Timothy F, Simpson in his article “The Politics of the General Assembly, Part 2: The Committee of the Confessions,” badly uses a faithful Presbyterian woman, Sylvia Dooling president of Voices of Orthodox Women, to make his point about the Heidelberg Catechism. He also fails to understand the poor Christology of the Belhar Confession. The two subjects are not disconnected. When we place the interests of our lives under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, which is the proper subject of a confession, we will not misuse people.
Dooling, who was joined by Dr. James Edwards, another conservative member of the committee, in endorsing the new translation, has not endorsed the translation because it lacks a direct statement on homosexuality, but because it has the integrity of a proper translation. But it should also be added that Dooling who is a friend to me and many, many others is not extreme. She is orthodox, meaning that she holds to the faith as it has been delivered to the church through the apostolic witness of the Scriptures. If she is extreme then so is the global Church, the historical Church and the Church universal.
As for the Confession of Belhar I was the person who at the last General Assembly brought the overture from Sacramento asking the Assembly not to pass the recommendation to accept Belhar. I was going to testify in the confession committee this year but instead found myself waiting for a time to testify on something else in committee 15.
Because of that I once again well continue writing on Belhar which does emphasize unity over the Lordship of Christ. My testimony which I was unable to use had to do with the pastor of a Lutheran church in Bethlehem who at a 2004 Reformed Church of America conference suggested that one could take the words “people of God” from the Confession and make it an interfaith confession of unity for the Jews, Muslims and Christians. That is how very badly Belhar can be used. Belhar’s emphasis of unity was needed in South Africa but the failure of the authors to focus on Jesus Christ reduces it to a document useful only to a particular people and time.
The need of the Church in our day and any day and place is to confess Christ.
40 comments:
I was surprised at the reference to Sylvia Dooling in the article.
I was not surprised, however, at the failure to get the actual problems many of us had with Belhar.
Will,
Since Jim Edwards of Witworth was not mentioned I still believe that Sylvia was being used, which isn't right. Either it is the correct translation or it isn't.
and yes, he doesn't get what is wrong with Belhar at all.
"Because of that I once again well continue writing on Belhar which does emphasize unity over the Lordship of Christ."
When I read it, I don't see that. I see it as emphasizing unity >under< the Lordship of Christ.
I see it more as a "theological declaration" than a full blown confession. Unless you believe somehow that segregation in America is not an issue, Belhar deserves to be read, taught and thought about.
Viola, you spend a lot of effort pointing out all the negatives around us. Do you ever consider whether "Naming His Grace" is an appropriate title for your blog?
Jodie Gallo
Los Angeles, Ca
Viola, I'm not sure what you're taking offense to. Doling is known all across the church as an extreme conservative. Saying she is orthodox is meaningless in terms of the point I was making--we are all orthodox. If you know anyone who isn't, you have to file a charge against that person, or else you won't be orthodox yiurself, violating our ecclesiology. Identifying her using normal, everyday usage that everyone can understand is, well, the normal, everyday way to communicate my point effectively. Dooling's credentials as the extreme right wing of the church made her endorsement of the HC generally and Q 87 in particular a dog whistle to other conservatives in the church that this was ok to support. Sue Cyre from Theology Matters, and others, had stood up in the open hearing and denounced the translation's removal of the language of Q 87 and urged the committee to disapprove it. Dooling's testimony, however, was what the conservatives on the committee listened to, which was why I said that her presence on the committee was a gift to the church because she was so thrilled it. Had she not been on that committee, there might have been a big floor fight over the HC, and I was trying to express my joy that something like this didn't happen. For some reason, however, you've twisted my words into some kind of attack on Dooling, which was not what I intended.
Which brings me to your point on Belhar. People can do all kinds of things with words that no one ever thought about or intended previously, just like how you mangled my post about the HC. just because you heard some guy use Belhar a certain way once doesn't say anything about Belhar, but about the person who read Belhar. Read the history of Christianity. People have many times misused the Nicene Creed as the standard whereby to judge whether others should live or die. Should the Nicene Creed therefore be removed as a Confession of the church because someone found a nefarious way to read it? Of course not, but this is the bizarre reasoning by which you would deny Belhar.
Viola - excellent article, again.
Jodie - you sure like to sit in judgment of the orthodox like Viola who call upon us to be obedient to His word. Maybe you should start your own blog - casting stones at Viola and the orthodox. Seems you love to sit in judgment of her and others yet never of yourself. Viola writes as a godly woman and has made a difference in my life and I tire of see you attacking her.
Timothy - how dare you call Sylvia "extreme" and not judge yourself first as being unbiblically sound and throwing stones at her? Seems you and your friends love to sit in judgment and throw stones at the conservatives.
Again, Chas,
I am not following you at all. If Viola has made a positive difference in your life, I am glad for both of you.
Jodie
Chas, I would describe myself as an extreme liberal. You are reading into the word a negative connotation which I did not intend. I was trying to place her in reader's minds on a continuum of theological belief so that they could understand why her endorsement was so important to the HC's passage. . I was rejoicing in her extremity, not "judging" her. I was glad she was on the committee, not "throwing stones" at her. You obviously have such an important need to grind an ax that you are incapable of interpreting a simple paragraph by someone you disagree with. God save us from such angry people!
Timothy,
Sylvia is conservative but she is not extreme. We are not all orthodox. Some of us do not believe that the only way to salvation is through Jesus. Some of us do not believe that Jesus is God, nor that it was necessary for him to die on the cross for our sins. I could go on.
I am personally glad that we accepted the new HC--we have the Westminster which condemns homosexuality—and better still we have all the confessions which uphold marriage between a man and a woman—they do not contradict each other on marriage contrary to what the Stated Clerk states. Better still we have the bible which condemns the practice of same gender sex as it does all other sins.
I have heard people say that the Nicene Creed has been misused but I have never heard when or how. Perhaps you know the answer to that.
Nonetheless, it is quite clear that unity is the greater focus of Belhar. We do already have Confessions that speak to both unity and racism, while still putting a greater focus on Jesus Christ.
Jodie,
This,"Viola, you spend a lot of effort pointing out all the negatives around us. Do you ever consider whether "Naming His Grace" is an appropriate title for your blog?," is what always gets you deleted from my blog. Don't continue.
Chas jay,
Thank you.
Viola,
I meant no offense.
Back to Belhar, clearly all the other confessions put together are not enough to address segregation because segregation came about under their tutelage. OTH, if that argument could stand, then the same could be said of all the confessions: We have the Bible already. The Bible is sufficient.
Perhaps you or somebody should craft a confession that adds to the Belhar the elements you feel it lacks, and then you could bring it forward as a viable alternative? I am sure it would get plenty of traction.
Merely criticising it will not be effective in making it go away. It is scratching an itch that needs scratching.
Jodie
Jodie,
You did mean offense. You did offend.
Segregation came about because humanity is sinful. But confessions were not written to undo social evils but to confess Jesus Christ. There are times when social evils become a part of the Church thereby nullifying the Lordship of Christ. But in that case Jesus Christ must be confessed truly before the social evil is addressed by his Lordship and in such away that his Lordship is not lost.
This loses that Lordship:
“…we reject any doctrine which absolutizes either natural diversity or the sinful separation of people in such a way that this absolutization hinders or breaks the visible and active unity of the church, or even leads to the establishment of a separate church formation. …”
Viola,
As I said, if you know that someone is heterodoxy and you do not do your duty and file the ecclesiastical charge against that person, you are in gross violation of our ecclesiology, are co-dependent with heresy and are heterodoxy yourself. Since all you do instead is blog about stuff you don't like, I find it hard to take you seriously on this issue. When you start filing charges, your credibility will go up considerably.
As far as the misuse of the Nicene Creed in Christian history, any if the standard textbooks on heresy can provide numerous examples. Constantine miused the creed from the very outset, threatening exile and loss of property to any who would not endorse it. Priscillian, who died abiyt 395, was the first person executed for lack of orthodoxy The Ostrogoths, Visigoths and Lombrds, among others, were strongly Arian and were thus frequent targets for theologically-based execution. But the numbers are countless. Other famous examples are Edward Wightman, the last Englisman burned at the stake for heresy (executed by Jking James himself, no less) and Miguel de Servetus, who was executed by our very own John Calvin for his attacks on the Trinity. Christians hve been misusing the Confessions since Day 1, so it seems more than a little weird for you to have fixated on this one to keep out of our BoC because if this. This just is not a serious objection, at least to anyone who knows anything at all about the History of Christianity.
As for Belhar, the whole "unity is more important than Christ" is simply ludicrous. I talked with both the RCA and Greek Reformed EADs about this since they were on the committee and they were both baffled by this. Both of those denominations are WAY more conservative than we are and neither of them believed that there was anything of the sort of what you suggest in the text. Cliff Kirkpatrick was just in South Africa with a number of the authors, who are still living, by the way, and again, what you are seeing in the text is of your own imagination, much like the way you construed my post about Dooling. Eisogesis, it is called.
Timothy
The kind of misuse I am writing about is taking the confession and using it to allow or encourage heresy and antinomianism. The uses you are writing about have to do with a misunderstanding of how the Church is meant to discipline heretics. To put them outside the Church is proper. To do physical harm is not, it is sin.
An aside is that the Ostrogoths and Visigoths, one or the other or both, as they overran the Roman Empire up to the fifth & sixth centuries put the Catholics out of their churches and turned them into Arian churches. They became the persecutors of many. As for loss of property many churches today are suffering that.
There are many orthodox in both the CRC and the RCA who do not accept Belhar, Kevin De Young comes to mind. And the CRC has not yet adopted Belhar.
But you will have to come up with words taken from the other creeds and confessions which were used to promote heresy to make your case.
Viola, as if the execution of heretics is not itself heretical? So the imaginative reading of a confessional document as the rationale for the beheading and immolating of heretics is no reason for removing it but the creative reading of a confession which might sanction gay sex is? Good heavens! That's about the baldest admission of homophobia I think I've ever witnessed in the PCUSA. Absolutely astounding!
Viola, I thought the description of Sylvia was meant to be judgmental and dismissive. I've been reading your posts for a long time. Keep up the work, you're great. Jodie seems to be a serial blog sniper. I think I remember her taking shots t me back in 2006. Keep up the good work. It is great to have two women leaders like you and Sylvia.
Tom Gray
Co-pastor
Kirk of the Hills. EPC
Hello Tom,
"serial blog sniper"... On this thread alone I am a hypocrite, a liar, and now a sniper. The name calling just doesn't stop!
For the record, I typically only engage pastors and fellow members of the PCUSA family.
How has your congregation fared since you all left? Are you making Jesus look good, I hope? I hope all is well.
Jodie Gallo
Los Angeles, CA
PS: I am a "he", not a "she"
"Eisogesis, it is called."
Patronizing, it is called
Timothy,
It is not the reading of the Confession that caused the problem. You really have not proved anything. It is a separate idea that those considered heretics should be harmed. I don't wish to argue the point because you stated the problem with the Nicene Creed but have used no words from that Creed to prove your point. I also won't continue to argue with you because all you have proved is that some people who disagree with others wish to harm them because they disagree. That has nothing to do with confessions or creeds. It has instead to do with sin.
Have a holy Lord's day.
Tom,
Thank you. Blessings on the Kirk you are pastor of: )
Viola, you haven't raised any words from Belhar which advocate sin amy more than there are in the Nicene Creed. You choose to impute, falsely, concepts to Belhar which it does not contain as a means of directing attention from the ways in which Belhar focuses like a laser on your own sin, which is your aiding and abetting of schismatics like Tom Gray and your own flirtatious with acting out the idea yourself. Belhar calls you out along with many of your fellow travelers on this score, which you can't abide. So instead of receiving this very clear and correct theological interpretation of what scripture teaches on the unity of the body of Christ, you fabricate things not in it to cover your own error.
Viola,
I just wanted to commend you for the grace and civility you’ve shown in responding to the mean-spirited comments you’ve received. I know neither you, Timothy Spencer, nor Jodie Gallo personally; but it’s certainly clear from the words here, who demonstrates the fruits of the spirit.
You know, it used to be hard to tell the wheat and tares apart.
Jim Watts
Jim,
I am the one being maligned here. There is a big difference between my tone and Tim's. It is not graceful to call someone a liar nor civil to call them a sniper. There is nothing mean spirited in my comments and questions, and I don't know how you can suggest that there is.
But I am used to the abuse I get over here. And I would like to move past it.
Jodie
Viola,
You quoted a section of the Belhar as loosing the lordship of Christ. I honestly don't see it. Could you explain what you mean?
They seem to me to echo a fundamental tenant of Orthodoxy "I believe ... in the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints...". Those words don't deny the Lordship of Christ. Could you share the thought process that leads to your conclusion?
Gracefully,
Jodie
You're certainly entitled to your opinion of Belhar. But it is too funny that you seem to imagine that anything can create a sin out of disaffiliation from the corporation, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). That is in no way, shape, or form - even tangentially related to the Church the Body of Christ. It is solely an organization that exists to support the Church.
Belhar emphasizes unity without any mention at all of the MANY - biblical reasons given for separation - where, in fact, separation is commanded. In fact, it posits unity based, essentially, on the virtue of unity - rather than unity around belief.
Will, I think your first paragraph is a complete capitulation of Reformed ecclesiology.
Your second paragraph is a complete misrepresentation of Belhar. It is not in any way saying that there is no reason for separation. It speaks of SINFUL separation which is rooted in the absolutization of natural diversity. The people that are being referred to are people who share the same confessions, so it is not some kind of argument about the divinity of Christ but who are separating on grounds of racial prejudice (natural diversity). That kind of separation is sinful, but you are twisting this to suggest that Belhar is arguing that AMY or ALL separation is ok. But that isn't what it says at all. Not even remotely. It is very specific in what it condemns.
And Wil:
We believe that Christ s work of reconciliation is made manifest in the church as the community of believers who have been reconciled with God and with one another (Eph. 2:11-22); that unity is, therefore, both a gift and an obligation for the church of Jesus Christ; that through the working of God s Spirit it is a binding force, yet simultaneously a reality which must be earnestly pursued and sought: one which the people of God must continually be built up to attain (Eph. 4:1-16);
How can you possibly read that and still say that Brlahar is (tautologically) simply grounding unity in the virtue of unity? It is being grounded explicitly in the reconciling work of Jesus Christ! It is just bearing false witness to say otherwise.
Timothy,
First of all the church is not just the PCUSA.
But going further the reconciling work that one has with God comes through the death of Jesus on the cross and includes his transforming work through the Holy Spirit. Those within the denomination who reject that work--who don't feel the need for Christ's work prevent the unity.
Furthermore, within the
denomination those who are insisting on the right to live with their known sin without repentance cause a breach in that unity by denying the work of the Holy Spirit in their lives.
Because the Lordship of Christ and his work on the cross are not more fully lifted up and explained as say in Barmen there is nothing to prevent others insisting on unity in a reconciliation that has nothing to do with biblical reconciliation.
Take for example the first epistle of John—some in the church John was writing to insisted they had no sin and they seemingly rejected that work which Christ does. They caused a breach in the fellowship—because there cannot be unity where Christ’s work is denied.
As I read Mr. Simpson in the use of "extreme" to describe Ms. Dooling's theologically conservative credentials I was reminded of Barry Goldwater's acceptance speech at the 1964 Republican convention in which he said, "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice." If this is the sense in which Mr. Simpson has used "extreme" then let me say, paraphrasing Goldwater, "Extremism in defense of orthodoxy is no vice." Anybody wanna say "Amen!"?
To suggest that a denominational organization is the CHURCH - when there are many such organizations - is nonsense. It suggests an exclusivity I'm sure you don't mean to argue. If Reformed ecclesiology maintains that (and I don't for one minute believe that is a fair representation of Reformed ecclesiology - but I can see how a person can read that into it by overlooking specific historical context), then Reformed ecclesiology is simply false.
Were such a notion true, then the Reformed would have no leg to stand on whatsoever for not being Roman - or Orthodox for that matter. If their sometimes expressed idea that the Roman church had reached the point that it no longer proclaimed the Gospel and was not a true Church were the case, they would still have had ZERO justification for not being Lutheran
More importantly, Belhar informs a reader: "separation, enmity and hatred between people and groups is sin...". While the second and certainly the third can be maintained the first, by itself, directly contradicts Scripture.
Belhar would have it "that the variety of spiritual gifts, opportunities, backgrounds, convictions, as well as the various languages and cultures, are by virtue of the reconciliation in Christ, opportunities for mutual service and enrichment within the one visible people of God" The issue here is the word convictions. It makes a radical difference what those convictions are.
Belhar condemns as sin separations that "maintain... that descent or any other human or social factor" What IS a human or a social factor? How is this to be determined? The document gives little help.
According to Belhar, "for God pure and undefiled religion is to visit the orphans and the widows in their suffering", but that leaves out an equally important part of the biblical reference. James tells us, "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world."
There is much good in this document, but there is much that is missing.
You need not look far for abuses. Its made up notions of sin which are contrary to the Bible have already been used to accuse in this blog comments section. The thing is, this was a correct reading of the confession. It is just that it is a result of the confession that is contrary to and incompatible with the Bible.
Now it is certainly true that many things Belhar describes as sin, in fact are - biblically speaking, sin.
No Neil, none of us who are orthodox wish to defend our position with extremism. That is just silly. Only orthodox Christianity can defend orthodoxy.
Mrs Larson, in post (july 16, 5:54 AM) you comment that there are those in the church who insist on "living with their known sin without repentence" as if the Church, either PCUSA or Universal has an an agreed understanding of what you mistakenly claim all understand to be sin.
This is bearing false witness against us.
Please stop doing so. You may, of course, say that you beleive we are mistaken, but to say we believe we are being willingly sinful is both untrue, and HIGHLY insulting, as well as in accurate.
Please refrain from such hurtful, unfair, and crude attacks on your fellow Presbyterians in the future. You are very sensitive about your friends being insulted unfairly (even if one only repeats an assessment that is a common one one someones effectiveness). We have MORE than the right to expect not to have our character and faith disparaged.
As you are a lady, I am sure you will be more careful in the future, and I thank you for that ahead of time.
Gene ATLANTA
Gene, it is very clear in both the Old Testament and New Testament that sexual relations outside of marriage of a man and a woman is sin. Same-sex sexual relations are an abomination. Now, you have decided to ignore Scripture and in doing so you are bearing false witness and owe Ms. Larson an apology.
As far as your faith goes, Christ said "If you love me, obey my commandments." It was the disobedience of taking a piece of fruit that God specifically told Adam and Eve not to take that seperated us from Him. You aren't willing to give up what Christ called you to leave so you chose your sexual desires over following Him just like the rich man chose his riches over Christ.
Chas I greatly admire the path you have chosen. It is not the easy path, to be sure ... but Jesus did say the easy path (the wide road) is the one that leads to destruction. Thank you for holding fast to the truth and for being unafraid to speak it.
Blessings to you,
John Erthein
DeFuniak Springs, FL
Sorry Chas. If it was clear, there would not be such debate, the majority of voters in Presbyteries would not have voted to affirm the ministries of those GLBT people that God has called to serve, and most of our seminary professors would not have endorsed said ordination.
I most certainly do not owe Mrs. Larson an apology, though you do owe me one for saying I ignore scripture simply because, like the majority of voting pastors and elders in your own denomination, I understand it differently than you do. I am sure you are wrong Chas, but I would never accuse of you of ignoring scripture.
Chas is welcome and free to follow any path he wishes concerning his personal life. That said, the lives of those who serve God, as pastors or laity, as the GLBT people they are. Their path is not the wide and easy one simply because they are gay.
Gene, to use your own words, my perception of you and those that claim they "understand it differently" is that you ignore Scripture and "perception is reality" as you like to tell others. It is very clear and you stating otherwise is like peeing on my leg and telling me it's raining.
You can't tell me you "understand" it differently and call for an apology by me when you are so sure that I am wrong. Maybe God called me to tell you and your friends that you are wrong and you have ignored His word and offend Him greatly by telling great lies and thinking you can "vote" to make the church conform to your wishes and desires. It is not your story that is to be preached but His story and His sacrifice. It's about Him transforming lives, not about you "having rights" that you do not have. To follow Christ, you are not free to follow any path, but His alone.
To further use your own words "You cannot question me because you cannot question God's call to me." If you want an apology from God for me doing as He has told me, then you'll have to demand it from Him.
I'm also telling "conservatives" that we've been disobedient to His word as well and ignored it. We didn't follow the instructions in I Corinthians 5 regarding those that proclaim to be brothers and sisters yet boast (pride) about their sexual immorallity. Pretty clear words that we ignored as well and you twist to have a "different understanding."
The only one that is owed an apology is Jesus Christ and that is because all of us have been sinful and disobedient.
Sorry Chas...if that sophistry is all you got, I see why conservatives are losing the debates.
As we say in the south, "that dog don't hunt"
Gene ATLANTA
Gene, you didn't even debate my points but rather mocked them. That's not debating or even "dialogue." I've used your words but mroe importantly, I've turned to Scripture. I'm not interested in debates when this subject is not one where there should even be debate when looking at Scripture.
By calling my comments "sophistry" I must assume that you even mean the very last sentence, in which I state that the only one that is owed an apology is Jesus Christ. He is the perfection that died on the cross and rose from the grave to bring us salvation. It is my sins and your sins that were nailed to that cross with Him.
Oh, the reason your dog don't hunt is because you've made him into a lap dog for your pleasure. Lap dogs don't hunt but just sit on your lap and they're useless for hunting.
I'm as Southern as the crawfish, shrimp, fried chicken and field peas that I grew up eating.
Post a Comment