological liberalism, and from what I have seen, I would expect that he would be proud of that. He has shown a clear disdain and mocking attitude toward those who believe in the physical bodily resurrection of Jesus.
Personally I would challenge you on your position on sexual purity, especially when it comes to ordained leadership, but maybe we can discuss this on my blog or somewhere else in more detail.
Adel Thalos
Snellville, GA
Viola,
BTW, I want to say that you are to be commended for expressing your concern in this whole thing.
Although, we don't agree concerning this whole issue of gay rights, and same sex blessing in the church, your love for our Lord, and caring for people has touched me so deeply. Your writing is beautiful!
I cannot imagine any minister who allows people made in the precious image of God to be called "vermin" on his blog, and comments like "aiming for the face."
I posted my last entry on "Shuck and Jive," after a video portrayal of Sarah Palin as demon possesed, blood literally foaming at the mouth, and bathing in blood. This was supposed to be "humorous."
It again has been my sad, but honest experience that more than a few of these radical progressives are simply the flip side of the coin, of the folks on the extreme right that they seem to hate the most.
Their love, tolerance, and "inclusiveness" only extend to those who happen to agree with their own political, and social views. Anyone who disagrees is automatically judged to have the worse kind of malevolent motives.
God help all of us to show Christ's love, and compassion whether we can all agree or not. And, to remove the splinter from our own eye first.
Adel,
Personally I would challenge you on your position on sexual purity, especially when it comes to ordained leadership, but maybe we can discuss this on my blog or somewhere else in more detail.
My apologies for continuing this here, despite your stated intent to move this elsewhere, but I cannot find contact info for you on your blog, and I'd rather not post a comment to an unconnected thread.
My only question is, what "position on sexual purity" do you think I hold? I'm not sure I've stated it, other than that I don't consider a "liberal" or "progressive" position on this issue ("especially as it pertains to ordained leadership") to be "heretical." Believe it or not, I actually lean a bit to the right on that question.
I would like to make this conversation a little more complex although at the moment it is extremely interesting. But you are talking about definitions of being traditional and liberal and I want to add to that.
I make a distinction between the liberal and the progressive just as there is a distinction between the fundamentalist and the Evangelical. The liberal actually harks back to the 19th century and generally disagrees with the virgin birth and the bodily resurrection. Maybe even denying the deity of Christ thus also in some cases the Trinity.
However, the progressive builds on that usually creating a new God and/or goddess even. Usually the God is some kind of force, which is where I think John is coming from all though I am not sure. God through process theology becomes an evolving god. You can see how complex this becomes with people with every stripe of belief along the compendium. So sometimes I believe a liberal believes that everyone who calls themselves progressive believes as they do when in fact some progressives could even be considered New Age.
Grace,
Thank you. You are very kind. I am glad you are not going to write there anymore. I did not like the way you were being treated. And I was certainly praying for you.
Sacramento, CA
John,
I would be honored to be asked not to comment on your blog anymore.
And I have reported you to your Presbytery, not about your heresy but about the language you were using which I believe could incite to violence. I am almost certain that they will not get my e-mail until after Christmas and I am also certain that they will not do anything about it.
But, to me, that is extremely sad. There is a vast difference between expressing disbelieve, heresy even, or hateful words such as you did on your blog posting.
Sacramento, CA.
And I have reported you to your Presbytery
Ooops. Well. If you repent there is still a chance I'll let you come back.
Merry Christmas!
john
Elizabethton, TN
Oh, how interesting. I thought progressives/liberals/whatever were very much opposed to incitements to violence, but from John Shuck's response, where he appears to indicate that he's not concerned about it, it appears that there are more nuances along the spectrum than I realized.
Debbie Berkley
Bellevue, WA
Let me explain my last comment. I believe that John Shuck, if he were concerned about incitement to violence, instead of telling Viola she was banned from his blog, would have looked into why she thought there was something on his blog that incited violence.
Against my better judgment, I will comment. I do not incite violence. Nor did my comment. I am a non-violent peace loving guy. The Bishop of Washington wrote the same thing about Rick Warren's homophobia. He even added xenophobia. I hadn't thought of that one. I wrote a strong opinion as I often do.
As far as the guy who commented, he is just some guy who comments. I didn't appreciate his comment either. I felt he was dealt with adequately in the blog comments. That is my judgment call. I have told him to cool it before.
I have even deleted some of his comments. That is rare for me. I hardly ever delete anyone (unless of course you broke rule #1 and have reported me to my presbytery).
If you have a problem with that guy, take it up with him. He has a blog.
We all have our commenters and we all handle them in our own way. I have a fairly open blog forum and people can say what they want. I don't delete you guys when you are obnoxious.
I certainly don't need anyone mothering my blog.
The proper way for Viola to express concern--if it was legitimate--was to contact me personally. My church phone number is easily accessible. If it were true that I were inciting violence, a pretty serious charge, it would seem that it would be worth a phone call.
I am not a stubborn guy. If a friend or colleague told me privately that I hadn't handled that commenter correctly, I very likely would have made a change. I have before.
She chose rather to make a public deal. This shows me that this is yet another attempt (such as that done by Chris Larimer and others) to silence me by some sort of public shaming attempt.
Pile it on and maybe something will stick. It didn't work with him, and it won't work now.
I have seen this MO by Viola with other people (and with me previously). Don't like someone's opinion? Attempt to silence them by going over their heads.
Her credibility in this case is strained to say the least.
You know there is really an easy way to deal with all these things that give you such grave concern and call for exclamations of heresy and inciting violence.
File a charge.
Or, don't read my blog and mind your own business.
John Shuck
Elizabethton, TN
Hi, I'm new around here, just wandered over from John Shuck's to see what the fuss was about. Now I'm scared. I see some old friends over here, how you doin'?
I'm just a past middle-aged, Presby housewife. I've taught Sunday School, children's music, worked in the kitchen, published the church newletter, you know, the usual stuff. Oh yeah, and I'm an Elder. I'm also, I guess, one of the heretics that read and occasionally comment on John's blog.
I found the blog because the weekly uninspired messages on the lectionary at my church weren't enough any more. I was getting really disillusioned with the PCUSA. I like to read, I like to question. My faith is a work in progress. It is not confined to the structure of the doctrine of one denomination. Unless I missed something in confirmation, and that was a long time ago, the Presby church is a human institution. I'm thinking I never saw anything about it in red-letters in my NT. So if my beliefs, at this moment, don't agree with the doctrine, you're telling me to move on?
John makes a basic assumption about the people reading his blog, we have minds. We make our own decisions and hold our own beliefs. It's not a cult as "someone" once stated. I've never been "incited to violence".
I never intended on commenting here, but I was overwhelmed by this whole thread. I'll be sneaking back to Shuckandjive now where I can think outside the Books of Order and Confessions without reprisal.
Peace of Christ
Sara
Chengdu, China
Viola,
I am very concerned about your comment on Presbyterian Bloggers attacking John Shuck.
By going there and attacking him on a topic not mentioned there, you have performed the equivalent of me finding you in a supermarket and loudly criticizing your faith.
One of the mores of the blogging community is that we stick to the topic. You have multiple opportunities to attack John on your turf (here), or on his turf (his blog), or you could have disagreed with what he wrote about marriage at Presbyterian Bloggers. By attacking him there for his words on Rick Warren you broke the unwritten rules.
Please try to keep on topic when commenting on other blogs.
I freely admit that I have failed this test myself at times. I'm trying harder not to do it now.
Whoops. Didn't know about the place rule.
Hamilton, NJ
Rev Rick Warren thinks it's OK for the US to assassinate other world leaders.
I look forward to reading Viola's blog post condemning Rick Warren for inciting violence.
Allan
Maybe I'm behind the times but wasn't that Pat Robertson instead of Rich Warren?
Sharon Hill, PA
And back to the subject at hand:
I'm not sure why anyone cares who does the invocation.
Well, if it was Osama bin Laden I'm sure federal officials might want to arrest him.
Pastor Bob,
Nope, in an interview with Sean Hannity, Rick Warren stated that it was just fine to "take out" the president of Iran.
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2008/12/04/warren-stopping-evil/
which, because we are not at war with Iran can only mean assassination. But I guess perhaps that is the sort of "inciting violence" that some people don't have a problem with.
BTW, I agree with you that it doesn't really matter. As I said earlier, I think this choice is a clever political move, but has no more significance than that.
John,
As you know you and Captain Kona have a history. In the past he went by a name, something like TN420. When I first read his comments several years ago he was threatening a Church in your area, and I e-mailed you and you took it off. I also e-mailed the Church and your Presbytery at the time. I didn't know much about any of you and I didn't say anything bad about you. After all you had removed the comment. Both the Church and the Presbytery thanked me.
On the man's site is all kinds of trash including if you look far enough anti-Semitism. When I made my comment on your blog about what he said this time, I suggested that he sounded toward evangelicals like Fred Phelps sounds to gays. (He is actually worse if that is possible because in other places he has encouraged people to do violence against evangelicals. Kona stated, after my statement, “Difference is, Evanganoids deserve it and Gays don't.” still you did not say anything or delete him.
There isn’t much more I can say. you really don’t seem to care how your words come out or how they are used. I am glad you put up a softer piece about Rick Warren. But you are still insisting that the rest is okay and that Captain Kona is fine. You are using hate filled words. One can disagree with people without doing that.
Mark,
When you write,
"One of the mores of the blogging community is that we stick to the topic. You have multiple opportunities to attack John on your turf (here), or on his turf (his blog), or you could have disagreed with what he wrote about marriage at Presbyterian Bloggers. By attacking him there for his words on Rick Warren you broke the unwritten rules.
Please try to keep on topic when commenting on other blogs."
I almost started laughing. Do you really think that blogging rules are more important than grave moral issues?
I didn't know any other way to get the attention of that community. There is no one place to e-mail. i have often commented there on some very interesting subjects and I like Stushie's sermons. But as long as John Shuck is one of the contributors yet treats others and the Lord as he does on his blog I felt I could not join. I wanted PC(USA) bloggers to know that.
Here is what I wrote for anyone who might be wondering.
"Right at the beginning I apologize. I don’t know how else to do this and I know your site is not official but I like the idea of Presbyterian Bloggers from all different opinions coming together but I can’t join because of John Shuck’s treatment of Evangelicals and others on his blog.
To me it is hypocritical for him to put on a smiling face here and then say such things as he did yesterday on his blog about Pastor Rick Warren writing "Obama is making one dubious choice after another. His latest? Selecting fundamentalist celebrity Rick Warren to invoke his homophobic, war-mongering, narrow-minded god at the inauguration." And also allowing comments on his blog such as this: "When you "throw a bone" to vermin like Warren, you aim for the face."
I have written on this at my blog at http://naminghisgrace.blogspot.com/2008/12/slur-on-rick-warren-by-john-shuck.html "A Slur on Rick Warren by John Shuck: enough is enough" and I am pleading with official people as well as Presbyterian Bloggers to get them to please speak out about this. If you want to talk to me my e-mail address is v.larson@worldnet.att.net.
I expect to be deleted but at least I will know I tried.
I wasn’t deleted and that is good. Mark some day maybe a moral issue will be important enough for you to break a blogging rule!
Mr. Shuck,
For the record, I took Matthew 18:15-20 as seriously as I take the rest of the Bible. After 2 months of interacting electronically, I came and sat face to face with you to see if we could reach an agreement. There was no sense that it was even an issue to toss out God as a person, the bodily resurrection of Christ, or any other issue. At that moment I was still an inquirer, so I deferred to my elders. I asked if other presbyters in the presbytery (teaching and ruling) were aware of his position. Those that took the time to respond basically threw up their arms and said "whattayagonnado?"
I could have pressed charges at that point, though the best way to do that would be through a session. (This isn't a personal vendetta, after all. It's the integrity of the teaching office of the church that's at stake.) They were in the middle of their own crisis - another failure of an officer to be bound by the standards of the ministry - so the pastor wasn't in a place to ask the session to act as defensores ecclesiam et fides. It was only after nine months of dialogue with you and pleading with other presbyters to look into the issue that I finally wrote to our EP. (You can see the link above.)
At no time did I ever file a charge.
You can see the response I got officially. What you won't see is the unofficial response: "heresy isn't the problem - heresy-hunters are the problem." After that communication, my candidacy ground to a halt. The CPM started finding all sorts of extra-constitutional hoops for me to jump through. First they attacked my integrity with psychobabble. When no presbytery-approved psychotherapist could find any "relational issues" to stick me with, they hit me in the wallet: Do a unit of CPE by date x or you're out. (I'd already done 3 years of internships - including funerals and hospital calls - before they asked.)
I knew this would end up with one of us being asked to leave. I was counseled by several people high-up: "Is this (the integrity of the resurrection) a sword you want to fall on at this point in your career?" Heck, if you can't die on the fact of the resurrection, what else is there? So my PCUSA career got snuffed, and my call to minister was resurrected among the Anglicans.
The PCUSA doesn't have the will to uphold confessional standards. It barely has the will to do anything with constitutional standards (at least not the ones that don't have a price tag). I'm afraid Christian conduct and character (or even civility) is just asking too much of his local presbyters - much less the institution.
When I got burned on that - over something as fundamental as upholding the catholic faith of the church in affirming the bodily resurrection of Our Lord - I knew it was time for my journey with them to end. It left me locked out of the system I'd spent 10 years preparing for ministry in, and with an MDiv that the other Presbyterian bodies laughed at (to say the least). But I'd rather sell out on false security than mortgage my soul for silence in the face of slander against our Lord.
I'm not in an official relationship with Mr. Shuck anymore, so I don't feel any onus to pursue the matter. I don't read his blog or interact with him. As long as he claims nothing more than to be a minister in good standing with the PCUSA, I have no qualms. In fact, I'd say he's almost a quintessential one. Now if he starts claiming to be a minister of Christ and His gospel, I might have to re-enter the mix.
Chris Larimer
Louisville, KY
P.S. I was examined for candidacy on the floor of FPC-Elizabethton, where John...does whatever they're paying him for. The elder that was hosting bid us all "Happy Holidays." After a moment of stunned silence, an elder behind me called out "And a Merry Christmas to you!" I'm surprised that Mr. Shuck has the audacity to be so exclusive as to wish everyone a blessed remembrance of the incarnation he vociferously denies. Maybe his session will fault him for that?
PPS - Welcome to the outer darkness, Viola. Jesus is out here, too. He hasn't been able to go into FPC-Liz for decades.
Hi Sara,
You are welcome here. And I don't believe that denomination has all the answers either. But the Bible does. And Jesus Christ, fully human, fully God is the subject of that book. He is the one who makes the difference in our lives. When someone tries to downgrade who Jesus is and what he does I do have a problem with that.
I hope you return. We have a lot in common. I am an elder and a housewife as well as a writer.
Sigh, I keep forgetting,
Sacramento, CA
Viola,
Just because someone writes stuff on my blog, it does not mean I agree, or am not offended, or anything else. People write all kinds of things over there. The community takes care of itself.
When you become blog mother of the internet, you can make every decision about what is appropriate on every blog. You can make every decision about who can comment where and what they can say. Until then, blog moderators will have to make their own decisions and the internet will have to find a way to get along without you.
You want to hassle me by contacting my executive presbyter!?!? Fine. You encourage others to do so, then you go over to Presbyterian Bloggers and embarrass yourself.
Well that is up to you.
You have a history too, my love. The Presbyterian world knows how you operate.
The fact is you may have a legitimate point about how I come across now and then.
But your hardball political tactics cause you to lose all credibility.
John Shuck
Elizabethton, TN
Chris,
I remember that conversation that you had with me in my office as well. You did not try to reach some agreement with me. In fact, you wanted to get to know me. That is what you said and that is what it was about. If you thought you were doing some Matthew 18 thing on me, I wasn't aware.
You post a private email from my exec without permission on your blog. OK.
I had nothing to do with your PCUSA career. You made the decision that you couldn't be in a denomination that would allow me.
Has it ever occurred to you that the reason I am not booted from the PCUSA and that you couldn't get all of these people to care is because they do not agree with you?
Happy Holidays?! What?
John Shuck
Elizabethton, TN
"I almost started laughing. Do you really think that blogging rules are more important than grave moral issues?"
YES.
Our job is to evangelize. We can't do that when we refuse to talk to somebody else whose views differ. We also can't do that if we've turned people off to such a degree that we are not considered worth listening to.
Your action in that note were intended to silence John Shuck. That has the net result of getting fewer people to take you seriously. And thus your effectiveness as a disciple is reduced.
Chris,
If you are not interested in airing "dirty laundry" then why would you hang statements out there like that on a blog post? You think this person has done something illegal or inappropriate? Why would you make that accusation here?
There is a name for this behavior. It is called smear tactics.
Ironically, that little off topic smear is actually on topic with this blog post.
This, too, is a smear post.
Make a bunch of wild accusations and insinuations and spread them around to stir up passions.
"farewell to the Christian faith..."
"wholesale abandoning of everything that is essential..."
"a slur on the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob...Heresy, resurrection..."
"he's in it for the pension..."
"false teachers like Shuck..."
"John doesn't care and hopes we all leave..."
"it isn't because of his devotion to Jesus Christ. After all he doesn't even believe in a personal God..."
"...rejects the reality of the incarnation, mocks, and scorns the cross of Christ..."
"insulting other people in such a disgusting way..."
It is hard to believe that the world hasn't already ended in a fiery apocalypse.
If I have done something wrong, then file a charge.
But as everyone knows, including you, Viola, all you have here is smear.
John Shuck
Elizabethton, TN
Mark are you sure you want to say that blog rules are more important than grave moral issues?
Sacramento, CA
Okay Alan,
That was un-called for. That is all.
"Mark are you sure you want to say that blog rules are more important than grave moral issues?"
I think that blog rules ARE an extension of a grave moral issue. The need to live in Christian community which includes those with whom with disagree (or to put it another way, those who have not fully accepted correct beliefs who we are responsible for convincing/coaching/evangelizing {not haranguing}). Blog rules are both a tool for evangelism and an extension of how Jesus expects us to treat each other.
I'm not sure why you asked that twice. Are you making sure that I stand behind my statement? In case you need it, the name and address are:
Elder Ted McNulty, Clerk of Session
Presbyterian Church of Lawrenceville
2688 Main St.
Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
- Mark Smith
Hamilton, NJ
There's plenty of dirty laundry that could be published about Chris Larimer's public and private personal and fiscal dealings, or the pastoral abandonment of certain ministerial charges, but I'm not into airing other peoples laundry.
Care to explain why you deleted my comment Viola, when I have not said anything in my comment that Chris didn't say say in his?
That you allow such comments, which are nearly libelous, while pretending to be concerned about comments on other people's blogs is, at a minimum, hypocritical. That you then delete some comments and not others, even though they contain the same content is even more hypocritical.
Chelsea, MI
BTW, Viola, I'm afraid your measure of what is, and is not "called for" could use some re-calibration, I'd say.
"I guess he's in it for the pension."
Chelsea, MI
John,
I removed the other post because it gave too much away. You were right about that. I'm sorry. I shouldn't have said anything at all. God help me. If you forwarded my comments, let me know and I'll apologize to the parties potentially offended. Here is my revised post:
Before I left your office, I asked if it was of any concern to you that you disagreed with the plainest statements of the church's most basic confessional document, the Apostles Creed. Though I can't remember the exact response, it was something like not reading it the way I read it.
The correspondence with MY exec (at that time - remember, we were in the same presbytery) I made public after emailing him twice more for some sort of substantive response. (Yay or nay.) There are plenty of things that break my heart about the situation in Holston. I had no voice to forcefully redress them and the quieter avenues were shut off to me. So I left - and if you can live with the stench, then that's up to you.
I don't think you played any nefarious part in petitioning the CPM chair to give me a hard time. You two came into the presbytery at the same time, so he might have been offended at my meddling. But I'm sure he was doing what he could to ensure the peace of the presbytery. He's right - I don't belong in the PCUSA of today. Holston was a very PCUS-like place - where progressivism hadn't really shown its face, though there was some liberalism from place to place. (See Vi's distinction above.) I made the mistake of thinking that at the operational, institutional level, the PCUSA would still be interested in evangelism, preaching, theological reflection, etc. I was wrong. Thankfully for the beast, there are still pockets of faithful Reformed Resistance to the panentheistic nonsense you peddle in the name of the PCUSA.
Just because an institution has the word "church" in it doesn't mean it's really part of the Church. (Just ask the LDS folks.) I belong in a church that is biblically faithful, and that's where I am. I took vows to believe the Scriptures as the very word of God Almighty, and to live out the faith the apostles handed down to the Church. I would have been unhappy taking any other life-binding vow.
I've come to understand why the PCUSA rejected me. I was a vivid reminder of the confessional vigor it once had - and I got treated the same way that the confessions did. It's what happens.
John, for now we're neither professional colleagues or - as far as I can tell - members of the same mystical body. I pray that the last will be remedied. When it is, we'll start praying about the former (cf. John 17).
Viola, sorry to bogart the comments. I think I've eaten enough crow.
Chris Larimer
Louisville, KY
Alan,
I guess I missed what Chris said, or didn't catch it. But he has e-mailed me and removed it as you can see. As for the comments of yours that I deleted they also were completely unacceptable. Do not even try to write about them again or you will certainly be deleted again.
Viola, thank you for your kind words, one-on-one we probably would have a lot in common. The power of the internet is different. We can type things without having to look the other in the face. I know this is dangerous from personal experience.
I am not a theologian, I can't compete with people with seminary degrees. I'm an engineer, if you want a bridge built, call me. But, I don't think the mystery of faith requires a higher education, in fact I think that can be a hinderance.
I have a lot of respect for someone who can honestly examine what they believe and then have the courage to share that with others going through the same thing. I've heard the packaged responses my whole life. Sure, I can recite the Apostle's Creed in my sleep, but do I, personally agree with all of it, not sure. The Presbyterian Church is a very diverse group, it is also a shrinking church. We are becoming irrelevant.
To me, the message of Jesus is a call to action, it's a call to be the "body of Christ" here and now. Work for peace, feed the hungry, speak for the oppressed. The virgin birth and resurrection are small parts of what I hear the Bible saying. If that's not it's message to you, great, we are all different.
I currently attend a very evangelical, interdenominational church. I don't agree with them on some things, but, they also feel called to follow the example of Christ into action. We "evangelize" by showing the world what it means to be a Christian. They will get up and share their testimonies, me, not so much.
So, I will leave you to this. I just ask that you leave those of us who don't agree with you, alone. We're all just trying to figure out what it means to be a Christian in the 21st century. I'm not leaving the PCUSA because in the past few years I've really come to love it. I think it's worth fighting for and I pray that it has room for all of us. Otherwise, I think it's days are numbered.
Your sister in Christ,
Sara
Chengdu, China
PS: if you want to see pictures of what we're up to in China, sadein.blogspot.com
Hi Sara,
I went to your site. Great pictures. I have to rush back out again, I am going here and there buying Christmas dinner. I have a large family so I have to buy a lot of food. (They are all married and have kids, and I have a great granddaughter also) I will come back later I want to look more at your China pictures and read about them.
You know folks, I can't speak for everyone that posts here, or on these Presby blogs in general, but when I express a concern, it's not a "smear," or done out of a mean-spirited attempt to just attack someone. (Although, we don't know each other personally, I don't think that way concerning Viola either. I think she is feeling heart-broken about the situation, and expressing an honest, and legitimate concern here.)
I'm certainly more than willing to be called to task if anything I ever voice is untrue, or unjust in anyway. Hey, I'll eat crow in front of everyone.
Sara, I agree with you that we should not be conducting orthodox, litmus tests at the door toward seeking folks who are checking out the Christian church.
People should not be simply dismissed, and thrown out on their ear because they are having a crisis of faith. And, I believe that God is faithful to honor all of our honest doubts, and questioning.
But, I also firmly believe that the leadership of all of our churches should be women, and men who truly love, and know Jesus Christ as Savior, and Lord. People who are able to affirm, and honor their ordination vows...
To me, if someone is not persuaded that Jesus Christ even existed at all, except just perhaps as a mythical or legendary figure, or cannot affirm in any sense that He is Lord, well it seems to me that they should not be seeking leadership, and authority in the Christian church.
God have mercy! Do you think I"m being harsh, and judgemental in saying this.
We have a real problem, and disconnect here, folks. Prayers ascending for Christ's church, and for all of us. That includes you, ((John Shuck.))
Becky
Wellsboro, Pa.
Hi Grace,
I don't consider what I've been going through a "crisis of faith". I've just been through a "crisis of church" and if my faith wasn't strong at this point, I don't think it would have survived it. For me, it's just too easy to fall back into that warm, fuzzy place of "Jesus is my lord and savior". It doesn't require any investigation into what that means to me. Maybe it's my "midlife crisis" that started it, but I felt this overwhelming need to figure out what I believe and why. As Elders, we too take ordination vows, I'm not sure I could right now, should I resign?
As I think I've told you before, I've seen and experienced too much in this world to go back to the faith of my youth. Someone in this thread made a comment about the LDS church. My God is big enough to see their hearts, I would not condemn them. We don't have all the answers, I don't believe that the Bible has all the answers. Man's search for God will continue, the church will continue to evolve. I know, change is hard. God is big, She'll deal with it.
Sara
Still in China
Well, Sara, definitely hang in there for awhile, and search this out. God is faithful, and He knows the deepest longings of our heart.
I'm in my fifties too. As a younger person, I sat in church, an agnostic, challenged and questioned everything from the incarnation on down. I wanted to know truth more than anything. I've probably looked into every worldview, and philosophy out there. :)
In the end, God brought me to faith, into a relationship with Christ, and I think that relationship is stronger now because of all the questioning, and in a way "wrestling with God."
The center of Christian faith lies for me in the truth of the incarnation. God loved us enough to fully enter into human life, and suffering. He literally became one of us, and through our union with Him in Christ, we can share in His life forever.
As Christians, are lives are literally hidden with Christ in God, and for me that is beyond awesome!!
God's every blessing, and peace to you, Sara.
P.S. Are you a horse person? Me too. :)
Becky.
"I don't think that way concerning Viola either. I think she is feeling heart-broken about the situation, and expressing an honest, and legitimate concern here"
That is the best definition of "co-dependent" that I have seen in a while. Not a virtue.
Grace & Sara,
I came to Jesus as a young teen. I had been reading the Bible for my whole short life. And I read everything. I still remember a Christian Science novel, Thou Israel I read. My mother would bring home wierd stuff from the doctors office and I would read them.
A friend asked to to go to her Church's meetings and one time I went down front to say I would join the Church. When the pastor, my friend's father asked me if I believed that the blood of Jesus cleansed me from all sin, it was like a light went off in my head. The Holy Spirit took the words of Scripture and for the first time made them real to me. Although no one knew my yes was my yes to Jesus Christ it was.
Jodie,
I decided to leave you there just this once so others could see why I generally delete you.
Grace and Violet- This is actually what I'm talking about. I think we can all respect where the other is on their own journey. Grace and I probably crossed paths somewhere along the way. I don't think any of us would say the other "isn't a Christian" for their beliefs. The only person I really need to worry about is me. When I get it figured out, I'll let you know!
Until that time, I appreciate the bloggers that I have found that help me work through this. Also the the people who comment on them. John Shuck is one of those. I don't always agree with him, but he's okay with that. He doesn't claim to have all the answers. He mainly has more questions. I don't trust people who have the answers.
So, this actually has been quite interesting, getting to Violet a bit, and well, reacquainting with Grace. Off the Web, we could probably share a cup at Starbucks! Until we meet again - Peace
Sara
Zhong Guo
Thanks for sharing your witness, Viola. Sara, I'm sure we'll talk again.
Jodie, if you're still around, I can't see any signs of co-dependency here. I think Viola is just trying her best to be faithful to Jesus Christ, and to her responsibility as an elder in your church.
I wonder, Jodie, if Viola had been speaking out against homophobia, or some other issue close to your heart, you would have come to the same diagnosis?? :)
Sometimes I wish I had my own blog to delve into some of this with people more deeply myself. But, I just don't have the time right now.
Maybe someday.
Right now I'd appreciate everyone's prayers. I work with needy, abused kids, and their families, and I"ve just had this extemely rough and long day.
Peace to everyone here, and since I probably won't post again before the holidays. Have a wonderful, and blessed Christmas.
God bless!
Becky
Wellsboro, Pa.
I will be praying for you Grace.
Have a good and Holy Christmas.
Post a Comment