Naming His Grace

Washington D. C. March for Life

2012-01-30T11:26:00.000-08:00

Because the newspapers thought it wasn’t so important I thought I would post this. And while I’m at it, maybe some people from the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) will note that many of the people in this video are young, joyful, and earnest about life. It’s a great video about the pro-life march in Washington D.C.:

Video by Marc Barnes

Journey, Fremont and the joy of the Lord

2012-01-28T22:09:00.000-08:00

Sunday, 29th of January, my husband and I will begin a new journey, at Journey, a Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). There is some melancholy in this move, some sadness, but also some hope and always joy. God provided a place for us and new friends and fellowship. But we will not really leave behind the old friends, our sisters and brothers—we will be seeing them also off and on. One of our daughters and son-in-law are now attending our old Church Fremont. And they will stick with them loss of building or not. That is five new people, Fremont, in place of two. It seems God will double your people because of faithfulness to him.

I listened to some of the videos of the Fellowship of Presbyterians today and thought of Fremont when the pastor asked if your church disappeared would anyone (in your neighborhood) notice. I am afraid that Sacramento Presbytery will cause that to happen unless God intervenes. The children’s basketball team. The music, the Christmas Eve program. When attending once I had an older Catholic lady tell me “I come here on Christmas Eve because it is close and I like the music.” I think I have mentioned before how Fremont gave an offering to keep the neighborhood swimming pool open, and they have adopted a school that they care for. The principal has come several times on Sunday morning to thank the congregation. I know Fremont will continue much of this wherever they move, if they have to move, but it will be hard.

But for each of us who belong to Christ, he is our joy in all circumstances. Jesus is walking with his people through all the scary times.

All the poor and powerless

And all the lost and lonely
All the thieves will come confess
And know that You are holy
And know that You are holy

And all will sing out
Hallelujah
And we will cry out
Hallelujah

All the hearts who are content
And all who feel unworthy
And all who hurt with nothing left
Will know that You are holy

And all will sing out
Hallelujah
And we will cry out
Hallelujah

Shout it

Go on scream it from the mountains
Go on and tell it to the masses
That He is God
We will sing out
Hallelujah
And we will cry out
Hallelujah

Music by All Sons and Daughters, Video by Beanscot

Chesterton, developing evil & the Western Church

2012-01-26T14:17:00.000-08:00

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s Vice Moderator in a recent posting suggested that the “Bible was written by a people who, at that time of human development, were the functional cognitive equivalents of the modern six year old.” He also suggested in a comment “that societies mature in an equivalent process to individuals. Just as you and I go through a developmental process, so do groups.” That is a 19th century assumption, but it started me thinking about how evil develops in society and groups. I have been reading G.K. Chesterton and I note that in his book The Everlasting Man he basically scoffs at the 19th century idea of all ancient societies being lower in their developmental stage.

Chesterton makes a big distinction between the morality of a civilization and their development. One of the interesting contrasts he points out is a civilization that was highly advanced but yet carried within it a demonic urge that began in another society, that of the Canaanites. His chapter, “The war of the Gods and Demons,” covers the ideological difference between two great enemies, Rome and Carthage. Rome’s early gods were more of the domestic kind. Carthage’s god was a different kind all together.

Chesterton writes of the Canaanite religion with its idea of child sacrifice to Molech and how that demonic name can be traced moving via Canaan to Sidon and Tyre and finally Carthage. He contrasts the demons of Carthage with the domestic gods of Rome and suggests that we as a western civilization have much too thank the Romans for as they defeated Carthage. He writes of the god that was called Moloch:

The Romans did not at first quite know what to make of him; they had to go back to the grossest myth of Greek or Roman origins and compare him to Saturn devouring his children. But the worshippers of Moloch were not gross or primitive, they were members of a mature and polished civilization, abounding in refinements and luxuries; they were probably more civilized than the Romans. … These highly civilized people really met together to invoke the blessing of heaven on their empire by throwing hundreds of their infants into a large furnace. (149)

Chesterton goes on to the Greek gods and their mythologies. Greek vices, which may have developed from their gods or perhaps their gods developed from their vices, left the very early Romans appalled. Chesterton writes of the Greek vices, “Just as they became unnatural by worshiping nature, so they became unmanly by worshiping man.” He elaborates:

If Greece led her conqueror, she might have misled her conqueror; but these were things he did originally wish to conquer—even in himself. It is true that in one sense there was less inhumanity even in Sodom and Gomorrah than in Tyre and Sidon. When we consider the war of the demons on the children, we cannot compare even Greek decadence to Punic devil worship. But it is not true that the sincere revulsion from either be merely pharisaical. It is not true to human nature or common sense. (159)

But the Roman virtue came to an end with the dying of their mythologies. Chesterton wrote about the mythological boredom that led to atheism, drug taking and “startling obscenities.” That is where his famous quote, about teasing the cat pops up:

I do not believe that mythology must begin with eroticism. But I do believe that mythology must end in it. I am quite certain that mythology did end in it. Moreover, not only did the poetry grow more immoral, but the morality grew more indefensible. Greek vices, oriental vices, hints of the old horrors of the Semitic demons [the Canaanites] began to fill the fancies of decaying Rome, swarming like flies on a dung heap. The psychology of it is really human enough, to anyone who will try that experiment of seeing history from the inside. There comes an hour in the afternoon when the child is tired of ‘pretending’; when he is weary of being a robber or a Red Indian. It is then that he torments the cat. (164)

In the end, Rome was conquered by both demons and strange evolving gods. Even Nero participated in same gender weddings at one time calling himself a bride. The western world, and the United States in particular may be weary of the God who toppled Rome’s demons but he nonetheless stands over all our holy houses pleading with his people.

All the doors are opening to the demonic in the Western World. We have a holocaust of dead babies. Sexual sins of many kinds are finding blessings in many denominations and religious communities. Although I haven’t touched on it there is greed seeping through all of this. And yes, arrogance, because civilizations breed an awful false pride in humanity; we build our towers while leaving God’s word on the ground—perhaps as a footstool.

There is an answer. Chesterton wrote of those first believers who would not offer incense to Caesar. “We see a new scene, in which the world has drawn its skirts away from these men and women and they stand in the center of a great space like lepers.” He writes of the witnesses that form about and above them. He writes of the hatred that forms toward them. But he also writes of the light that shone in a dark night, “a white fire clinging to that group like unearthly phosphorescence, blazing its track through the twilights of history and confounding every effort to confound it with the mists of mythology and theory…”

Faithfulness in the midst of it all is what God calls us to. Jesus is faithful to his promises and we belong after all to that “begotten God” who is in the bosom of his Father. (John 1:18)

Tautologies, overtures 009 & 020 & marriage in the North West Company

2012-01-24T16:49:00.000-08:00

Usually in ‘Introduction to Philosophy’ classes students discuss tautologies. In a casual definition it simply means two differently worded definitions that are the same, such as “an unmarried man is a bachelor.” That statement is both redundant and true. But speaking logically it is, as my side dictionary, puts it, “a proposition or statement that, in itself, is logically true. It would not be true if we changed either the meaning of a bachelor or an unmarried man. But at least for the time being if we know that Joe is a bachelor we also know that he is an unmarried man. That is logically consistent.

But we live in a culture that tends to deny even the logically true statement. For instance, for two thousand years in western society the proposition that marriage is an official conjugal relationship between a man and a woman has been a logically true statement in itself. That is, no other statement was needed to prove that statement. And that is not only a logical statement it is also a biblical statement, the definitions are the same but they are also upheld by God’s mandate.

But in this post-modern world even tautologies are under attack. And when logical truths are under attack the foundations that hold cultural expectations together begin shattering. Several overtures coming to the 220th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) are designed to shatter the foundations of Christianity in general and the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) in particular. Overture 020 from the Presbytery of the Hudson River and Overture 009 from East Iowa are asking the GA to send to the Presbyteries for vote a request to remove the wording of marriage between a man and a woman to marriage between two people. This is of course meant to change the definition of marriage from an official conjugal relationship between a man and woman to an official conjugal relationship between any adult sex pairing.

The progressives in the PC (U.S.A.) believe they are dealing in rights, but instead they are changing the foundations of the western world as they casually attempt to throw away truth statements. And even more so, they are attacking the biblical understanding of marriage which is based on God’s word. It is sad to think that not only in the secular world is night falling, but also in the Christian world, in the largest Presbyterian denomination.

If the meaning of marriage is changed, all else will fall with that change. And if it is changed within a Christian denomination it will no longer be a ‘Christian’ denomination because that change will be the great contradiction that is laid over the word of God and the Confessions of the Church. But let me look at how the good news reverses the throw away of truth.

When I took a class on how to write a thesis the subject matter was to be about Native Americans. Because my real thesis was going to be on women and their rights I chose to write about the fur traders and frontier men and their Native American wives. The first part centered on those members of the North West Company that lived in the wilderness of Canada. One person, Daniel Harmon, was very interesting, a bookish loner coming from an intellectual family. Among the men he worked with it was generally acceptable to marry a native woman and then when it was time to leave for civilization leave her and her children behind.

But Harmon started getting letters from his brother in the colonies where a revival was occurring, undoubtedly a part of one of the Great Awakenings. He turned to Christ and in the turning realized that he could not leave his wife and children behind.

In his journal he wrote of his conversion:

I have always doubted whether such a Savior as the scriptures describe, ever really existed, and appeared on earth. … My intention, however, was, by no means to cast off all religion; but I attempted to frame to myself a religion which would comport with my feelings, and with my manner of life. –For several years past, however, my mind has not been at rest …As I was praying today, on a sudden, the faith, respecting which I was so solicitous, was, I trust, graciously granted me’ My views of the Savior; underwent a total change. I was enabled, not only to believe in his existence, but to apprehend his superlative excellency, and now he appears to be, in truth, what the scriptures describe him to be, the chiefest among ten thousand, and one altogether lovely.[1]

A group of the men began reading scripture together and the consequence was a new understanding of the sacredness of marriage. One of the men even wrote a letter chastising another who was planning on leaving his wife behind.

The good news of Jesus Christ includes the truth that marriage is between a woman and a man. To allow the breaking of that truth is to destroy the name Christian above the door of any denomination. Those presbyteries sending such overtures to the 220 GA are involved in the worst kind of destruction. They are fighting against the holy guidance of the Holy Spirit as our hearts and minds are opened to the “chiefest among ten thousand, and one altogether lovely. The One who stated, “Have you not read, that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh’?”

Picture is of Daniel Harmon

[1] Daniel W. Harmon, A Journal of Voyages and Travels in the interior of North America, Ed. Daniel Haskel, intro. By W.L. Grant, preface by Daniel Haskel, (New York: Allerton Book Co. 1820; reprint, no city: Williams-Barker Co. 1905). 196-197.

ECO is a sign of Christ's love for the PC (U.S.A.)

2012-01-20T21:30:00.000-08:00

I think what happened in Orlando this week, the new Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians, is part of what God is doing for and to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A). But more importantly it is what God is doing in the midst of his universal Church. It may be a large part or a small part; history must be lived, before we know. I do not think it is a reason for anger, sniping or general rudeness, such as I have read here and there.

I still contend that the progressives in the denomination simply do not understand the pain of the orthodox. It wasn’t just a case of winning or losing a debate by a vote; it was some throwing the holy into the garbage dump. It was declaring that the word of God written does not have authority over the experiences of humanity. It was insisting the redemptive quality of Christ’s work on the cross was insufficient; we should just go it alone, so to speak, “what we can’t change by ourselves must be unchangeable.” Pelagianism is running amok—in church history it has often led to antinomianism, since one tends to cover up what seemingly can’t be changed by calling sin a gift and good.

If we do not believe in the redeeming life, death and resurrection of Christ, if the power of his resurrection is not transformative, our chosen paths will close in upon our souls; we will die in our sins.

God’s mercy is very wide. He will not leave his own to flounder in their rebelliousness. He warns most of the seven churches of Asia Minor urging them to repent. For instance, to the church of Sardis, “Wake up and strengthen the things that remain, which were about to die; for I have not found your deeds completed in the sight of My God. So remember what you have received and heard; and keep it, and repent”

Or to the church of Pergamum, “Therefore repent; or else I am coming to you quickly, and I will make war against them [the Nicolaitans, who taught the church “to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit acts of immorality] with the sword of my mouth.” Jesus leans over his church like a mother leans over the crib of a sick child. He offers good to those who see their need, and hope to those who follow in faith.

He likens the Church to a wife and himself the husband who causes her, by his own life-giving sacrifice, to be transformed into her most perfect self. “That he might present to himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but she should be holy and blameless.” (Eph 5:27) The PCUSA is a part of that church that Christ is transforming. If another body, such as the ECO must grow out of her or another denomination stands beside her such as the Evangelical Presbyterian Church receiving hurting members it can only be because God yet longs to work within the PCUSA. He longs for us to turn back to the written word and Jesus Christ, the living word who is after all the Lord of the Church universal.

Resisting faith; Renewing faith

2012-01-17T23:04:00.000-08:00

Thinking about Vice Moderator Landon Whitsitt's idea for a new book:

When I began studies at Sacramento Junior College, about thirty-five years ago, the philosophy department was small. Classes often contained no more then five people and so there were fewer professors. One professor, in particular, has never faded from my memory. He was Presbyterian; I was not at the time, but I was a Christian. The professor had diabetes and was going blind. As we began modern philosophy we were stuck; he could not get past Augustine who he apparently loathed. And he planned, when he retired, to write a book disproving the Incarnation. I felt sorry for the downtown Presbyterian church where he taught the book of Romans.

This was an intriguing time for me because I was living in the midst of the Jesus Movement and as I watched hundreds of young people come to Christ I also watched the declining faith of this professor. He at one point was befriended by two of my young church friends who became his readers. We prayed together for him.

I have often thought, because of the professor, of how easy it is, in rejecting Christ or for that matter simply ignoring the essentials of Christianity, to miss the events swirling about us. And it surely has to do with a belief that the Christian faith evolves into something new as it aligns with each new culture. This is what I thought of as I read our vice-moderator, Landon Whitsitt’s, recent blog posting, Remix Reformation: A book proposal. It was at the end where he gives an abstract of what, perhaps, he is going to write about that my thoughts occurred. Whitsitt suggests that each church age is resistant to the new evolving faith:

At each stage of the advance, the form of Christianity that was prevalent resisted the progression of the faith. Notably, Protestant persecution occurred during the period of the Inquisition. Today, however, the extreme measures taken by the Inquisition simply would not fly. What has risen in its place is a vitriolic coercion in the defense of orthodoxy, which often takes the form of laying the blame of the decline of Christendom at the feet of progressive Christians.[1]

The only way for Christianity to move forward is to nullify and neutralize the neo-orthodoxy that is attempting to retain control.

Perhaps it is my love of history that prompts me to write about this. But both the present and the past are missing in the quote. The past that is missing is the understanding that the Reformation turned God’s people back to grace, justification, the word of God and faith. Martin Luther’s writings are full of Paul. Reading John Calvin is a partial reading of Augustine placed beside Paul. It isn’t that the Holy Spirit turns the Church back to an earlier day, but he does turn the church back to Christ, to the word, to faith. And persecution often follows those who turn, because the Spirit turns them to Jesus.

The present that is missing is the growth of Christianity in the global south and Asia. The growth is not a growth of progressive Christianity, but a growth of orthodox Christianity. And as usual, in the history of the Church, is the horrible persecution that meets that growth. There is in this post-modern world a very busy inquisition.

But are progressive Christians the cause of the decline of Christianity in the Western world? Maybe, partially, but it is undoubtedly the lack of fervor and passion among the orthodox. It is we, who must love our Lord with greater devotion. It is we who must be more often in his word. We must lift up the name of Jesus over all the ills of our broken world and our broken denomination.

I do not know if the philosophy professor was reconciled with the redeeming Lord, he died a few years later after I moved on to another university. But I do know the love of Christ endures in some older Presbyterians who found Christ in the midst of the Jesus Movement. That is a part of the history of the Western Church. Lord Jesus, renew again your Church.

[1] Whitsitt has changed neo-orthodoxy to Christian fundamentalism writing in a comment, "Perhaps “Neo-Orthodoxy” is not the term of choice. I am speaking of the religious dogmatists who are currently on heresy hunts for anyone not professing a strict, classical orthodoxy. What’s the term for that? I like Barth. I don’t see the world as he does, but I like what he’s doing. I’ve always been more of a Schleiermacher/Tillich fan."

Music by Fremont Presbyterian Church to listen to while praying for Fremont

2012-01-16T19:31:00.000-08:00

I just found these wonderful videos of Fremont's choir and praise team and thought everyone would enjoy listening to them while praying for Fremont.
The first is the sanctuary choir.

This is from a Christmas concert; this year's covered three nights with three thousand people attending.

And this is the praise team

May Christ keep all of them ...

Dealing with sadness and looking at hope ...

2012-01-13T14:28:00.000-08:00

Last Monday night, January 9th, I came home from the special presbytery meeting where they voted to put an administrative commission over my church, Fremont Presbyterian, and wrote my small posting, An administrative commission & deception. I checked my e-mail before going to bed and discovered that someone who had been rather contentious in his comment on an earlier posting wanted to friend me on Facebook.

In his comment he wrote that his father had at one time been a pastor of Fremont and he made disparaging remarks about Fremont's ‘senior pastor and those members who were leaving the PCUSA. He left his phone number in case someone wanted his help or information. So when he asked to be my friend I had second thoughts, but then I thought perhaps this will be a good thing and fruitful. After checking out his site I affirmed the friendship and because it was midnight went to bed. Sometime around two in the morning I awoke feeling very troubled.

I thought perhaps it was my blog. Perhaps I had written too strongly and needed to soften what I had written. That does sometimes happen. But when I turned on my computer I discovered that I had made friends with a very troubled individual. Within the last two hours he had written twenty times on my face book page and not pleasantly. He had gone so far as to attack some of my friends. And he had placed bad information about former pastors of Fremont who were pastors before I joined the church. Some of it I knew to be true, some of it I knew nothing about.

Needless to say I quickly deleted all of his material and clicked the places that disallow him from seeing my Facebook page. I have been very sad all week, both because of the actions of my Presbytery toward Fremont, and because a troubled individual would go so far as to befriend me so that he could torment me all in the name of LGBT rights. He even mentioned that my small great granddaughter had on rainbow colored leggings that is a symbol of the LGBT community. “What’s up with that,” he wrote.

I thought of these events as I read the letter written by the Moderator and Vice Moderator and watched the video they had made with six other Presbyterian ruling and teaching elders about hope. My sadness has spilled over into that. Why are they unable to comprehend the sorrow of so many orthodox? They do not understand that for the orthodox it is a matter of faithfulness. To make Jesus Lord means loving him past all other human desires and contrivances. It means obeying past any human predictions or perspectives.

Hope is founded on the word of God. Hope is not founded on any thing but the Son of God and the promises of God’s word. The author of Hebrews writes about that hope which the Christian has which is the fulfillment of God’s promises. And all of his promises are in Christ Jesus. Hebrews calls such hope the anchor of our soul. It brings the Christian into the very presence of God. As Hebrews states, “a hope both sure and steadfast and one which enters within the veil, where Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us ...” (6:19-20)

God may yet provide hope in the PCUSA—but he may not—He may instead bring judgment. As Karl Barth warned the German Church, God may “remove the candlestick” of our denomination unless we turn back to the Son and the written word of God. To bring it all back to where I began, how, for a Christian, could it be otherwise than to hope in Christ and his promises? Nothing else is sure, only Jesus, only his word, only the promises of God. We cannot meet the affronts to our faith, whether they come from a troubled individual or a troubled presbytery, alone; Christ and the hope he gives comes before and between all.

In his arms he will gather the lambs

2012-01-10T22:50:00.000-08:00

When I read the article that More Light Presbyterians had placed on their site and the information they introduced it with I was sickened. Their article is Lessons from Sharing the Story of My (Possibly) Gay 6-Year-Old Son. They link to the mother’s article on Huffpost Gay Voices and both places link to her blog. She wrote about her six year old having a crush on one of the gay men on the show Glee and how her son said he would rather kiss guys instead of girls. And really after several sons and many grandsons I don’t think many little boys, at the age of six, like kissing girls.

But the sad part is she thought this was so cute that her son would sit for a half-hour “mooning” over a picture of the man. And while she admitted that, ‘Six year olds get obsessed with all kinds of things.’ and ‘This might not mean anything at all,’ she nonetheless was happy to watch and not hinder or guide. But children need care and guidance….

Some of the Bible’s most tender yet powerful images occur when Jesus speaks to his disciples about placing children in his care. He was “indignant” at their attempts to push the children away and said, “Permit the children to come to me; and do not hinder them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.” But more so, “He took them in his arms and began blessing them, laying his hand on them.” (Mark 10:14, 16.) There is both gentle care and a warning in these scenes which are pictured in all of the synoptic gospels. Do not hinder he says.

The care is not unlike Isaiah 40:11, “Like a shepherd he will tend his flock, in his arms he will gather the lambs and carry them in his bosom; he will gently lead the nursing ewes.” Before this verse in Isaiah 40 and after it there are detailed accounts of the finiteness of humanity and the powerfulness, creativity and eternality of God. But his children, the adult kind and the child kind, rest in his care. And he does not leave them without nourishment, guidance, love and discipline. He does not leave them to gather their goods or goals from the world’s immorality but has sent his word, both written and living.

We can trust the one who created everything to heal that which is broken and give abundant life without end. We can still bring our children to Christ and place them in his arms for blessing.

An administrative commission & deception-update

2012-01-09T23:07:00.000-08:00

I was going to put an update on my prayers for Fremont posting but this needs to be a whole new posting. The motion to put an administrative commission over Fremont Presbyterian Church in Sacramento did pass with a vote of 81 for and 51 against. But some of the facts that came out in the meeting were very disturbing.

It was admitted that although the negotiating team of the Presbytery failed to meet with Fremont’s negotiating team they did meet with a small group of those who voted not to leave. Twenty-five was the number given. And they met with them twice they said. That number we were assured had grown to 60 or at least fifty. The Presbytery had helped them to open an escrow account where their tithes could be placed rather than giving them to Fremont, and then gave them a place to worship. All of this was done without the Session of Fremont knowing about it and as I said, it was done before the negotiating team met with Fremont’s negotiating team.

This information only became known because one brave pastor of another church had heard rumors and asked if it was so. The numbers were not given either until someone asked.

Could one call this deceitful and deceptive?

Should one call this deceitful and deceptive?

Isn’t it the Presbytery that is causing schism or should one even ask?

To understand better why I ask these questions please read an older post, "Threats of loss towards those who want to leave: seduction for all others"

Update: I accidentally used the word discernment when I meant negotiating team.

Prayers for Fremont Presbyterian Church today

2012-01-09T09:27:00.000-08:00

Please pray for Fremont Presbyterian Church today. This evening, 1-9-2012, the Sacramento Presbytery will vote on whether to put an administrative Commission over the church or not. The Church‘s Session, pastors and a majority of the congregation voted to leave the PC (U.S.A.) and go to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. While the October 17 vote was 427 to leave and 164 to stay, there has been an ongoing push by a very small group, calling themselves the Fremont Faithful Fellowship, to be allowed to keep the property. And although the majority is concerned about many doctrinal issues including a growing universalism (One does not need to belong to Jesus to be saved), a willingness to ordain those who live together without marriage (fornication) and LGBT ordination, the smaller group is desirous that the church allow LGBT ordination.

I have written about this here Prayers for Fremont Presbyterian Church: an Administrative Commission and here Threats of loss towards those who want to leave: seduction for all others.

I will update this later in the evening after the vote.

A response to former deputy managing editor of the Sacramento Bee, Bill Endicott

2012-01-08T16:38:00.000-08:00

It is exasperating, all of the articles appearing in the Sacramento Bee about Fremont Presbyterian Church in Sacramento. But this article above all needs a response because it is nothing more than a diatribe against faithful Christians.

A response to former deputy managing editor of the Bee, Bill Endicott:

In his special to the Bee, Viewpoints: Message from pulpit should be of love, tolerance, Endicott ends with these words, “But there will always be those, as a friend once said, who believe the snake really did talk to Eve. “

Yes the snake did talk to Eve. It wasn’t actually a snake but Satan using the snake. Satan does that in this world, he deceives people. Oh not with an audible voice but deception enters their heart and soul, their very being. That is why we have wars, rape, abused children, broken lives, etc., because humanity, in the midst of deception, believes they are wise enough to be the arbitrators of morality instead of God.

P.D. James, one of the great English mystery writers, wrote about that kind of arbitration in her mystery Original Sin. Someone decides they know who killed who, long ago—except they have the wrong person in mind. They have read the wrong book, heard the wrong whispers in their heart. But God knows all and reveals what we should know both in the written word and the living Word.

And yes, although the entire Bible is the words of Jesus Christ—he is after all the third member of the Trinity, God’s eternal Son, still in his words in the New Testament he did have something to say about homosexuality. It was this:

“Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh’? “So they are no longer two, but one flesh” (Matthew 19:4-5)

So it is the Session of Fremont Presbyterian Church and the pastors who have made their decision along with a majority of the congregation that they no longer want to be joined to a denomination that is disobedient to the word of God. And it isn’t just about homosexuality, in fact, homosexuality is the least problem. The PC (U.S.A.)’s new Book of Order is pushing universalism. That is the idea that one need not come to Christ to be saved. And it also down plays the authority of the word of God.

Back to the snake—Satan tells a great lie to Eve, “You surely will not die! For God knows that in that day you eat from it [the tree of the knowledge of good and evil] and your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good from evil.” That was a double edged lie.

First of all they would die. The spiritual death occurred at once, the physical death would follow. Pain, evil, brokenness and death entered the primeval world because of disobedience to God. Second, humanity now knew of good and evil. They know it as God knows, but unlike God whose very being is goodness, they do not have the power to overcome evil. That is why in grace God said to Satan, “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel.”

Jesus Christ, the One who stomped the death stomp to Satan’s head by his death and resurrection is worth a thousand buildings and the entire world’s wealth. May God keep those Fremonters, who have chosen to go to another denomination, for the sake of obedience to Christ, secure in their building. But if God chooses not to leave them there, may he be glorified in their suffering loss of property and may they quickly expand and grow in His good kingdom where ever he chooses to place them. May this be so for all of those faithful Presbyterians suffering loss in this faithless age.

Joy for the weekend

2012-01-07T11:03:00.000-08:00

This is joy for the weekend. This is on an airplane waiting for a maintenance check. It is the Indiana Wesleyan University Chorale. Just what everyone needs for their journey.

Hat Tip to Sarah Hill

More Light Presbyterians-using a death for their agenda

2012-01-05T19:09:00.000-08:00

I don’t take the Sacramento Bee so I didn’t see the article until I read the More Light Presbyterians web site. Their title is Beyond 10-A: The Wellbeing of LGBT Persons In Our Church. The Bee’s title is Memories of a gay man's suicide loom over Fremont Presbyterian Church. I didn’t know Thomas Paniccia except to notice his nice smile when he greeted me and others. At first when I saw him I often saw him with one of Pastor Baird’s sons. At first I thought he was the Pastor's son. I didn’t know he was struggling with his sexuality either. I do remember when he committed suicide.

Here are my thoughts about the Bee's news article and More Light Presbyterian’s site and statements:

The Sacramento Bee:

The author of the article, Jennifer Garza, mentions several times that Paniccia left a three page letter behind, and that both Pastor Baird and David Larson received copies. There is speculation by both Baird and Larson about why he committed suicide. Evidently Paniccia did not say in the letter, or they would have said so, so it cannot be truthfully stated as a fact that he committed suicide because of his sexual struggles. In fact, the article points out that he asked that no one be blamed.

The article also states that his name was raised during Fremont’s debate about leaving the denomination. I attended all but one forum [they were not debates except right before we voted] but did not hear his name. So if the name was raised during that time it could not have been often.

What I do appreciate about the Bee article is that it gave the whole story and did not insist that Paniccia committed suicide because of his sexual problems. Instead they told both sides of the story. But not More Light Presbyterians.

More Light Presbyterians:

I have little to say about them. My first reaction was anger. How could they take the self inflicted death of a man (who is now, undoubtedly home in safe keeping in the care of our Lord) and use it to push their own agenda. They write:

We grieve with our sisters and brothers within Fremont Presbyterian Church, Sacramento, CA who have come to understand that they lost one of their own to suicide because he was not encouraged to be the person God had created him to be.

Believe me he was encouraged to be the person God created him to be; someone loved and cared for by the Lord. We all know so little about what is going on in the mind of someone who commits suicide. How dare strangers use the death of someone they did not know at all to promote their own selfish cause.

Christians in Gaza

2012-01-03T22:07:00.000-08:00

This is about comparison and disagreement using articles filled with pathos. I actually thanked the Israel/Palestine Mission Network of the PCUSA for linking to the article, Gaza Christians long for days before Hamas cancelled Christmas, until I discovered that they linked to it because they believed it was about Palestinians not being able to go to Bethlehem during Christmas. It is partly, but mostly it is about how hard it is to be a Christian in Gaza. The author, Phoebe Greenwood, writes:

Karam Qubrsi, 23, and his younger brother Peter, 21, are the eldest sons in one of Gaza's 55 remaining Catholic families. Both wear prominent wooden crucifixes. "Jesus tells me, 'if you can't carry my cross, you don't belong to me,'" Peter explained. It's a demonstration of faith that has caused him some trouble.

He describes being stopped in the street by a Hamas official who told him to remove the cross. "I told him it's not his business and that I wouldn't," Peter said. After being threatened with arrest he was eventually let go, but the incident scared him.

Greenwood adds, “Their sisters Rani, 29, and Mai, 27, left Gaza in 2007 when the 30-year-old manager of Gaza's Bible Society bookstore, where their husbands worked, was shot dead, having been accused by radical elements of proselytising. They now live in Bethlehem.”

The persecution of Christians in Gaza is something that is not widely known in the West. In an article Christianity Today published in 2007 the story is told of Rami Ayyad’s, death. The article is “Christian Bookstore Manager Martyred in Gaza City”.The author writes:

At 6:25 a.m. Sunday October 7, Ayyad's body was found near the bookshop. "Signs of bullets and knife stabs could be clearly seen on his body," the Bible Society release said. Unconfirmed reports added that his head had been severely injured.

Another earlier story was written in 2005 and is about the ministry of Evangelical Christians in Gaza. It is filled with hopes that have undoubtedly been dashed. The article is “Love in the Land of Enmity.” The author of that story writes:

The context in which Christians inside Gaza do ministry is daunting. Gaza is 98 percent Sunni Muslim. Since the September 2000 start of the Al Aksa intifada, some 3,300 Palestinians and 1,000 Israelis have died in political violence. Hamas, which is behind many suicide bombings, is based here and has an extensive social-service network, including Gaza's only free kindergarten. Most Gazans live on less than $2 a day in one of the world's most densely populated hotspots.

To deter terrorism and the weapons trade, Israel has destroyed the runway at Yasser Arafat International Airport, blocked construction of a seaport, and in recent months has kept borders under stringent control. Nonetheless, Palestinian terrorists routinely launch lethal rockets from Gaza into southern Israel or at Israeli settlements inside Gaza.

No one in Gaza is far from the conflict. Gaza Baptist's roof has been damaged four times by Israeli mortars. In modern Hebrew, the curse "go to hell" (lekh léazazel) is nearly identical to "go to Gaza" (lekh léaza). The play on words is not lost on anyone.

Despite these conditions, Massad's return six years ago ushered in growth with a core group of lay volunteers at Gaza Baptist, including Magdy Anwar and his wife, Rima, from the Bible Society. One church member told me, "Something special began happening. God invited Gaza to know him."

The author goes on to write of God's work in Gaza--but when the articles reach to 2008 there is the great loss, 'My Heart Is in Gaza'. The author begins:

Gaza Baptist Church used to draw hundreds of Palestinian worshipers to its two Sunday services. But on a recent Sunday in January, less than 10 people risked attending the only evangelical church in the 25-mile coastal strip.

Palestinian evangelicals, a group of hundreds living among 1.5 million Muslims, have been fleeing the Gaza Strip for the West Bank in response to increased violence and threats from Islamic extremists. In October, Rami Ayyad, the 29-year-old manager of Gaza's only Christian bookstore, was kidnapped and murdered. Then on February 15, a group of 14 masked gunmen forcibly entered the ymca offices and set off a bomb in the library, burning thousands of books.

I have added all of this because of another article I saw at Veterans Today by an author that the IPMN sometimes uses.

The article, “Is Hamas Really a Mean-Minded Christmas Scrooge?” by Stuart Littlewood is an attempt to belittle Greenwood’s article. Littlewood, who is an anti-Semite, quotes Fr Manuel Mussallam in Gaza in 2007 and Archbishop Theodosius Hanna and Mussallam in 2010. Hanna states in the 2007 article, “The problem in Palestine has nothing to do with religion – it is not a religious issue. It is not a conflict of Christians, Muslims and Jewish people. It is a conflict between those who are the holders of a rightful cause and those who took away that right by military might [meaning Israel].”

But there is a problem with religion which in many ways has nothing to do with the conflict between the leaders of Israel and the leaders of the Palestinian Territories. As Jeremy Weber writes in the article, “My heart is in Gaza”:

Severe economic hardship has been accompanied by increased threats from extremists since Hamas installed Shari'ah law in Gaza. Massad said his church members fear gathering in groups. Many believers no longer wear crosses, and some women now cover their heads in public as Muslim women do.

We do not hear about this from our PCUSA organizations, but we should. While we pray for peace between Israel and the Palestinians we should be praying for strength, comfort and open doors for the Christians of Gaza. We should pray for God’s work to be done in the whole area. We should pray that God will open the hearts of many Muslims and Jews to acknowledge Jesus as redeemer and Lord in that war torn area.

2012 and God's wooing and merciful judgment

2012-01-01T19:18:00.000-08:00

In a New Year's posting, "My Thoughts on God's Will for the PCUSA in 2012," Janet Edwards, a pastor who has long advocated for LGBT ordination, calls for reconciliation which includes the letting go of such terms as liberal and conservative. She writes, “We must shed the antiquated 20th century labels of “liberal” and “conservative.” They have never served us well and do us serious harm now.” Edwards goes on to advise:

In 2012, God can inspire us to see ourselves as Presbyterian Christians together who disagree on how Scripture informs our faith in Christ as we all navigate through the unpredictable and turbulent seas of this life. These are disagreements that can serve us if we choose. Namely, they can help us all to grow in our faith and to better serve God.

In such a case we would simply be Christians with different opinions about the Bible. We would all be mediators of our own destinies navigating rocky shoals and stormed tossed seas by the use of our own particular methodology. But the rocks before us are huge and the hidden dangers unfathomable to human eyes.

We tend to think that human agendas and plans, including the call for ordination rights and same gender marriage, is all that we, as a Church are dealing with. Edwards references it all that way: women’s rights, racism and gay and lesbian ordination all lumped in one confusing and false category. But that is not all that such an agenda calls for—a mighty enemy seeks to undo the Church. A mighty enemy (but a defeated one) seeks to overcome the Church with sin and the belittling of God’s word.

But more importantly the great Enemy of our enemy puts his gigantic NO not only upon our enemy but upon our own human agendas. His word is very clear. He will have his Church sanctified, washed and pure. By the use of his word he will present to himself “the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.” (Eph. 5:25-27)

Biblically speaking, false prophets call for peace when there is no peace. In the Old Testament it often happens that God sends judgment on Israel and in the beginning or in the midst of judgment false prophets keep insisting that it is a time of peace and reconciliation. They pretend to stand between enemies as a peace maker who will keep two opposing sides together. In some cases the ones calling for peace are those who have shattered peace by encouraging the people to sin.

The New Testament puts this idea of a false call for peace in a slightly different form. The corruption that shatters peace has to do with the peace of the Church rather than a nation. The Church is often under assault by those outside of the Church. But the Church is also often under assault by those within. Those who have waged war against the Church within the Church, inflicting her with false teaching and antinomianism, cannot turn and call for peace and reconciliation among members; instead the call must be for repentance and reconciliation with God.

And only the Holy Spirit both wooing us and inflicting us with the judgment of God can turn us back to our Redeemer. 2012, this is the year we pray God will inflict those of us within the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) with the mercy of his judgment that we might turn in repentance and faithfully listen to the words of God. We pray that in mercy the Lord Jesus Christ will not take away the candle of this denomination.

Christ at the Checkpoint Conference: mixing vinegar with water UPDATE

2011-12-30T12:35:00.000-08:00

UPDATE: I received an e-mail from Munther Banayout Isaac of the Committee for Christ at the Checkpoint. His e-mail went into my spam box and I just now saw it. The information I saw was wrong and the committee made a good decision. I apologize for the wrong information. Munther does not want his e-mail posted. So Although I have posted it I will take it down, except for this part:

"Thank you for your question regarding Charles Carlson's film showing in Christ at the Checkpoint and for your concern and for verifying from us about this. The short answer is no - we will not show the film. Though we initially considered having it part of an optional film night during the conference, we later decided that the message and goals of the film and indeed the work of WHTT are not compatible with the goals of our conference and do not serve our cause. Though one of our goals is to engage with Christian Zionism, we seek to do it in a friendly and constructive manner were both views are fairly represented and are respected."

In November 2011, I wrote an article, Liberation theology or Christian Zionism? Why not Reformed instead! It was about a Conference in 2010 called Christ at the Checkpoint. I was concerned because quite a few Evangelicals were involved as speakers at a conference that also included some heavy anti-Semitism by such people as Mitri Raheb and Stephen Sizer. I pointed out that Raheb insisted that immigrants from Europe to Israel are not genetically Jewish and Sizer, who believes that the Jews of today no longer have any connection to God's promises, continuously does ministry with those who deny the Holocaust.[1]

The coming 2012 Conference has quite a mix of speakers and presenters and is also using many Evangelicals. One man, who is not listed as a speaker, but whose film is supposedly going to be shown is, it seems, a part of this strange mix. The film, produced by Chuck Carlson, a man who has spoken at conferences put together by Holocaust deniers, is Christian Zionism: The Tragedy &The Turning, Part 1. I found this information on a very vile site that I have written about before, Veterans Today.[2] Chuck Carlson’s organization is We Hold These Truths Strait Gate Ministries. This is a preview of his video which he states will be shown at the conference, (warning there are several bad scenes) :

At Veterans Today there is a podcast of Tom Compton who works with Chuck Carlson interviewing him about the film and then there is an audio of Dr. Alex Awad of Bethlehem Bible which sponsors the conference. Awad is one of the Evangelical presenters at the Christ at the Checkpoint 2010 Conference. I do not believe that those planning the Conference are aware of the posting on Veterans Today, but they are surely aware of the speaker’s orientation, including Raheb’s words from the last Conference. In order for there to be a true attempt at peace making it is important for the planners to winnow out the anti-Semitism that overshadows the Conference.

For further indications of the kind of problems Compton and Carlson present see a poem linked to and placed on their site, "The Palestinian Statehood Sham: A Donkey Heads To The Den Of Vipers":

“Tell your Zionist masters sorry, you shouldn’t have been their deceitful starter...

Because Palestine isn’t just the West Bank, Al-Quds and bleeding Gaza...

Palestine is everything from the river to the sea...

All holy Arab land, no Zionism in between...

Palestine is Yaffa, Nasira, Akka, Safad...

Haifa, Lifta, al-Ludd, Isdud and Naqab...

We will not mince our words, we don’t care if they aren’t televised...

The usurping Zionist entity is something that we will never recognize...

We bleed for this land, so we repeat, go ahead and give us death or prison...

Eternal ‘no’ to the Zionist entity and eternal ‘no’ to its recognition...”

The poem is purposing that the State of Israel disappear all together. Another indication of the kind of information provided by Chuck Carlson & Tom Compton is an article suggesting that an Israel bus that was hit by Hamas on the Egyptian border was filled with soldiers and not civilians Why Arabs from Egypt Attacked IDF Soldiers Riding on an Israeli Public Bus.

And then there is their bookstore which has books such as Rothschild Money Trust, with its description:

May Amshel Rothschild, the founder of the Rothschild fortune, at the time of his death in 1812, created a trust of his estate, by will, for the elevation of the Jewish race and establishment of a Jewish world Empire. The estate has been preserved and managed since his death as a unit in pursuance of the provisions of his will. This 1940 classic examines the origin of the Rothschild Empire, gold, the Federal Reserve, and how the money trust arranged for World War.

There are also DVDs by Holocaust denier Gorden Ginn.

And this is the most blatant problem with Carlson, his connections to those who deny the Holocaust. He has spoken at conferences arranged and set up by anti-Semites and Historical Revisionist (those who deny the Holocaust). He has also published articles in their journals. In Sacramento in 2004 he participated in a conference sponsored by The Institute of Historical Review the main organization of those who deny the Holocaust. At the time the IHR gathered with those considered neo-Nazis.

There should never be an excuse for Evangelicals participating beside those who are involved in such evil. While it may be that the people setting up the Conferences and engaging the speakers are unaware of some of the speaker’s proclivities toward evil rhetoric that does not erase the fact that it is happening. This mixing of evil with those who wish to do good will simply taint any good. I would suggest that those Evangelical speakers coming from the United States explain the difference between those who are seeking peace and justice in the Middle East for both sides and those who are simply spouting anti-Semitism.

I have sent several e-mails to members of the committee promoting the 2012 Christ at the Checkpoint Conference asking if this film is truly being shown. I have not received any reply. If I do I will update my posting.

[1]See footnote in original article.

[2]Veterans Today publishes articles accusing Israel of being responsible for 9-11, they use articles which insist that Rabbis in this country should be hung. They in fact insist that the government of the United States should be destroyed.

An update on Youcef Nadarkhani at VOM

2011-12-27T12:58:00.000-08:00

In a recent update Voice of the Martyrs has stated that Iranian pastor Youcef Nadarkhani is being held for a year in hopes that western Christians will forget about him. They write:

Iran’s Ayatollah Sadegh Larijani, head of the judiciary, has ordered the judge presiding over Youcef Nadarkhani’s case to delay his written verdict for one year. The judge was specifically ordered to keep Nadarkhani in prison, using whatever means necessary to force him to recant his Christian faith and convert to Islam.

According to Present Truth Ministries, the order was designed to cause the international community, specifically Christians, to forget about Nadarkhani’s case.

The article is “Iran: Nadarkhani Update.” The western world needs to be made aware of the pastor’s plight and prayer maintained that the comfort and strength of the Lord will be with him.

Christmas memories and joy

2011-12-23T23:29:00.000-08:00

Christmas, what do I remember, so much, perhaps too much? Trees with crepe paper and tinsel. Snowy Missouri hills with sleds and aunts and uncles. A wagon ride across the frozen creek to cut a tree. Mama cooked the turkey in her new pressure cooker and it fell apart.

And then there was the one where mama was in the hospital and I took care of my little sister Beth, slept on the sofa next to the Christmas tree lights and received my first present from a boyfriend; a record with two new songs on it. “The little Drummer Boy” was on one side and “You are Beautiful” on the other; the one from the Broadway musical “The Flower Drum Song,” not the movie. By the time the movie came to the theatres I was married—to someone else.

And the Christmas my husband was just home from back surgery. I went to the front yard and cut a large pine branch and stapled it to the wall. That was our Christmas tree. Two churches, an Assemblies of God and a Seventh Day Adventist supplied us with wonderful food and jeans for all three boys. And our pastor, at Warehouse Ministries, when we went to Church took my husband’s hand and silently placed money in it. I still remember needing fifty dollars to pay the telephone bill—some friends came to visit and handing us an envelope said it was God’s gift. Of course there was fifty dollars inside. That was God’s gracious Christmas.

And just one more. A Christmas I remember filled with lights, and laughter, food and friends. I remember singing together and that one of my sons, on Christmas Eve night, in the midst of all the fun and joy led another young man to Christ. And that really is what Christmas is about, the birth of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

See, amid the winter's snow,

Born for us on Earth below,
See, the tender Lamb appears,
Promised from eternal years.

Chorus:Hail, thou ever blessed morn,
Hail redemption's happy dawn,
Sing through all Jerusalem,
Christ is born in Bethlehem.

Lo, within a manger lies
He who built the starry skies;
He who, throned in height sublime,
Sits among the cherubim.

Say, ye holy shepherds,say,
What your joyful news today;
Wherefore have ye left your sheep
On the lonely mountain steep?

"As we watched at dead of night,
Lo, we saw a wondrous light:
Angels singing 'Peace On Earth'
Told us of the Saviour's birth."

Sacred Infant, all divine,
What a tender love was Thine,
Thus to come from highest bliss
Down to such a world as this.

Teach, O teach us, Holy Child,
By Thy face so meek and mild,
Teach us to resemble Thee,
In Thy sweet humility.

The suffering Church and a blog by Vivian Chapman

2011-12-23T00:19:00.000-08:00

I know this is a different kind of posting just before Christmas, but the suffering Church has been on my heart today and then a friend on Facebook led me to this Belief blog with an article My Take: Looking for faith amid persecution.

Vivian Chapman, who is a writer and producer and the wife of photographer Gary S. Chapman went with her husband as he interviewed and photographed those who had suffered from an extremist Muslim mob in Pakistani in 2009. Homes were burned with people in them.

Part of what she writes is:

Through an interpreter, we talked with a 32-year-old father of four young children who became a hero to 70 women and children. As a violent mob appeared on their street, young girls and women clutching their children began to run into his family’s three-story home.

Pleading with his father to give him the shotgun and shells that were in storage, he argued for protecting the women seeking refuge, “If we allow the mob to come into our house, what will they do? If they kill everyone in the house, then we will have to answer to God why we didn’t protect them. Give me the gun. God I put my life in your hands. I’m going to protect these lives. Help me.”

Incredulous, I wondered how I would have reacted. Would I have been brave? What would I have done? What could I have done?”

Chapman who is a Christian also states:

As the relief team took assessments for supplies, our interpreter, also a Christian, turned to me and said, “We see the destruction of their homes, but not the destruction of their lives. Jesus will never leave us or forsake us.”

Under the same circumstances, would I draw strength from that promise? Could I endure those kinds of struggles and hardships? I hope so.”

You can see the pictures her husband took here and read his blog here

Father have mercy and loving care for your suffering church through the coming year.

H.T. Jonathan Armstrong

God's truthful word is the meat of our story

2011-12-21T15:10:00.000-08:00

One unbelieving Presbyterian pastor is honest enough to declare his unbelief, “The virgin birth is fiction.” Others want to hang on to the beautiful story that might give others a moral parenthesis. No they don’t believe it but they make exceptional seasonal uses of it. Teresa Lockhart Stricklen, on the PCUSA blog Thinking Praying Living, writes a partly serious, partly funny, from a woman’s point of view, essay, “From Advent to Christmas.” She adds this towards the end of her text:

Now all of us who’ve been schooled know that these stories are more concerned with making theological points than historically accurate ones, which makes our job as preachers a bit more interesting.

And then Stricklen goes on to apply the theological points to contemporary lives. Pointing out that Jesus is the candle that God uses to make darkness light she writes:

This world is not just a broken mess we should despair over and nonchalantly let run its crooked course. There are Josephs and Marys who take God’s risks. There are shepherds who don’t run away terrified but want to go see for themselves what in the world God is up to, running the risk of good folks slamming the door in their faces. There are high and mighty Zechariahs who finally get it after being struck dumb for awhile. We know these people. They are us.

Jesus is portrayed as Light of Light and very God of God. Still, “risks” and “seeing what God is up to,” and “get it.” Without the reality and truthfulness of God’s story of his Son’s birth the out workings become so banal.

And Chris Glaser, on his blog, Progressive Christian Reflections writes about the birth of Christ, “Put yourself in the nativity story.” After explaining that most Catholics reject the social issues and doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, but go to church for Christmas and Easter, Glaser states that is true of Protestants as well. He relates that to the “myth” of the nativity story, writing. “To me, myth is not a story that is untrue, but a story that carries a deeper truth that draws us in.”

So Glaser invites the reader into the story; asking, “Are you King Herod, fearful of losing power or privilege as God is doing a “new thing”? Or an Eastern sage enduring academic malaise, seeking a star of inspiration? A shepherd routinely going about your business when the skies seem to open up? A prophet crying in the wilderness?” He goes on, including Mary and Jesus, ending with these words:

Good to remember, at this time of year, that we hinder or help, blink or behold this nativity of God’s Word to us.

But notice something here. Truth is missing and so is worship. Reality becomes only metaphor and our lives lose the transcendence of God’s truthful purposes. Additionally, the concrete and practical go missing too. For instance, Zechariah, who by the way was not high and mighty, but disbelieving, with his wife, experienced the very real birth of an unexpected son. They experienced his late night cries, his tummy aches, his first word and first step. They experienced his strange behavior and powerful preaching as God’s grace mingled with reality in his life.

And king Herod afraid of a “new thing?” This is more than banal, this is evil. That question ignores not only the reality of the virgin birth, the songs of angels, the bright star; it ignores the ultimate evil, rejecting the true King who came to die for the sins of humanity. Herod knew, the scribes told him, the Scriptures foretold:

But as for you Bethlehem Ephrathah, too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you One will go forth for me to be ruler in Israel, his goings forth are from long ago , from the days of eternity. (Micah 5: 2)

Herod did not reject a new thing; he rejected the Lord of glory. Herod did not reject a new thing he rejected God’s word and thought he could thwart it by killing the babies of Bethlehem. Ultimate evil doesn’t answer to make believe stories no matter how beautiful the stories are.

The truthful biblical story of the birth of Jesus which includes a virgin, a multitude of angels and a star, is the foundation for His perfect life, His death on the cross and His bodily resurrection. It is the foundation for lives lived in obedience and worshipful attendance to the wondrous King born in Bethlehem. God's truthful word is the meat of our story.

The 4th Sunday of Advent

2011-12-17T23:38:00.000-08:00

A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and loud lamentations, Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be consoled because they are no more.

My reading for this advent season is found daily in the beauty of the Gospels and Psalms, but also in the prophetic side of Matthew, the book of Daniel and Revelation. These circular pictures of the Church age with their themes of faithfulness, suffering and final victory lend themselves to the story of the holy innocents of Bethlehem. This is out of sequence for Advent but nevertheless this is what I choose for the fourth Sunday of Advent.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer writing in 1939 of Herod’s fear and rage, of the death of innocent children, of the sufferings that will come to Jesus, gives meaning to all Christian suffering. He writes:

Filled with immeasurable fear and jealousy, he [Herod] now orders the death of all children of Bethlehem younger than three years of age. He considers this to be the only certain way to get the divine child. But even though his strike is clever and cruel, it misses its target. Herod wants to destroy Christ, but Christ is alive and in his place and for him the first martyrs are struck down and die. The innocent children of Bethlehem protect the life of their king and Lord who is their age. They become the first martyrs of Christendom, the dying witnesses for the life of the Lord Jesus Christ, their savior. All persecution aims at the final destruction of Jesus Christ. Its purpose is to murder Christ, yet it cannot harm Christ. Christ lives, and with him lives the martyrs of all times.

Speaking of Rachel who seemingly returns to weep over the murdered children of Bethlehem, Bonhoeffer continues:

The lament for the martyrs of Christ begins, and it will not quiet down until the end of time. It is the lament for the world estranged from God and an enemy of Christ, for the blood of the innocents, for our own guilt and sin for which Jesus Christ himself experienced suffering. But within this inconsolable lamentation, there is one great consolation; Jesus Christ lives, and we live with him if we suffer with him.

In Christ, the one who was, who is and who is coming, there is great peace.

An insignificant group in the PC (U.S.A)

2011-12-16T16:55:00.000-08:00

An insignificant group in the PCUSA, but the question is- insignificant to what and who? And why or how are they insignificant? Someone tweeted insignificant about Voices of Orthodox Women because they were upset at the article, Review of the November/December Horizon’s Magazine which included a review of the article, To Every Season. Since I wrote the review that caused the retort I thought I might play around with the word insignificant.

I got to thinking about the insignificant people and groups in the Scripture. There is Gideon’s army which God reduced to a mere 300 soldiers so that their victory might bring glory to him.(Judges 7) Or there is Jonathan and his armor bearer who, by themselves, defeated many philistines. (1 Samuel 14) Although there are many more in the Old Testament, it is Christmas and the New Testament shines with those who were insignificant in the world’s eyes but were acknowledged by the Lord of the universe.

A mere peasant girl, not a king’s daughter, is favored by the Lord to give birth to his Son who will live, suffer, and die for the sins of the world. The shepherds see a host of angels singing and speaking of the baby born in a stable but destined to be a Savior. An elderly man and woman were given the privilege of knowing who the baby was and speaking over him blessings and prophecy. Few of the people that Jesus was to heal were considered significant by the world, but he took time and care for them. Above all he blessed the children.

So what of this group, VOW, are they insignificant. Well, maybe, but not to God. Not to the many who receive their Newsletter. Not to those women and men who want to know about the Horizon’s yearly Bible Study from an orthodox perspective. You can see some evaluations here and here.

So if you are feeling rather insignificant in the PC (U.S.A.), remember all of those tucked under the wings of the Lord of the universe are very significant to him. He uses the small and insignificant things of earth to do his bidding. Remember the verse:

O Lord, our Lord,
How majestic is your name in al the earth,
Who have displayed your splendor above the heavens!
From the mouth of infants and nursing babes you have established strength
Because of your adversaries,
To make the enemy and the revengeful cease. (Psalm 8: 1-2)

Or the words of Mary:

He has done mighty deeds with his arm;
He has scattered those who were
Proud in the thoughts of their heart.
He has brought down rulers from their thrones,

And has exulted those who were humble. (Luke 1: 51-52)

The Coptic Church and the Muslim Brotherhood

2011-12-15T21:58:00.000-08:00

Philip Jenkins’ book, The Lost History of Christianity: The Thousand Year Golden Age of the Church in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia—and How It Died has a chapter entitled “The great Tribulation.” It is about the persecution of Christians, and in particular the Coptic Christians of Egypt and other places in the Middle East, during the fourteenth century. He begins with this:

Although Egypt’s Christians had often been subject to outbreaks of persecution, the events of 1354 reached an alarming new intensity. Mobs demanded that Christians and Jews recite the Muslim profession of faith upon threat of being burned alive. The government struck at churches and confiscated the estates of monasteries, destroying the financial basis of the Coptic Church. And unlike in previous conflicts, the persecution now reached the whole country, rather than being confined just to Cairo. Under increasingly violent conditions, many Christians accepted Islam, in a massive wave of conversions. (98)

After explaining that not all Muslim rulers were so ferocious, Jenkins goes on to document the ruin of Christianity in the Middle East during that time. Jenkins prefaces’ this tribulation chapter with this thought:

Oppression and persecution were not integral to Islamic rule, but such conditions could and did develop at particular times, and when they did, they could be devastating. At their worst, we can legitimately compare the conditions of Christians under Islam with that of Jews in contemporary Christian Europe, and the Egyptian campaigns of the fourteenth century look almost identical to contemporary European anti-Semitism. (100)

I write this to bring a better understanding of the two videos I am placing here. The Muslim brotherhood in Egypt is returning Egypt to the fourteenth century. The videos are devastating:

"This week, Egyptian political activist Cynthia Farahat testified before the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission in the House of Representatives. Reps. Frank Wolf and James McDermott presented Under Threat: The Worsening Plight of Egypt's Coptic Christians."

Hat-Tip Dexter Vanzile

Prayers for Fremont Presbyterian Church: an Administrative Commission

2011-12-13T12:03:00.000-08:00

This came in my e-mail within the last two hours. I am ashamed of my presbytery leadership. Since when does the group who does not vote count for an additional problem to those considering whose shall be the property in a dispute. For instance when Fair Oaks Presbyterian Church voted to leave, they had a membership of 2,286 members and 1,218 voted. Roseville had 1, 143 and 760 members voted. Those non-voting members did not count. (I have added a video at the bottom.)

Administrative Commission for Fremont Presbyterian Church

Purpose: Pursuant to the request from the Committee on Ministry, I, Anna Niemann Perrine, in my capacity as moderator of the Presbytery of Sacramento, call a special meeting of the Presbytery of Sacramento for Monday, January 9, at 7:00 pm at Celtic Cross Presbyterian Church, 5839 Dewey Drive, Citrus Heights, CA, for the purpose of acting on the following motion regarding Fremont Presbyterian Church.

Motion: That, pursuant to Book of Order G-3.0109, the Presbytery of Sacramento appoint an Administrative Commission to visit Fremont Presbyterian Church and inquire into an apparent schism within the membership of that congregation. The Commission shall consist of six or more members, equally divided between teaching elders and ruling elders, appointed by the Moderator in consultation with the chairpersons of the Committee on Ministry, the Stated Clerk, the recently retired Interim Stated Clerk, and the Transitional Presbyter. No two members of the Commission shall belong to the same congregation.

Specifically, the Commission shall inquire into, report on and make recommendations with respect to the following questions within the meaning of Book of Order G-4.0207 (Property of Congregation in Schism) so that the Presbytery can make the determination required by G-4.0207:

1. Whether there is a schism within the membership of that congregation, and if so;

2. Whether a reconciliation of the factions or a division of the factions into separate congregations within
the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) can be effected, and if not;

3. If one of the factions is entitled to the property because it is identified by the presbytery as the true
church within the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

The Commission shall, before making its final report and recommendations on these questions, afford to all
persons affected by its decision fair notice and an opportunity to be heard on matters at issue.

The Commission shall have access to such records and documents (whether in written or electronic form), as it, in its judgment needs to review in order to make its recommendations.

The Commission shall make a report, whether interim or final, to the Presbytery at its next regularly scheduled meeting.

Rationale: COM has concluded there are threshold questions which must be resolved by the Presbytery of Sacramento before there are any negotiations with representatives of the leaders and members of Fremont Presbyterian Church who wish to affiliate with another denomination. In the past, our Presbytery has dealt with schisms between an entire (or virtually entire) congregation and the PC(USA).

By contrast, in the case of Fremont, there appears to be a schism within that congregation between two identifiable and large groups of Presbyterians, one of which has voted to leave the PC(USA) and become a congregation within the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC) and one of which voted against leaving the PC(USA). In addition, there is a third group -- which is reportedly nearly as large as the first two groups
combined, if not larger -- which has not voted one way the other.

The Book of Order specifies in G-4.0202 that its provisions "prescribing the manner in which decisions are made, reviewed, and corrected . . . are applicable to all matters pertaining to property." G-4.0207, Property of Congregation in Schism, provides.

The relationship to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) of a congregation can be severed only by constitutional action on the part of the presbytery (G-3.0303b). If there is a schism within the membership of a congregation and the presbytery is unable to effect a reconciliation or a division into separate congregations within the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the presbytery shall1 determine if one of the factions is entitled to the property because it is identified by the presbytery as the true church within the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). This determination does not depend upon which faction received the majority vote within the congregation at the time of the schism.

The Guidelines for Churches Considering Seeking Dismissal from the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) in the COM Handbook do not address as situation such as we face here. Instead, they appear to presuppose a reconciliation or a decision by an entire congregation or the functional equivalent thereof to seek such dismissal. The Guidelines make no reference to making the determinations required by G-4.0207 when there is a divided congregation such as appears to be the case with Fremont. Indeed, the phrase "the true church within the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)" appears nowhere in these Guidelines.

COM concluded that (1) negotiations regarding property and other issues with the representatives of the members, elders and pastors at Fremont who wish to leave the PC(USA) and affiliate with the EPC should not occur before the determinations required by Book of Order G-4.0207 are made by Presbytery and that (2) a "team" appointed by COM pursuant to the Guidelines is not the appropriate body to assist and advise Presbytery with respect to these determinations. The results of such "team" negotiations would probably be
subject to a proceeding2 before the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of the Pacific, and perhaps the PJC of the General Assembly. Years might pass before a resolution of the threshold questions, during which hundreds of Presbyterians would remain in limbo.

G-4.0207 is silent as to how a particular presbytery is to determine whether a particular faction should be identified as the true church within the PCUSA, but it mandates that such a determination be made. COM believes that a broadly-based administrative commission including representatives from at least six different congregations is the most appropriate tool to assist Presbytery in making the required determinations.

1 The Preface to the Book of Order provides: "In this Book of Order (1) SHALL and IS TO BE/ARE TO BE signify practice that is mandated, . . . ."

2 Including, without limitation, a request for stay, appeal, remedial action or other recourse.

I have added a video of Pastor Don Baird baptizing young people at Fremont.

Baptisms from Fremont Presbyterian Church on Vimeo.

Critiquing the theologies and connections of some pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel leaders: a series # 4

2011-12-12T15:04:00.000-08:00

Mitri Raheb: Universalist & anti-Semite:

This posting is about Mitri Raheb, pastor of the Evangelical Lutheran Christmas Church in Bethlehem. In 2010 I attended the Presbyterians for Middle East Peace Breakfast at General Assembly. This organization, which I belong to, focuses on truth telling and cares for both Israelis and Palestinians. It was there I saw Raheb.

At the breakfast the last speaker, Rachel Lerner, Vice President of J Street, a Jewish organization which stands slightly to the left of the more conservative Jewish organizations was just gathering up her papers and trying to answer questions as people left or mingled about. I went forward wishing to thank Lerner for her speech. But I had to wait as Mitri Raheb harassed her. She was extremely polite to him.

I have written about Raheb before. Recently I wrote about his participation in the 2010 “Christ at the Checkpoint Conference” and much earlier I wrote about his 2004 speech at a Reformed Church in America breakfast where the speakers focused on the Belhar Confession. The recent posting is Liberation theology or Christian Zionism? Why not Reformed instead! The earlier posting is Using the Belhar Confession to overcome Israel’s “racism,” and as a means to bring about repentance from those desiring a Jewish State! The earlier posting links to Raheb’s speech, “The Practical Implications of the Belhar Confession From the Perspective of Palestine."

Reading through both of the speeches given by Raheb, the one at the Checkpoint Conference, and the one at the RCA breakfast, one sees a theologian who is both a universalist and an anti-Semitic, not an unusual combination. Raheb also speaks of himself as a contextual theologian which in his case most likely means he is a liberation theologian.

Raheb, who in 2003 was visiting professor at Louisville Theological Seminary and mission partner in residence for the P.C. (U.S.A.), hoped to use the Belhar Confession as a means of unity among the three monotheistic faiths, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, as they exist in the Middle East today. He saw the words “people of God” in the confession and wished to change the wording to ‘peoples’ of God. This would have diluted the confession completely; confessing Christ would no longer have meaning to the confessors.

Raheb also hoped Belhar could be used to induce the Jews to stay in dialogue with mainline denominations and Palestinian Christians by confessing Israel’s sin of apartheid. His inference was that without such a confession there could be no dialogue. Raheb stated that:

Isn’t it time for a clear Jewish confession or for maybe a joint Jewish-Christian confession regarding the lands and the people under Israeli occupation? We have been confessing our sins to the Jewish people over and over again for fifty years now. [Raheb is referring to the Declaration of Barmen] And we do not regret doing that. But we should now expect our Jewish partners to confess their sins against the Palestinian people. A moment of truth has come. This issue, I believe, will either make or break Jewish-Christian dialogue.

But Raheb’s feelings toward the Jewish people of Israel as well as the Jews of Europe and America can only be regarded as anti-Semitic after his 2010 speech at Christ at the Checkpoint Conference. During that speech, Raheb not only insisted that the Jews that came from Eastern Europe were not linked by genetics to the ancient biblical Israelites, he also insisted that the Palestinians and only a part of the Jews, those who had always lived in the area, “are the continuation of the peoples of the land.” Of the immigrant Jews who inhabit Israel, Raheb states:

I’m sure if we were to do a DNA test between David, who was a Bethlehemite, and Jesus, born in Bethlehem, and Mitri, born just across the street from where Jesus was born, I’m sure the DNA will show that there is a trace. While, if you put King David, Jesus and Netanyahu, you will get nothing, because Netanyahu comes from an East European tribe who converted to Judaism in the Middle Ages.

Raheb is referring to the Khazars when he writes of an East European tribe that converted to Judaism in the middle ages. And there was such a tribe that did convert. In fact the European Jews were proud that a whole tribe had converted to Judaism. But that does not make every Jew living in Diaspora a member of the Khazars.

All anti-Semites use the Khazars as a means of insisting that the Jews are not the Jews. Some white Americans who belong to anti-Semitic groups related to the KKK use the Khazars to insist that the supposedly 10 lost tribes of Israel are the Caucasian peoples of Europe and the United States. Those groups are referred to as “Christian Identity.” Raheb uses the Khazars to insist the Palestinians are the only peoples, plus a few Jews, who have a legal right to the Holy Land. He is also anti-Semitic.

One very interesting and helpful book which refutes so much of Raheb’s and other’s nonsense is Jacob’s Legacy: a Genetic View of Jewish History by David B. Goldstein who is professor of molecular genetics and director of the Institute for Genome Science and Policy’s Center for Population Genomics and Pharmacogenetics, Duke University.

There are many fascinating stories in the book but the important one against Raheb’s vague insistences is that Goldstein along with a another professor was able to trace genetically the Jewish office of priest, using those Jewish males who consider themselves to be Cohanim, “directly descended from one of the many priests who served in the Temple in Jerusalem.” To their own surprise they went back almost three thousand years, the genetic trail did not stop on a Russian hill filled with Khazars.

As Goldstein relates the end of the story of research:

One by one, Neil [Bradman] read the microsatellite scores for each chromosome carried by the Cohanim. As he spoke, I entered each number into the equation and tallied up the totals. Slowly the data began to take shape, and as they did, the presumptive date for the Cohan Modal Haplotype began to recede farther and farther down the corridors of time. “Do you know where we are going?” I said, feeling like a window had opened from the modern world into something ancient, powerful, and hidden.

When the last figure had been entered, we were stunned into silence. “We are in the First Temple,” I said eventually. We were both quiet again for a time.

Goldstein also looked into the idea that the Ashkenazi Jews might possess some of the genetic material of the Khazars. He did not find that connection although he actually wanted to. But the important point here is that the Jewish immigrants that came to Israel are not lacking Jewish DNA.

At the end, Raheb was hurrying through the latter part of his Checkpoint speech. He mentions that he is running out of time. The end result is a bit garbled but he seems to place Jesus’ mission into his own context of denying that the Jews of Israel have any right to the land and of affirming that the Palestinians do. Land is always important; the pro-Palestinians/anti-Israelites use other’s exegesis of scripture to prove the land is not important and then insist that it is.

Raheb believes that Christ brought a kingdom without boundaries and the beginning of the right spirit to the people of the Middle East. The best one can say of Raheb’s theology is that he attempts to universalize the kingdom of Jesus and at the same time make it relevant to his own people. However, there seems to be no thoughts about redemption from a biblical viewpoint. He does not say that either the Jew or the Muslim needs Jesus. But above all Raheb attempts to remove the Jewish identity from the Jewish people who now inhabit the State of Israel.

The third Sunday in Advent

2011-12-10T22:54:00.000-08:00

A new book, Jerusalem: the Biography, by Simon Sebac Montefiore, details the constant flux of various rulers, squabbles, massacres and battles in the history of the Holy City. But one story lies slightly out side of Jerusalem it is about the man who kept Napoleon from capturing the city. The ruler, Ahmet Jazar Pasha, the Butcher, ruled by fear. He made a practice of cutting off portions of both his servants and his official’s bodies such as noses, hands and ears. He often gorged out an eye. The author writes, “His Jewish minister, Haim Farhi, ‘had been deprived of both an ear and an eye’ just to be sure. According to the author he was a former Bosnia slave raised in Egypt and finally a warlord in the Ottoman Empire.

For this posting, how the Butcher defeated Napoleon is not necessary. It is a long story. For this third Sunday of Advent, I am reminded of how, we all walk about with wounds. For most, not physical wounds, but there are other kinds, and many of them occur because of the warlord who has enthralled us or tried to enthrall us in his petty kingdom. But a greater than Napoleon has come, and is coming. He came as a small baby he will come again as ruling Lord. Jesus has defeated the enemies of his Great Kingdom on the cross, he is with us by the power of the Holy Spirit, and we with him. Jesus is coming and his kingdom will be great.

There will no longer be any curse; and the throne of the Lamb will be in it and his bond- servants will serve him; they will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads, and there will no longer be any night; and they will not have need of the light of a lamp nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God will illumine them; and they will reign forever and ever. (Rev. 22:3-5)

My thoughts on the Fellowship of Presbyterian's Theology paper

2011-12-09T11:12:00.000-08:00

The Fellowship of Presbyterians have posted their polity and theology drafts and asked for feed back. Although I have not joined the Fellowship I have been thinking and praying about it. And although I have just glanced at the polity paper, not my strongest area, I have carefully read the theology paper taking some notes as I read. I am sure I will read it several more times taking care as I write.

I believe the goodness of the future for Presbyterians, all kinds of Presbyterians, hangs about this paper and the polity one. I write this because God often works within the breadth of our longings and the longing of many Presbyterians today is that they might find a place of safety and succor in the midst of spiritual decadence, trivial objectives and cultural conformity. Even those of us who intend to stay within the PCUSA need the kind of structure and essentials offered here.

One of the things I did as I was reading was to mark a few quotes that I found weighty and profound. The next thing I did was to write out notes in several places where I felt the subject might be emphasized more, strengthened or clarified. Finally I have a couple of “high” praises.

The quotes:

“As subordinate standards, the confessions are not free-standing authorities. They are subject to the authority of Jesus Christ, the Word of God, who is known through Scripture, the word of God. Subordination to the Lord and to Scripture’s witness serves to locate confessional authority, however it does not diminish it. The confessions provide reliable guidance to our reading and reception of Scripture, protecting us from self-absorbed interpretation, and opening us to Christ’s way, Christ’s truth and Christ’s life.”( 4)

“Each of us enjoys God by being so united with Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit as to become a participant in the divine nature, transplanted from one degree of glory to another and escorted by Christ into the loving community of the Trinity.” (5)

“We glorify God by recognizing and receiving his authoritative self-revelation, both in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments and also in the incarnation of God the Son.” (5)

“The Spirit will never prompt our conscience to conclusions that are at odds with the Scriptures that he has inspired. The revelation of the incarnate Word does not minimize, or set aside the authority of the written Word.” (5)

“Apart from the saving work of Jesus Christ, we are incapable of being in God’s presence, incapable of bearing the weight of his glory. We rejoice that Jesus Christ offers us safe conduct into the heart of God’s purifying fire, shielding us with his perfect humanity and transforming us by his divine power. Having received such grace, we extend grace to others.” (7)

“He is locally present at the right hand of the Father. When we are promised that one day we will see him face to face, we acknowledge that it is the face of the Jesus of Nazareth we will someday see. …” (6)

I must say that I am extremely pleased with the care the three theologians took to affirm the Christian’s union with the bodily resurrected Christ. It can be found in many of the quotes.

As for a few suggestions here they are:

Under incarnation on page six it would be helpful to better clarify the importance of the person of Jesus Christ along side the excellent explanation of how the two natures of Christ are not merged. One of the great theological problems of today, especially among progressive theologians, is so dividing the natures that the eternal Word is disconnected from the humanity of Christ. His person gets torn apart. I am thinking here of a helpful quote by the Puritan pastor John Flavel, in his book The Fountain of Life:

The two natures being thus united in the person of the Mediator, by virtue thereof the properties of each nature are attributed, and do truly agree in the whole person; so that it is proper to say, the Lord of glory was crucified, 1Cor. 2:8, and the blood of God redeemed the church, Acts 20:28, that Christ was both in heaven and on the earth at the same time, John 3: 13. Yet we do not believe that one nature doth transfuse or impart its properties to the other or that it is proper to say the divine nature suffered, bled, or died; or the human is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent; but that the properties of both natures are ascribed to the person, that it is proper to affirm any of them of him in the concrete, though not abstractly. (56)

One other area that I wish was stronger is our redemption by Christ’s death on the cross. This is the great post-modern controversy of western Christianity. I like the way Richard Mouw spoke of it at the Fellowship Conference. He pointed out that when our view of sin is weak our views on Jesus’ death are neglected. In an age when radical feminists try to make the death of Christ 'child abuse,' we need a more vigorous understanding of the triune God’s redemptive action; we also for the same reason need a strong theologically clear view of the Trinity.

One other problem for me is this statement:

“God created human beings from the dust of the earth and his own breath, to be mediators between God and his creation, offering creation’s praise to God, channeling God’s grace to the creation.”(6)

There is only one mediator and he exists eternally. We are not mediators except by our union with Jesus Christ. It is always through him that anything is accomplished. The word “steward” fits beautifully. If we as creatures offer praise it is through the interceding work of our high priest, Jesus. If we offer grace to creation it is through the gracious work of Jesus. Always and ever, it is not our selves, but Jesus.

And then just this minor complaint: Please don’t use Tillich’s “ground of our being.” Most Orthodox believers know what is really meant when an orthodox writer uses the term, but Tillich meant it in a panentheistic manner—which means we are a part of God. That starts everything off on the wrong footing.

My praises:

I have high praise for the writers not bowing down to politically correct gender inclusive titles for references to God. On a minor note it means sentence structure is blessedly smooth and free. On a major note they are allowing God’s revelation of himself to speak. As Karl Barth put it, “We have not to draw our knowledge of who God is from what we think we know about eternity, infinity, omnipotence and invisibility as conceptions which bound our thought. On the contrary, we have to draw our knowledge of eternity, infinity, omnipotence and invisibility from what we can know about God, from what God has said to us about Himself.” [1]

I have high praise also for how the Fellowship have planned to draw all together in a friendship network that offers structure, fellowship, growth, care and discipline to each other. They do this with their section “Living in obedience to the Word of God.” Their list of 10 ways to be accountable is not unlike an outline of Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Life Together or the ancient orders of a Christian community.

Finally, I am always blessed when I see quotes I love. The introduction to the theology paper when referring to the Book of Confessions has this, “We have been guilty of what C. S. Lewis called ‘chronological snobbery, the uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate common to our age and the assumption that what ever has gone out of date is on that account discredited.’”I think this quote disqualifies so much of what I was reading on Tweeter about the Fellowship’s paper.[2] We must not throw away the goodness of the past but hold on to the faith delivered to our mothers and fathers.

[1] Karl Barth, The Knowledge Of God and the Service of God According to the Teaching of The Reformation, tran. By J.L. Haire and Ian Henderson, The Gifford Lectures Delivered in the University of Aberdeen in 1937 and 1938, (Great Britain: Charles Scribner's Sons 1939), 33.
[2] I want to emphasize that David Berge's tweets have been very helpful. See https://twitter.com/#!/David_Berge

A letter for Deidra Crosby who wrote about aneurysms & her dad

2011-12-07T23:06:00.000-08:00

Dear Deidra,

I read your sermon on the Outlook blog. At least I think it is a sermon because you ended it with an amen. But I couldn’t say amen with you. You wrote about unity but did not write about truth.

In the high priestly prayer of Jesus, in chapter 17 of the gospel of John, Jesus lifts up both unity and truth. Jesus prays, “Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.” Without truth there can be no sanctifying work which means being set apart by and for God—and the word of God written accomplishes that. The Holy Spirit opens our hearts and minds and reveals the truth of God’s word to us. There we find that Jesus is Lord and redeemer. Around his Lordship, in obedience to his word, in repentant humility we find unity.

You write that “An aneurysm is defined as an abnormal widening or ballooning of a portion of an artery due to weakness in the wall of the blood vessel,” and compare the actions of the Fellowship of Presbyterians to an aneurysm about to burst open.

My husband and I were with friends several years ago when the wife experienced a burst aneurysm in her brain. At first we did not know what was happening. She was talking when suddenly she threw her arm out and then began to draw her whole body, arms and legs, into a tight knot. Her husband held her as we called the emergency number. Later in the hospital we could hear her through-out the emergency ward as she moaned loudly over and over trying to gain consciousness. Of such events, she had the least chance of living, but she did live.

I thought of her when I read your sermon. Her aneurysm happened spreading blood where it should not have been. But neither burst blood vessel nor its cause, whatever it was, was the identity of my friend. Instead, suffering, and crying out, she fought for her life and won. My memories of her last days in the hospital are of her smile as her husband brought her favorite cat to spend the night.

The Fellowship of Presbyterians is not an aneurysm; instead they are the body, the body of Christ, reacting to an aneurysm. They are, as all Christians are, living stones, real people following Christ. Not a piece of bad tissue.

Sin has burst its banks among us: The vow of purity has been ignored, thus eliminating peace and unity. The authority of the written word of God is ignored. The authority of the living Word of God is mocked. As the Presbyterian denomination draws in upon itself, failing to acknowledge either sickness or need, the Fellowship, and others among us, are attempting to remedy the break. As Paul said of some who took communion unworthily in the Corinthian church, some are weak and others sick and some are even asleep.

For those of us within this weary, sinking denomination may God work through all of us to renew his people. May we all smile at the end of our time of sickness with the joy of the Lord.

In the Fellowship of Christ,

Viola

Thinking about a poem and God's good plans

2011-12-07T06:52:00.000-08:00

The poem “Do not go gently into that Good Night “by Dylan Thomas ended my last posting. That is a poem that has a very precise structure. The last lines are repeats in every other verse. “Rage, rage against the dying of the light,” alternates with “Do not go gentle into that good night.” I once wrote a poem that needed this kind of structure.

I had written a free form verse and it went all over the place without any distinct meaning. I knew what I wanted to say, but I was failing to say it. I have always loved the rhythm and rhyme scheme of Dylan’s poem so I took Dylan's poem and used it to shape my own sprawling mess. My poem took shape and in that shape had meaning. Sometimes the events of our Christian lives are like that. But it is slightly different.

All we see is the sprawl and the mess. But God as the author and keeper of our lives has formed the poem of our lives. We are walking in the midst of his plans but often cannot see his shaping. And we must understand that this is as true of those who suffer in such places as North Korea and among the totalitarian regimes of some Arab governments such as Saudi Arabia as here in the United States. In every place God’s words and promises are the same. Our lives are shaped for his glory and in that we have meaning and peace:

And we know that God causes all things to work for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to his purpose. (Romans 8:28)

Although I have posted my poem several times on my blog, I will add it again. For today, I mean it for all those in the midst of denominational struggles:

The Sweetness of Gathering to the Vine

The sweetness of gathering to the wine
is claimed by children resting in a tree
whose root became the food within the vine.

These, childlike made, they bless the cup and dine
upon the fleshy food they cannot see,
and drink the holy bloody wine.

Like sibling children fighting in a line,
who later laugh when by the bell set free,
these happy ones are laughing in the vine.

And raging gods whose deeds their shape confine[1]
have called for war, whose very end shall be
determined by the drinking of the wine.

Go death to death, the children life define;
now blood of saints and Christ's good blood agree
the holy life is living in the vine.

If nails be sharp pursuing flesh to pine,
and wooden burdens bend and bruise the knee,
feast on the broken flesh, drink up the wine;
hold fast the fellowship within the vine.

[1] This line is referring to demonic forces such as in Eph.6:12.

Threats of loss towards those who want to leave: seduction for all others

2011-12-04T14:38:00.000-08:00

Some might say that since I’m not leaving the PCUSA, I don’t have a dog in this fight— but I do, I’m tied forever to the Hound of Heaven.[1] And He keeps putting me in the strangest places. But I do not believe he will be putting me back in a church (Fremont) if its only members turn out to be those who care little for biblical Christology, the authority of Scripture and the confessions of the church. I will not be a part of those who offer no help to those caught in sinful sexual lifestyles but instead want to ordain them. That would not be standing with Jesus; it would not be caring for hurting sheep.

But there are some at Fremont Presbyterian Church who obviously think I would come back if they were the ones who got to keep the church property. Four Sundays ago coming home from a different Presbyterian church, we stopped for breakfast at a restaurant. It was new to us since it was in a different neighborhood. As we left, one of the ladies from Fremont, who had voted not to leave the PCUSA, was sitting with her husband waiting to be seated. I went over to say hello and was surprised by our conversation.

When I told her we were visiting different churches to find a home when Fremont leaves, she said that we should stay at Fremont because the Presbytery was going to give the church to those who voted not to leave the PCUSA. When I asked her how she knew this (The negotiating teams had not met yet) she told me that the Executive Presbyter had told her.

When I returned home I sent an e-mail off to the Executive Presbyter asking if this was true. I asked him if he had told the lady that those who voted "No" would be given the property. He replied, "I have said that the property is an issue for the negotiating teams and the Presbytery to determine. The Presbytery could determine that the faithful remnant can maintain a healthy mission with the property. Could, not would, is the key word. This is the negotiation teams ' responsibility, and I am simply interpreting polity."

This is all to say that Saturday night, returning home from out of town, there was a letter in our mail box from the Presbytery of Sacramento. It was divided; the first part was from all who signed the letter, 22 people altogether.

The next was from the Presbytery’s negotiation team giving “facts” about how dire the voting had been [it was actually 427 to leave and 164 to stay] including the fact that they had been “contacted by a group of Fremonters who wish to remain in the PCUSA. As allowed for by our Constitution (Section G-4.0207 of the Book of Order), They have requested that we consider dismissing those who want to go to the EPC, but leaving the property in the PCUSA.”

Next are words from the Faithful Fremont Fellowship. (That is what a small group of those who voted ‘No’ are calling themselves.) They are attempting to pull in more people so they can convince the Presbytery that they would make “up a strong and viable PCUSA church.” They suggest that many members who voted to leave will change their mind, that many who did not vote will stay.

Their invitation, like the lady in the restaurant, whose name, is also on the letter, was “come and join us.” They think that I and many other members will join them.

And finally there was the part from the Executive Presbyter, which included:

I have been in the position of transitional Presbyter since May 2011. One of my roles is to be a pastor to the Presbytery. In that role, I have talked with the Fremont pastors and offered my support. I also made myself available to any members of Fremont who may need pastoral or spiritual support in this time of transition.

The biggest problem with all of this is that it all came in the same letter with the Presbytery's letterhead. And as a friend in another Presbytery wrote, “the horrific part is that they are all in cahoots: discernment team, Presbyter, and the FFF?”

This is my suggestion for members of Fremont:

If you don’t feel led to leave the PCUSA at this time, find another PCUSA Church, but for the sake of Christ do not aid the people who joined up with the Presbytery to make sure they get to keep church property. Instead listen to my story:

At least twenty years ago my husband Brad and I found Fremont. We walked in on a lovely Sunday Jazz morning; the music was great and best of all Darrell Johnson was preaching. He was preaching the pure word of God and we loved it. And then we went to a Sunday school class where the lady, a professor, was supposedly teaching about various Churches and Church history. She taught that doctrine, the Trinity and the deity of Christ were not important.

Another teacher, a former pastor and missionary, taught on the Nicene Creed without once mentioning Arianism or the deity of Christ. Our pastor, Darrell Johnson, was constantly harassed by members—they would send him letters saying he was preaching about Jesus too much.

Even later, after we joined, as I began teaching on new religions, in a class on the occultic Anthroposophical Society of Rudolf Steiner a lady stood up and spoke nearly ten minutes defending Steiner’s religion and schools. Later, privately, I asked her, "Didn’t she want the Steiner people to know the true Christ?" She stated that what they believed was truth for them. Her name is also on the letter.

So why am I writing this story?

Darrell Johnson, when he took a new position, left behind a growing group of reformed Christians who held to biblical Christology and the authority of God’s word. Many people who grew up in Fremont, who had not really experienced a relationship with Jesus Christ began loving Jesus and owning him as Lord. Many others, who were orthodox, found at Fremont, a wonderful place to grow in Christ. And many more, new to the church, found Jesus Christ.

If the people on the letter’s list are given the church property, Fremont will probably return to its yesteryears. Its theology will revert to a diversity of theologies that are tolerant of all except those who uphold Jesus as the only unique Savior, the one who is both fully human and fully God. And as I stated above, its "members will turn out to be those who care little for biblical Christology, the authority of Scripture and the confessions of the church." They will certainly care little for biblical sexual morality.

There is a famous poem by Dylan Thomas, “Do not go gentle into that good night.” It was written to his father as his father lay dying. It was not a Christian poem. The line “Rage, Rage against the dying of the light,” is repeated three times in the poem. But the Christian knows true light that will never die, so do not rage but do not be unwise either. Do not agree to the seduction. Do not put yourself in that place where you help to snuff out the light of a vibrant church.

[1] See The Hound of Heaven by Francis Thompson http://www.houndsofheaven.com/thepoem.htm

Just a song-the second Sunday of Advent

2011-12-04T07:29:00.000-08:00

A song for the second Sunday of Advent:

A meeting of sorts

2011-12-01T23:18:00.000-08:00

He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

So what did the people do that Micah is speaking to. They used unjust weights so as to cheat the poor. They were violent and they lied. But God describes their sin in large letters when he states through the prophet Micah that, “The statues of Omn and all the works of the house of Ahab are observed and in all their devices you walk.” (Micah 6:16)

I have been trying to think how to write it …
Impossible, that verse they are always quoting
Micah 6:8-his word, but is it really heard.

Omn and Ahab brought false fertility gods into the land of Israel. But the greatest sin of all was cheating someone out of their property. As the writers of the Tyndale commentary puts it, “Omri and Ahab, who lived more than a century before Micah, have become legendary and serve as a paradigm of apostasy (cf. 1 Ki. 16:30-33), turpitude, cupidity and injustice (cf. 1 Ki. 21). Ahab’s swindling and exhorting of property from others is in view here.”

He came last. The meeting was over. The pastor’s complaint and sorrow was of the insults uttered around him—I suppose toward those who were speaking. They even swore and said those churches had screwed them.
He stands at the door knocking—we should let him in.

In the Old Testament three sins are always the cause of Israel’s judgment; they seem to circle around each other.

Idolatry—the worship of other gods which includes the self
Sexual sin—perverseness that allows the self to flaunt the word of God
Greed—hoarding and spending what belongs to someone else

Carefully, some would say carelessly, I choose my words, winter is ahead, few will walk together in the cold wind, only Christ will give us warmth. Only in Him will love of his people grow.

God’s gifts are many but his wrath is also in the midst of a people’s persistent sin. It is he who purifies the church. Barth reminded the church of his day, the German Church, that God could take their candle away just as he took away the candle of the North African Church in Augustine’s day.

Critiquing the theologies and connections of some pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel leaders: a series # 3

2011-12-01T01:27:00.000-08:00

Stephen Sizer: A warrior against Christian Zionism

This is my third and final posting on Stephen Sizer: A warrior against Christian Zionism. Sizer is the first person I have looked at in my series: Critiquing the theologies and connections of some pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel leaders: a series. I have been looking at his “Seven Biblical Answers to Popular Zionist Assumptions,” critiquing both the assumptions and his analysis of them. In this posting I will look at the last two assumptions and then explain how Sizer’s analysis is shaped and colored by his links to anti-Semitic individuals.

The 6th Christian Zionist assumption is:

6. Believers will soon be ‘raptured’ to heaven before the ‘end-time’ battle of Armageddon

Skipping Sizer’s comments for just a moment, I want to look at everything that is being said in that sentence.

1. Something having to do with the Lord’s coming is going to happen very soon.
2. The saints will be “raptured” away before the sinners are judged.
3. There will be an end time battle called the battle of Armageddon

I agree with Sizer “The Bible is emphatic: the return of Jesus will be personal, sudden, public, visible and glorious,” but there is so much more to be said. He uses Matthew 24-30-31 and 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 to explain his beliefs about the second coming of Christ. He uses Matthew 24:40-41 and Luke 17:34-35 as well as Matthew 13 to critique the Christian Zionist assumption. But after his critique Sizer does an interesting thing. Sizer quotes Revelation 22:1-2:

Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.

Before the quote he writes, “…however we understand the vivid apocalyptic language of Daniel, Matthew and Revelation, we must hold onto the clear vision of the future of Paradise restored and the nations reconciled in Christ.” and afterwards he writes, “Our mandate is to be peacemakers not widow makers (Matthew 5:3-10). We are ‘God’s co-workers’ entrusted as ambassadors with a ministry of reconciliation not speculation (2 Corinthians 5:11-6:2).

So actually Sizer’s biggest complaint it seems to me is with the “Left Behind” series of books and their view of an end time final battle which is very human centered. But what the Christian really needs is a biblical understanding that all of Scripture including Daniel, Matthew and Revelation is God’s revelation of his purposes and plans. And when one looks at all three of the Bible books Sizer mentions one sees circles of pictures of what God is doing in relation to the nations, the unrepentant and most of all the Church. And the Jews are there too, always as God’s sign to the nations.

There is human evil (an unrelenting occurrence in history), the tribulation of the saints, (an unrelenting occurrence in history) the historical triumphs and horrible devastations aimed at Judah, (an unrelenting occurrence in history), the redemptive activity of God (an unrelenting occurrence in history) and the judgment of God (an unrelenting occurrence in history.) But there may be a final Cataclysm occurrence of all toward the end of human history as we know it- but always it is God’s victory in Jesus Christ which he has already secured.

More importantly, we cannot forget the judgment of God. No, we are not called to be widow makers but we cannot forget or lightly pass over, in the light of God’s great and costly redemption in Christ, the judgment of God. And we must, as all Christians have down the ages, look for the soon return of Christ. After all in light of eternity Christ’s second coming is always near at hand.

The last Christian Zionist’s assumption is:

7. God has a separate plan for the Jewish people apart from the Church

This is the crucial part of Sizer’s theology. And it is only fair to say that many Reformed pastors and theologians have disagreed with Christian Zionists just at this point. For some, including Sizer, the Jews, out side of Christ, simply disappear and are no longer important to God as a separate people. Sizer’s views, however, merge with a troubling anti-Semitism. While he believes God no longer has anything to do with the Jews, Sizer spends a great deal of time dealing with the Jews including linking his ministry to many who malign, defame, and wish for the destruction of the Jews.

But there are other Reformed theologians who disagree with Sizer’s position. The important thing to note here is that almost no Evangelical/Reformed theologian is stating that the Jewish people do not need Jesus. Instead they are insisting that God does not and will not, in human history, let go of the people he has called, made promises too, given the law to and blessed the world through the birth of his eternal Son.

Sizer, using Eph. 2:11-16, writes that “we see that God has only ever had one inclusive people, identified on the basis of faith not race.” Yet, while it is true that those people in a relationship with God are always defined by faith in both the New and Old Testament, there is in the Hebrew Bible a people defined by God’s choosing and they are also defined by ethnicity, they are descendents of Abraham. Yes, other peoples were included among the ancient Israelites, but they became a part of the Jewish ethnicity—they did not continue to exist as a separate people. And so Jesus, who certainly considered himself a Jew, had several ancestors who were of another nation.

It isn’t that the nation of Israel is better than any other people; it is rather that God chose them and he chose them for a purpose. In the Old Testament the chosen are defined by both faith and ethnicity. In the New Testament God’s people are defined by faith and it is a faith that pulls in all of the faithful of the Old Testament. But it does not cancel out God’s dealings with the Jews. I have already quoted Romans 11:28-29.

From the stand point of the Gospel they [the Jews] are enemies for your sake, but from the stand point of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable.

And as F.F. Bruce will insist, for Paul, the Jews are forever in the heart of God, he sees them embracing Christ as a whole people-perhaps right before the coming of Jesus Christ. Bruce writes:

When the full tale of believing Gentiles was made up – then all Israel, not only a faithful remnant but the nation as a whole, would see the salvation of God. If their temporary stumbling was prophetically foretold, so was their ultimate and permanent restoration. The new covenant will not be complete until it embraces the people of the old covenant. Temporarily alienated for the advantage of the Gentiles, they are eternally the object of God’s electing love because his promises, once made to the patriarchs, can never be revoked.

If one looks carefully at this thought there is the understanding that the Jewish people are ever in the mind of God as he waits for their embrace of the Messiah. If this is so those who put them aside in the name of the Gospel, teaching that the Jews are no longer nor were ever the chosen may wander off onto a few dark corners. And this is often true in the practical out workings of those who align themselves with only one side of the Middle East conflicts. Sizer’s Christianity is undoubtedly evangelical but he has put some of his luggage into the tents of both right wing and left wing anti-Semites.

Many years ago I became acquainted with a man who was what is called a historical revisionist. That is someone who denies the Holocaust, the death of 6, 000,000 Jews in the concentration camps of the Nazis. He had spoken on a Christian radio station and afterwards we had a very long conversation via the telephone. His name is Gordon Ginn and you can find books by him at the book store of We Hold These Truths and Strait Gate Ministries headed by Charles E. Carlson an anti-Semite who pickets Churches aligned with Christian Zionists. Stephen Sizer quoted Carlson as through he was just an ordinary Evangelical whose views are important.

When I saw the article, “Is Zionism losing ground among Evangelicals,” I was shocked to find Carlson’s quote:

The poll results state that 73% of those polled think "God's covenant with the Jewish people" continues today, and only 22% say it does not. It should be noted here that this is a Judeo-Christian give-away, since it is based on a false premise. The Pew Forum and all Evangelicals need to understand that there never was an Old Testament covenant with "the Jewish people." Most Evangelicals, radical or moderate, fail to properly distinguish the ancient tribe of Israelites from the Jews of today, and in particular, the Jewish inhabitants of the modern secular Jewish state of Israel. This error is the result of scriptural distortion that is encouraged by the State of Israel and its lobbies in the USA, and by the Israel-friendly press.

I wrote to Sizer explaining who Carlson was. He never replied. He undoubtedly already knew who Carlson was; it is I who did not know who Sizer was. And neither do many evangelicals who endorse his books and speak at the same conferences he speaks at such as Christ at the Checkpoint.

Sizer has several times been interviewed on Press TV the official news of Iran whose president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, also denies the Holocaust. On Iran’s Press TV, broadcast from London, Sizer is interviewed by Alan Hart. Hart is another anti-Semite who writes for Veterans Today a vile anti-Semitic site who’s Editor, Gordon Duff, believes that Israel was involved in 9-11. He has also been interviewed by Viva Palestina Malaysia. In one interview Sizer attempts to explain Zionism:

We have to go back to the 19th century and recognize that Britain, France and Germany were colonizing much of the world in our various empires and we were placing our countrymen into various parts of the world and creating colonies—Uganda, Tanzania, Kenya, South Africa, just some of the colonies we created in Africa and we need to see Israel along these lines, an ethnically pure European people who would work with the British in expanding our empire—we need their support to feed the Ottomans. And therefore we promised them a homeland in our empire and so the idea of Zionism goes back to empire building, colonialism and the concept of ethnically pure races so it’s a form of racism.

Sizer knows nothing about the true beginnings of Zionism. Zionism begins with the Jews of Europe and their needs. And they were Jews, not an ethically pure European people. Sadly, Sizer while upholding some evangelical truths drifts away from the kind of connections that envelop the practical out-workings of Christian faith.

I began this series with Sizer as a means of sorting out a stronger stance for Reformed Christians in the stand against anti-Semitism as it grows in mainline denominations and now in evangelical churches. Sizer is conservative in many areas of his faith. As I move on to other pastors and theologians I will look at the more liberal positions including Palestinian liberation theology. Although it is important to note that the right and the left are beginning to join forces. I will post more on this series next week.

Critiquing the theologies and connections of some pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel leaders: a series # 2

2011-11-28T21:59:00.000-08:00

Stephen Sizer: A warrior against Christian Zionism

This is a continuation of my analysis of Stephen Sizer’s paper, “Seven Biblical Answers to Popular Zionist’s Assumptions." Sizer whose specialty is critiquing Christian Zionism is a popular speaker at pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel conferences such as Christ at the Checkpoint. He is the first person whose theology I am analyzing with my series Critiquing the theologies and connections of some pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel leaders: a series # 1. With this posting I will look at the next three Christian Zionist’s assumptions that Sizer lists and critiques. This is my response to both the assumptions and Sizer’s critique. Continuing from the last posting the third assumption is:

3. The Promised Land was given by God to the Jewish people as an everlasting inheritance.

Sizer uses Ezekiel 33:24-26, 28-29, 47:21-23 and Hebrews 11:9-10, 39-40 to refute the assumption. Sizer’s first thought on this is “Contrary to popular assumption, the Scriptures repeatedly insist that the land belongs to God and that residence is always conditional.” He is not wrong, that is scriptural, Ezekiel 33:24-26. But his thoughts are too wooden. It is God’s land, but it is also, because it has been given, land that belongs to the ancient Israelites. Truth told, all that any of us own belongs to God, and when we misuse it God may meet us in judgment. So it isn’t a case of either or, but of both.

Like the above there are all kinds of category problems in Sizer’s thinking. The ancient land of Israel was God’s but he did give it as an inheritance to the Israelites. Yes it did depend on a covenant and the obedience of the people, but it was given to Israel not to another ethnic group. Yes, God told the Israelites “to allot it [the land] as an inheritance for yourselves and for the foreigners residing among you and who have children. You are to consider them as native-born Israelites; along with you they are to be allotted an inheritance among the tribes of Israel.” But that was nonetheless based on God’s gift of land to the ancient Israelites and not to another people. The verse does not prove that God didn’t give them the land.

Sizer also uses the New Testament book of Hebrews to prove that the ultimate goal of Abraham was not the land but a spiritual relationship with God. He writes, “Indeed, the writer to Hebrews explains that the land was never their ultimate desire or inheritance any way but a temporary residence until the coming of Jesus Christ.” This is true, the land was not their ultimate desire, but the text states that they lived in tents “in the promised land.” Abraham longed for the City without foundations but he nevertheless lived in the land promised to his descendents. This too is not an either or, it is both. The Promised Land does not necessarily end with the first coming of Jesus Christ, although he is the fulfillment of the promises.

In fact, we as Christians have many promises and gifts now, but it is the Lord himself that we desire. It is our eternal relationship with him that we value and we give up all, in order to gain him. But still that does not cancel out his promises or gifts, or as C.S. Lewis called them “many pleasant inns.”

The truth of the matter is that in later Jewish tradition “the celestial Jerusalem was shown in a vision to Abraham at the scene of Gn 15 9-21 (Apoc. Bar. 4 4).” [1] Both Judaism and Christianity claim earthly promises and a final new heaven and new earth. Sizer’s category mistakes are abundant.

Having shown where Sizer fails, I will now suggest that God has graciously placed the Jewish people back in their ancient homeland today. I do not think as Christians we can tie any prophecy to the event except to say God is gracious to his people, the Jews. Nor, can we predict the future for the modern State of Israel. But what we must do as Christians towards the Jews, including the State of Israel, is love, treat them fairly, have humility in the face of our past wrongs and stand against any anti-Semitism which includes post-modern anti-Zionism. This includes telling the truth about the history of the State of Israel including the sins of both sides.

The 4th Christian Zionist assumption is:

4. Jerusalem is the exclusive and undivided, eternal Capital of the Jewish people.

First we should look at this from the Jewish point of view. The Jewish State of Israel undoubtedly wants Jerusalem as its capital. That is understandable. Whether it is possible, and how it can be fairly accomplished is another question. On one side there are issues of Israel’s defense, and on the other fairness to Islamic and Christian citizens. These are complex issues that must eventually be worked out but they are not, from a Reformed position, worked out in Scripture.

The Western Christian has no right, on biblical grounds, to insist on Jerusalem as an undivided Capital of the Jewish people. The Western Christian has no right, on biblical grounds, to insist that Jerusalem should not be an undivided Jewish Capital. We belong to a heavenly Jerusalem and a heavenly King who will return. The physical city of Jerusalem is not ours, it does not figure into the promises that God has given us.

But Sizer while holding the traditional Christian view that we belong to a heavenly Jerusalem, insists on saying what a Jewish State should do about its ancient Holy City. He simply cannot have it both ways. Sizer quotes Psalm 87. If he sees in the Psalm a picture of the Church, as I do, then he cannot lay that picture over the ancient city of Jerusalem. He can only make God’s love for the ancient city a picture of the Father’s love for those who reside in Jesus. Today the real issues are about fairness and safety, security and even history.

The fifth assumption is:

5. The Jewish Temple must be rebuilt before Jesus returns.

To be fair, I need to point out that in most cases this is not a true statement of what Christian Zionists believe. Victor Styrsky is a friend of mine. He is a Christian Zionist who works with and for John Hagee. While we disagree on a lot, what he has written in his book, Honest to God: Christian Zionists Confront 10 Questions Jews Need Answered, shows that that 5th assumption is wrong. Styrsky writes:

Evangelicals [insert Christian Zionists here] have no eschatological teaching (End of Days theology) that requires all Jews to be back in the land of Israel for a Messianic visitation. Neither do evangelical Christians believe that there is anything we can do to hasten the return (or first visit, as my Jewish friends believe) of Messiah.

Evangelical Christian theology concerning the coming of Messiah is fairly unified on the following points:

1. A date for the event has already been secured.
2. Only God the Father knows the time.
3. The coming Messiah is imminent.

The assumption Sizer has listed is not correct. But I need to add something more which my friend, Styrsky, may or may not agree with. Biblically, for the Christian, a Temple does not to be built at all. Jesus Christ is the temple and the sacrifice as well as the high Priest. And he is perfect in all of those ways. The Jews may build a Temple but it does not affect what God has planned. The temple and the sacrifices were a shadow of what God was doing. They were a promise of the coming Messiah, his life, death and resurrection. The Jews, in faithfulness looked toward the promises. We look back to their fulfillment in Christ.

So here is a good thing about Christian Zionists. They are not doing what they are doing to fulfill prophecy but because they love the Jews. Even when I disagree with their theology, I respect their motives. Sizer quotes 1 Peter 2:5-7, a beautiful verse “you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” But I must say that part of that offering of spiritual sacrifices to God means truthfulness and humility.

In my next posting I will look at the last two Christian Zionists assumptions, Sizer’s critique of them and his connections to the wider world of anti-Semitism.

[1] Found in The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the old and New Testaments: A Critical and exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, James Moffatt, later edition, (Edinburgh: T.& T. Clark 1963) 170.

Critiquing the theologies and connections of some pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel leaders: a series # 1

2011-11-26T22:28:00.000-08:00

I am beginning a series that will focus on those Christian writers and speakers who are currently involved in pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel organizations, conferences, films and in many cases have written books. I am writing this series for several reasons. It is now clear that several well known Reformed and Evangelical pastors and leaders have begun circulating within these conferences as speakers themselves.

Undoubtedly some neither understand the theological implications nor do they grasp some of the more anti-Semitic connections that they are involved in. Besides the first concern is the sorrow of watching this movement grow within my own denomination, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). My focus will be on the theological views of various leaders within the movement but at the end of each analysis of an author I will, if necessary, point out their connections to the wider world of anti-Semitism.

I am writing this, not as a Christian Zionist, but as Reformed and Evangelical. I invite my friends who are Christian Zionist to comment and correct me if I misunderstand their biblical or even political positions. I also invite my Jewish friends to speak up if I misunderstand a Jewish position. Actually I invite all to comment as long as there are no insults tossed about.

My first posting is on Vicar Stephen Sizer of Christ Church in the United Kingdom. It will take several postings to both look at his theology and his connections.

Stephen Sizer: A warrior against Christian Zionism

Stephen Sizer, an Anglican priest in the United Kingdom is a frequent speaker at pro-Palestine, anti-Israel and anti-Zionists conferences. He has written several books on Christian Zionism his latest being, Zion’s Christian Soldiers. Sizer has been accused, by several bloggers, of connections with anti-Semites and even Holocaust deniers. I in fact put an endnote on a posting that he had linked to Holocaust denier, Charles Carlson at Strait Gate ministries in one of his postings. While Sizer is not a Holocaust denier himself, it is important to critique his theology, as it relates to Israel, since he is adversely influenced by some anti-Semitic ideas and in turn influences a small cluster of evangelicals.

As I have pointed out Sizer’s theological thrust is toward critiquing Christian Zionism and he does so from an evangelical position finding it’s teaching heretical. I, on the other hand, coming from a Reformed and Evangelical position, disagree with much of Christian Zionism while also disagreeing with Sizer’s position on Israel and even more so his poor opinions of the Jews and the Old Testament. While he finds Christ in the Old Testament he pours scorn on the history of the Jews in this manner:

In the second Millennium BC, the place to live was called Canaan. The estate agents described it as “a land flowing with milk and honey”. After 400 years in Egypt and another 70 wandering around in the desert, God’s people were keen to muscle in on the Promised Land. They would literally kill for it. They promised God and Joshua, everything under the sun if they could just get their hands on it.

Because Sizer has posted an article “Seven Biblical Answers to Popular Zionist Assumptions,” which he states is taken from his latest book, Zion's Christian Soldiers. I will critique his article.

The biggest problem with Sizer’s article is not what he states but what he leaves out. The first Christian Zionist' assumption is:

1. God blesses those who bless Israel and curses those who curse Israel

Quoting, Genesis 12:2-3 & 22:17-18 with Eph. 2:8-9, Sizer makes three points against the assumption. The first is that God is only referring to Abraham not to those descendants who follow him. Secondly in the New Testament the promise is fulfilled in Jesus Christ and in those who receive him by faith, since it is not by works but by faith that we are saved.

Sizer also quotes Gal. 3:16, 28-29 to show that the word seed, as in the seed or descendant of Abraham, is singular pointing to Jesus Christ. In other words in Jesus Christ, the seed of Abraham, all the nations will be blessed.

And Paul makes it clear with Gal. 3:16, 28-29, that Jesus fulfills the promises given to Abraham. But, consider, it is the Jews, the children of Abraham that bless the nations with Jesus the fulfillment of the promise. And Jesus tells the Samaritan woman at the well, “Salvation is from the Jews.” (John 4:22b) The problem with both the Christian Zionists and Sizer is that they both leave out part of the biblical picture. The Zionist seemingly divorce the completeness of the promise, which in reality covers the New Testament believers who see the promise fulfilled, and the Old Testament believers who look forward to the promise fulfilled.

But Sizer is far worse; he cuts the Old Testament off from the New. It is as though he takes the scissors and cuts away only that material that pertains to Jesus in prophecy, typology and analogy. What Sizer ignores is God's active blessing of the very people from which Jesus descended. He does not take their history seriously. In a sense, Sizer is removing the humanity of Jesus by maligning the history of his people.

There cannot be a fulfillment if there is not in reality a physical nation with an important history that descends from Abraham. That nation is important and is God’s work in history. There is a promise of land to Abraham, (see Genesis 15:18), which is maintained through his descendant's faith and obedience to God. Likewise there is a promise of blessing and cursing for the Jewish people. One sees this when God uses pagan nations to punish Israel and then punishes the pagan nation because of their misuse of Israel. These: the land and blessings must be considered the material blessings of God. My disagreement with Christian Zionists is that land and blessing have anything at all to do with the future promises of God. The ethical position the Christian must hold toward the Jewish people both in Israel and elsewhere is love, fairness, truthfulness and humility

On the other hand, those who belong to Jesus Christ have far greater promises than this particular promise to a single chosen ethnic people. And those promises of salvation, eternity and union with Jesus Christ extend to both Jew and Gentile, but always through Christ. But this brings up the next assumption. That is:

2. The Jewish People are God’s “chosen people”

For Old Testament references, Sizer uses Deuteronomy 23:7-8; Psalm 87:4-6; Isaiah 56:3-7. For the New Testament he uses Romans 2:28-29, Roman’s 9:6-8 and Col. 3:11-12. And once again Sizer lifts up some truth. He writes, “Both Hebrew and Christian Scriptures insist membership of God’s people is open to all races on the basis of grace through faith.” That is the gospel. But then he goes on to state, “When the Lord Jesus died on the cross he was the sole remnant of Israel.” Now here is where there is a real problem for Christians and it is simply a matter of confusion. Both Christians and Jews, who have received Christ as their Savior, are spiritual Israel. They have been grafted into the root of the faithful of the Hebrew Bible.

But there is still a physical Israel disconnected from Christianity but nonetheless not forgotten by God. Although Sizer may quote Romans 2:28-29, “A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God,” he has not proved that Israel has no more importance to God. With this verse Sizer has not proven that the Jews are not chosen.

This understanding of circumcision is found in the Old Testament. Except for the Philistines, all of the nations around Israel were circumcised, but they were not in covenant with Yahweh. Neither did they adore him inwardly. Paul is not saying something new; instead he is using the Hebrew Bible to insist that there is no need for the Gentiles to be circumcised.

F.F. Bruce, a Reformed theologian, in the Tyndale Commentary on Romans, points out that Paul, after stating the above “imagines someone breaking into his argument and saying, “will then, if it is being a Jew inwardly that counts, … is there any advantage in belonging to the Jewish nation, or in being physically circumcised?” And Bruce writes that we can be surprised at Paul’s answer.

The answer is, “much in every way.” And why is that? Paul writes, “Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.” And Bruce in his comment states, “Of course it is an advantage to belong to the circumcised nation. Think of all the privileges granted by God to that nation – privileges in which other nations had no part.” Bruce in a note adds that further privileges are listed in Romans 9:4-5. That is, “…to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.”

So are the Jews as an ethnic people chosen? Here again Paul, in Romans, gives an answer. He writes:

From the standpoint of the gospel they [the Jews] are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable.” (11:28-2)

Jesus, when speaking to the Samaritan woman at the well, counters her argument that the Samaritans worship on a mountain, with the truth that the Jews who worship in the Temple know who they worship and that salvation is from the Jews. (John 4:22) But Jesus further reminds her that the time is coming and now is, when true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth. Jesus does not divorce his people the Jews; instead he points his followers to himself the one rooted by his humanity in the Jewish nation.

In my next posting I will look at the next several assumptions, two, like Sizer, I fervently disagree with, however I with the same fervency disagree with his solution.

The goodness of the gospel

2011-11-23T22:40:00.000-08:00

For Thanksgiving here is a truly beautiful piece of music. And not only is the music beautiful but the video is beautiful. Someone has taken the time to highlight various instrumentalist as they play.

Plus remember as you listen that this was background music to a movie that captured the goodness of the gospel as South American indigenousness peoples came to Christ through their love of music. It was also a movie about the evil of those who wanted slaves rather then righteousness. The selfishness of humanity was willing to tear apart peoples, missions, even buildings to have their own way rather than God's way.

And yet, God's way, Jesus Christ, has gained the victory already, on the cross, out of the tomb, in the lives of his own, and at last in His final coming.

Forgetting Tom Paine: the word, temptation and Bonhoeffer

2011-11-23T00:25:00.000-08:00

In this season of flux, and for some despair, I am truly thankful for God’s word. I started to write about Tom Paine’s posting “Biblical Authority,” but it seems so unimportant at the moment. Sure it is easy to refute his thought that the writers of Scripture were inspired, after all most who read Scripture from an orthodox position know that it is the word that is inspired not, as Paine states, the writers. Men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke the word of God, or so Peter tells his readers. Or, all Scripture is inspired by God, Paul states. It is God’s word, the living word and although it contains mountains and valleys they all speak God’s truthful word to us. But all the other things have been hashed out so many times-it is enough. Tonight I have been reading Bonhoeffer.

I just received a book I ordered, Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Theological Education: 1937-1940. It is from a series, Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works, Vol. 15. The book, tome really, is filled with letters by Bonhoeffer to his Finkenwalde students after the seminaries were closed by the Gestapo. There are Bible study outlines, sermon notes, and so many letters as well as studies on such words as joy and temptation. And temptation is one of the important subjects in the letters written at the time. As the editor to the English Edition points out, the former students of Finkenwalde and other Confessing seminaries were deeply bothered by temptation.

The seminaries were developed by the Confessing Churches and their Councils of Brethren to help those called to ministry receive a proper education without being infected by the German Christians who at the time had taken over the official seminaries. But even at the beginning there were problems. The seminarians knew that they could not be ordained in the proper way. So they would have to rely on the Council of Brethren to ordain them and the Confessing Churches to use and pay them. And then the German Christians stepped in with the larger temptation. They would ordain them if they would come under the official consistories and take the exams given by the German Christians.

The temptation became greater when the Gestapo closed the Confessing Seminaries. Afterwards to be an unofficial pastor meant great risk. The first letter from Bonhoeffer that one reads to the former students mentions that four of them were in prison. Some of them stood strong. But not all.

In a letter to the “Young Brothers in Pomerania,” Bonhoeffer, writing of the earlier joy and unity of the Confessing Church, writes:

… but what made us joyful and ready to fight and, perhaps even prepared to suffer was one thing, namely, that we knew again that a life with Jesus Christ and his church is worth the whole effort. We believed that in the Confessing Church we not only had found the church of Jesus Christ but through God’s great goodness had actually experienced it. A new life under God’s joy-giving word began for individuals, for pastors and congregations. If only God’s word was among us then we no longer wanted to be afraid and worried about the future. With this word we were willing to pass through struggle, through suffering, through poverty, through sin, and through death to fully reach God’s eternal kingdom. Young people and fathers of large families stood here side by side. What was it at the time that united and fortified us with such gladness? It was the one and ancient realization, given to us once more by God himself, that among us Jesus Christ wishes to build his church, which lives solely from the preaching of the pure, unadulterated gospel and by the grace of the sacraments, and which in its actions is obedient solely to him. Christ wishes to hold fast to such a church; he wants to protect and lead such a church. Only such a church is permitted to be free of all fear. (29-30)

Christ will hold fast to his people.

Some family blogs for Thanksgiving week

2011-11-20T21:40:00.000-08:00

This is a time of thankfulness, and to begin my week of thankfulness I am going to feature some family blogs. Some I have featured before and some are new.

A very new blog is one just started by my niece, Kristen, "City Girl Gone Ranch Mama." Kristen lives with her husband and four children in the very wild and cold reaches of Montana on a guest ranch. Her husband is the General Manager of the ranch. She is an excellent writer and I believe you will enjoy her hair-raising stories. The first covers a lot of snow-or is it the snow covers a lot of ground.

Kristen's brother Wes Andersen, on the other hand, has a blog that he has maintained for a long time. If you remember and know of the comic strip Mary Worth and like satire you will enjoy this one. It is called "Mary Worth and Me," and the best thing to do is explore it.

Another blog written by my grandson, Ethan McHenry, is "Ducks with hats." Ethan is in his second year at California Maritime Academy part of the California university system, but a university which teaches both the piloting of and the engineering on ships. (And I have a feeling my grandson is going to laugh at that sentence.) You can watch a news video about it on his front page. Ethan is a great photographer so go through the postings with an eye on his pictures. But read them too.

And finally, there is the blog of my granddaughter Melissa, the granddaughter who is an artist and writer. "A Freeform Life" is a blog, Melissa started sometime before she and her husband, Spencer, attempted to relocate to New York City. God seemed to have other plans but they had a great cross country trip, until they got to New York. They now are again living in Sacramento, raising chickens (three) and thinking about farming-well Melissa is... anyway enjoy because Melissa is such a great writer.

In fact, here is a paragraph from her last posting, "I meant it! but I am a heartless meany" :

Spence and I ordered the Saint James Daily Devotional Guide, [that is what I use] and it finally came a week ago, but the devotions don’t start until December 4th. I am itching to get at that thing. Even though Spence and I met at a Bible study, and used to host one at our house some years ago, we’ve never done a devotional or study just the two of us. It sounds so nice to sit together and read that Good Book. It’s fun to read any book as a couple, to laugh at the same funny spots and commentate on it to each other. But it’s extra nice to talk about Jesus and His book, and laugh at it’s funny spots (“Hey, I’m alive again–and look, I made you breakfast”), and ponder over the troubling ones together too. Cause He’s the third party of our marriage, and our best friend, and our King, though we ignore Him half the time to our own detriment.

Morality & reason: what is Noushin Framke really saying?

2011-11-18T15:08:00.000-08:00

Morality and reason, the two are linked in incalculable ways. But too often in the name of reason morality is flung out the door. And although I believe, as a Christian, that it is both the word of God and the Holy Spirit that draws the individual up out of the morass and shows them the reasonableness of righteous behavior, warning when evil is being called good and good evil, still reason and morality do work together. And this problem of morality and reason is also mixed with the issues that surround the Middle East conflict. A recent article written by Noushin Framke of the Israel/Palestine Mission Network, for Ecclesio-com started me thinking about the connections. Her article is “Switching Costs.”

Framke is writing about those people some have called “PEPs,” that is, “Progressives Except on Palestine.” The conclusion by Framke and others is that if you are for all of what is called progressive issues such as fair labor laws, immigration reform and abortion you must be totally on the Palestinian side in the Middle East conflict. Framke’s contention is that those who are not totally for the Palestinians are afraid to take a stand. According to Framke they would be called anti-Semitic. Framke’s article is divorced from reason in several ways.

One of Framke’s unreasonable thoughts is that what a person believes about an issue is or should be determined by a label. That particular view lends itself to dictatorial rulings since it takes away individual freedom of conscience. Labels can be very misleading. I am both orthodox and Evangelical, and I am also a Democrat, who does not vote the party line, but who does agree with the need for both immigration and prison reform. Few progressives such as Framke realize that in the early twentieth century many progressive pastors and churches were heavily invested in the eugenics movement. Labels often mean one thing in one era and other things in a different era.

Making decisions about ethical issues cannot, must not, be determined by following any list that can be neatly tucked under a label. I think conservatives need to learn that also. Instead each issue must be looked at from its own particular set of circumstances. And for a Christians that means finding out what God’s word says about the issue. It may not have a direct imperative but there are biblical values that cover most issues.

Making it even worse, Framke fills in all of the qualifications for progressive with what she believes about issues, making her self the epitome of what a progressive is. Because she does this, Framke can find no other reason for disagreement with her views than fear. If the other progressives weren’t afraid of ridicule they would believe like her. Not only is this kind of argument not based on clear logical thinking it is tainted by arrogance.

There is a third issue here that totally wipes out any reasonableness. That is that the issue Framke writes about, the Israeli and the Palestinian conflict, has both a history and many complex sides. But by insisting that all progressives take one side, Framke is avoiding even looking at the other side’s needs and she is refusing to look back at the history that explains why there is so much contention on all sides.

As communications chairperson for IPMN, Framke links to internet sites that supposedly give information about the issues. But because she is not a PEP and certainly not a PFI (Progressive For Israel-I made that up-but I like it) she is one-sided to the extreme. If she finds a Jewish rabbi in the United States who has been indicted for a crime, she links to the article. If she sees an article on crime in Israel she links to it, but not to any crime article in Gaza. If she finds an article where the IDF have bombed militants in Gaza because they have fired rockets at Israel she links to that but not to an article about the original rocket attack.

Reason and morality; they have always been important in Christian ethics. Disagreement over complex issues is not a sign of fear. Rather, suggesting that other people’s disagreement with your views happens only because of fear is itself a sign that you have not looked into why the person disagrees. You may find after you do that that you still disagree with the person’s views, but at least reason and respect have become a part of your argument. Perhaps Framke should take the time to ask fellow progressive Presbyterians why they disagree with her views.

What I heard-listening to N.T. Wright

2011-11-17T21:02:00.000-08:00

I didn’t take notes. I generally don’t take notes for later study, but the act of writing notes helps me remember what was said. But in this case I just wanted to absorb the lecture given by N.T. Wright on Jesus and the Kingdom. After having just read some of Nain Stifan Ateek’s book A Palestinian Christian Cry for Reconciliation Wright’s lecture was like eating hot buttered English muffins when you still had the taste of cold burnt toast in your memory. Ateek divided up the various pictures of the promised messiah as competing paradigms; he was either the Davidic king or the suffering servant. Finally, in the New Testament, the suffering servant wins. Wright on the other hand pulled the whole Hebrew Bible into the New and allowed Jesus to bless the promises with his life.

Wright spoke of four themes about Jesus in the Gospels and how sometimes we in the West listen too loudly to several; Jesus as the second person of the Trinity was one we listen to at full volume. We don't listen to his life enough. But Wright used the Old Testament to show how the life of Jesus fulfilled the promises of the kingdom to Israel.

One highlight, at least for me, was Wright’s use of Daniel. And he used a great deal of Daniel. One surprising detail was a rarely used excerpt, except by dispensationalist trying to make a different unhelpful point. The passage is chapter 9, Daniel’s prayer of confession and hope for the fulfillment of God’s return of his people since the promised seventy years of Israel’s exile was finished. But Gabriel restates the prophecy; it is 70 weeks of years. And Matthew’s genealogy holds that detail intact showing how Jesus fulfills the promise of God’s presence to his people. Jesus’ birth and life, according to Wright is God returning to Israel in fulfillment of the promises and in answer to Daniel’s prayer that God would “let” his “face shine” on his “desolate sanctuary.”

And here, to make a jump, Wright reminded his hearers that the new Kingdom, the promise to Israel could not really be found in the second temple built after the exile. And that was because God had not yet returned to Israel, they were still waiting. And although I don’t remember exactly the verses that Wright quoted he did go to Malachi. And there is God’s word, “And the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, ‘He is coming,” says the Lord of hosts.” (3:1b)

Returning to Daniel, the picture of the kingdoms of the world that rise in King Nebuchadnezzar’s dream are shattered by a stone cut out without hands. The stones smash the kingdoms of the world to fine dust that is blown away. And the stone “becomes a great mountain,” and so the kingdom of Christ. And then Wright pulls in the suffering servant, that beautiful picture in Isaiah of the coming Messiah. Wright covers Isaiah 40 to 52, reminding his listeners of the shepherd who carries the lambs and leads the nursing ewes. But this is God who bares his arm in the midst of his people, this is the Incarnation. Now Jesus fulfills the image of the suffering servant. God comes back to Israel and to all the nations, in the suffering servant who is nonetheless a king.

So the whole life, not just his birth and death are a fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel. He is the promised one whose kingdom fills the whole earth. And then, at the end, Wright did write the cross large in our minds, because he connected the cross of Christ to the kingdom. Jesus challenges Pilate with his kingdom, coming from above, his kingship that is not like worldly kings, his truth. And truth often brings suffering—so Jesus dies but the resurrection—brings the cross to us, his followers. We too must speak the truth and bear the cross and so the kingdom comes.

When one finishes on a note of suffering and crosses it is best to bring in real witnesses. Wright spoke of those he knew in Nigeria and Sudan. We could add so many places, Egypt, North Korea, and Iran. But the Kingdom comes through suffering. In the coming of Jesus it will be over. But God is with us now.

Liberation theology or Christian Zionism? Why not Reformed instead!

2011-11-15T23:56:00.000-08:00

My friend Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein, and Rabbi Abraham Cooper wrote a piece for the Jerusalem Post that caught my attention, Palestinians to Evangelicals: Zionism is a Sin. They are concerned about a conference “Christ at the Checkpoint (CATC) conference under the aegis of the Bethlehem Bible College, aimed specifically at Evangelicals.” And it is aimed at Evangelicals.

But I think Adlerstein and Cooper take a wrong turn when they write “Evangelical and conservative Christians – Israel’s most important allies – are increasingly targeted for conversion from Christian Zionism to Christian Palestinianism.” They in fact did what the leaders of the conference did they put all of their eggs in the Christian Zionist basket.

The reason, and my good friends, please bear with me—I am both Reformed and Evangelical and, as you know, care about Israel and the Jews but I am not a Christian Zionist. There are many of us. Christian Zionism is just a straw man being used by various pro-Palestinian groups to made evangelicals feel like there is no other ground—to make a pun—worth taking. And not all that they write about Christian Zionism is true. But that is another posting.

So let me proceed to examine the true position of the people who spoke at the conference not from a typically evangelical position but from liberation theology and other theological positions.[1] They were obviously attempting to influence the evangelicals but there is a need to hear what they were actually saying. In most cases the evangelicals have been seduced because of their love for the marginalized not because they understood the theology.

And I think the harshest words should be aimed at Mitri Raheb, who is the pastor of Christmas Lutheran Church in Bethlehem. Cooper and Adlerstein point out in their article that Mitri makes a horrid anti-Semitic statement in his speech. I will quote it but add a little bit more than they do:

And the second assumption [Raheb’s assumption] is that the Palestinian people and part of the Jewish people are the continuation of the peoples of the land. It’s not Israel, according to what I am going to present to you…. I’m sure if we were to do a DNA test between David, who was a Bethlehemite, and Jesus, born in Bethlehem, and Mitri, born just across the street from where Jesus was born, I’m sure the DNA will show that there is a trace. While, if you put King David, Jesus and Netanyahu, you will get nothing, because Netanyahu comes from an East European tribe who converted to Judaism in the Middle Ages.

For those who don’t understand, Raheb is saying that Prime Minister Netanyahu is not Jewish at all. And in saying this he is saying that none of the Jews who came from Europe are really Jews. And that is a lie birthed in the pit of hell.

Another speaker, Naim Stifan Ateek, states that he is speaking about contextual theology or as he also calls it liberation theology. He writes that most Christians in the Middle East were in times past Orthodox in faith who emphasized the divinity of Jesus, but now with liberation theology “our emphasis is also on the humanity of Christ. So, for us, Jesus was a Palestinian who lived in Palestine.” But the truth of the matter is, it was the Greek Church from which the orthodox emerged that put great emphasis on the two natures of Christ, his divinity and his humanity.

And Ateek's view of Scripture is very problematic. He states that evangelicals place an emphasis in the Bible on land and he sees it as an emphasis “on that part of the Old Testament that,” for him, “really reflects a tribal understanding of God and I [Ateek] see that tribal concept in the development of religious thought within the Old Testament itself. It is overcome; it is transcended by a much more universal concept of God.”

Ateek develops this thought in greater measure in his book A Palestinian Cry for Reconciliation. In his chapter on “The Bible and Land,” he pictures the Old Testament as possessing various points of view about God. He writes:

Beginning with Amos, we find a theology that vacillated between nationalism and universalism, between bigotry and openness, exclusivity and inclusiveness. And although some learned during the exile that there is one God who is concerned about others (as expressed by some of the prophets), many held to a narrow theology of God and a chosen people. (63)

These kinds of thoughts about the Old Testament are scattered all through the chapter. I hope all Evangelicals reading this will understand. Ateek is saying, with out saying, that not all of the Old Testament is the inspired word of God. This downgrading of the Hebrew Bible is not new. It has happened over and over coming to a head in the years of Nazi Germany.

Two of the speakers spoke about the Holocaust and Evangelicals. One of them, Manfred W. Kohl, using a history of pietism, ended his speech by placing the Holocaust squarely on Evangelical teaching. The connection is extremely speculative. Instead, I would recommend the secular historian George L. Mosse and many of his books on Nazism, Arthur C. Cochrane who was a theologian and friend of many Confessing Church members has written on the subject. And I would highly recommend the new biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, which covers many details of the ideological foundations of Nazism. The book, Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet Spy was written by Eric Metaxas.

Another speaker at the conference, Stephen Sizer [2], uses a chapter from his book; Zion’s Christian Soldiers and writes:

It may surprise you to discover that the New Testament never uses the term ‘chosen’ to describe the Jewish people. It is only used of those who follow Jesus. Does that mean God has two separate ‘chosen people’? Some like to think so. They are usually called ‘dispensationalists’ and this is a popular viewpoint among evangelicals in the United States.

Although not a dispensationalist I have to counter that with several verses. One is Jesus speaking to the Samaritan woman at the well, “You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.” (John 4:22) The Jews were chosen to give a Messiah to the world. Jesus speaks to the Syrophoenician woman, “Let the children [the Jews] be satisfied first, for it is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” (Mark7: 27) Jesus is of course testing the woman’s faith nonetheless he has still called the Jew’s his children. And what is it that Paul states?

From the stand point of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.” (Romans 11: 28)

I believe that the best way to end this is with the words of David Torrance. He is a brother to James and Thomas Torrance, all Reformed. David Torrance’s views are not different than his brothers and he also believes that the Jews need, like everyone else, Jesus Christ. Yet, he contends that God has chosen the Jews and still, in fact, uses them. This is from a small book with chapters by all three on various subjects that has to do with Christianity: The book is A Passion For Christ: The Vision that Ignites Ministry. The chapter is, “The Mission of Christians and Jews.” I have placed this in a posting before but it should be read again. Torrance writes

“In what way does God confront the nations and peoples of the world today through the Jews?

1. Their remarkable preservation through history, scattered as they have been across the world and persecuted time and again in the most horrific ways, points to the miraculous hand of God who has set them apart for himself and promised, ‘Only if these decrees vanish from my sight,’ declares the lord, ‘will the descendents of Israel ever cease to be a nation before me (Jer 31:36). Their preservation points to the hand of God.

2. The very presence of the Jewish people today recalls us to their origins-to the great things which God has said and done in Israel and which are witnessed to in the Old and New Testaments.

3. The continuing presence of the Jewish people today-particularly their presence back in the Promised Land-reminds us that we and the nations have to reckon with a living, personal God. He is a God who acts in space and time, a God of judgment as well as mercy.

4. Their presence in the Promised Land reminds us in this twentieth century [and 21st] that our destiny is not in our hands. The nations do not hold their destiny in their own hands. It is not in the hands of their governments. Our destiny is in the hands of God who personally intervenes in history challenging the nations to humble themselves and to obey him, even as he challenged Pharaoh of old.

5. The modern history of Israel reminds us that God is over-ruling the continued sin of this world, as he fulfils his purposes of love and redemption. All history is leading up to the consummation of God’s purpose for this world, when he himself will come in Christ and the nations must meet with him and render account to him.

Israel’s return to the land of promise, following as it does an attempt under Hitler to obliterate everything Jewish, reminds us not only that God is the Lord of history but also that events seem to be moving on fairly fast toward the ultimate goal of history. Israel continues to be God’s covenant people and God continues to speak through the Jewish people and through them to show his glory to all who have eyes to see.”

[1] All of the speeches but one can be found at http://www.christatthecheckpoint.com/index.php/multimedia/lectures-2010 The speech I highlighted on the Holocaust will not open on that site but it can be found here: http://christatthecheckpoint.com/lectures/THE%20%20HOLOCAUST%20%20AND%20%20THE%20%20EVANGELICAL%20%20CHURCH.pdf

[1] Stephen Sizer uses revisionist writers in some of his blog writings. http://stephensizer.blogspot.com/2011/07/is-zionism-losing-ground-among.html?spref=fb In this particular posting he refers to a man named Charles Carlson. Charles Carlson is a historical revisionist who thinks the holocaust never happened.

Contradictions aplenty: an analysis of the Covenant Network's “Guidelines for Examination of Church Officers”

2011-11-13T23:19:00.000-08:00

The day that I wrote The Covenant Network: disqualifying orthodox candidates I also sent an e-mail to one of the co-moderators of the Covenant Network of Presbyterians, who is a Teaching Elder in my presbytery, explaining my concerns, directing her to my posting, and asking her a question about ordination procedures in our Sacramento Presbytery. So far I have not received a comment or answer. I believe that a non-answer about published material often implies the importance of a paper to the publisher; it is one way of protecting ideas and plans considered significant to the well being of a group. It is because of concerns both by the Covenant Network, as well as orthodox believers, who come under dire threat in this document, that I find it necessary to further evaluate “Guidelines for Examination of Church Officers.”

The biggest problem with the guidelines is the subject of my earlier paper. It attempts to provide a way to prevent Teaching Elder candidates from being accepted for ordination if they, because of conscience, cannot ordain gays and lesbians. There are several connecting issues I want to look at. The first is the contradictory nature of the Guidelines. The second is the section on “same sex relationships.” Another is historical accuracy when referencing the Reformation and sexual issues. Finally there is a moral issue that needs to be addressed which I wrote about in the earlier posting, that is, the duplicity connected to this paper.

The Contradictory nature: The most troubling part of the Guidelines is their contradictory nature and methodology. Near the beginning of the paper the authors write, “Sessions and presbyteries are always governed by these actions [GA actions confirmed by presbytery vote and GA authoritative interpretations] of the whole church—lower councils can neither ignore, nor add to, these Churchwide standards. Thus, the GAPJC has admonished that ‘no lower governing body can constitutionally define, diminish, augment or modify standards for ordination and installation of church officers.” (Italics authors) (2-3)

Nonetheless, at the end of their paper, the authors, writing about the examination of candidates who for conscience sake cannot ordain unrepentant gays and lesbians, define, augment and modify standards for ordination and installation of church offers. The authors do this by insisting that only two things can prevent a candidate for ordination from bring ordained. One is not adhering to Reformed faith the other is not adhering to Reformed polity. Referring to all cases that followed the Kenyon case, which clarified that no one could be ordained who did not ordain women, the authors insist that in the same way a candidate who will not ordain gays and lesbians cannot be ordained. (11-12)

Yet, neither the Book of Order nor any court case has yet given clear directions in the area of the ordination of gays and lesbians. It is true that Douglas Nave who helped write the Guidelines used the same argument in the case against John Knox Presbytery and the ordination of Scott Anderson, (that is, one could only be denied ordination for not being able to fulfill a ministerial duty and he pointed to not ordaining gays & lesbians as an example.) However; in doing so he did not create official polity. As the document itself states only the GA through either votes by Presbyteries or AI’s can determine official denominational polity.

On the other hand the Book of Order refers all members back to the Bible and the Confessions which the Guidelines have already stated are debatable. The Covenant Network with this paper is defining, augmenting and modifying the work of the GA and Presbyteries. And these kinds of contradictions are everywhere in the guidelines.

Same gender sexual relationships: The section on same gender relationships is also contradictory. The authors write that “there is significant disagreement about what the Bible and confessions teach in this regard.” But then they go on to lay out a defense for a supposed biblical approval of same-sex sexual relationships, never mentioning any counter argument. In fact, they recommend two “overviews” by authors, who have maligned the scholarship of Robert Gagnon the author of academic and orthodox books on the Bible and homosexuality. (7-9)

Daniel A. Helminiak after debating Gagnon at Fremont Presbyterian Church in Sacramento, California, and after admitting Gagnon uses the historical-critical method and uses it formidably, writes “On my reading, however, he is not genuinely historical-critical but has moved only half way from outright literalism to historical-critical method. He represents the dangerous thrust of the Evangelical tradition, which rests on insistence that the Bible has the first and last word on everything and which reaches its blatantly irrational epitome in the magic-like literalism of Fundamentalism.” Lifting up only Jack Rogers, Helminiak and other advocates of gay and lesbian lifestyles in a paper that insists there are two differing views is contradictory.

The truth is that no scholar has been able to prove that gay & lesbian sex is biblical without insisting that human experience should have authority over the text, leaving out some of the text, or disregarding all of the text. An example is note 18 on page 8 of the Guidelines.

The authors suggest that the only words spoken by God in the first two chapters of Genesis about sexual relationships, is “It is not good that the man should be alone.” (Genesis 2:18) And they insist that this could apply to both heterosexual and homosexual relationships. The first answer to that statement is they left out “I will make him a helper suitable for him.” Or it could be “corresponding” to him. The second and much larger part left out is all of the words that are also God’s words, which explains how God created a woman to be a suitable mate for Adam.

And the same is true of the Confessions; the authors of the Guidelines use human experience, leave out part of the text and/or leave out all of the text. Without any proof at all the authors of Guidelines suggest that the Westminster Confession where it condemns sodomy and unnatural lust (7.249) “might well be concerned with violence/rape (as existed in the story of Sodom) or with obsessive sexual interest—not with loving, covenantal partnerships.” (9)

This is a totally bogus argument because the authors of Westminster did not exegete the story of Sodom with post-modern eyes. They would therefore make no difference between same sex consensual sex and same sex rape except to see one as violence and biblical disobedience and the other as biblical disobedience minus the violence. The biblical text informed their experience not their experience the text.

But more importantly the authors of Guidelines left out all of the confessional texts that speak of marriage as between a man and a woman, that is, The Second Helvetic Confession, Chapter XXIX; The Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter XXIV; The Confession of 1967 9.47. They also ignored the Book of Order which sees same gender sex as outside of the biblical order since it always refers to man and women when speaking of marriage.

To add to this problem of only half way addressing texts and contradiction, the Guidelines paper insists that fornication, sex out side of marriage, is acceptable. They base their belief on the constitutional statement that “there is an inseparable connection between faith and practice, truth and duty’ (f-3.0104), and that the decisions of church councils ‘are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as a help in both’ (6.175). But what a huge amount of explanatory material they left out:

The truth is in order to goodness; and the great touchstone of truth, its tendency to promote holiness, according to the Savior’s rule, “By their fruits you shall know them.” And that no opinion can either be more pernicious or more absurd than that which brings truth and falsehood upon a level, and represents it as of no consequence what a man’s opinions are. On the contrary, we are persuaded that there is an inseparable connection between faith and practice, truth and duty. Otherwise it would be of no consequence either to discover truth or to embrace it.

And this is addressed to the ordained officer of the church who is to discipline in order to cast out “the erroneous and scandalous” (F-3.0103). Certainly sex outside of marriage is unbiblical and sinful. So writing that fornication is acceptable as a Christian practice is setting truth and falsehood on the same level. Instead biblical truth calls for the Christian to follow Jesus Christ in both purity of mind, heart and body. (1 Thess. 4:2-6; 1Cor. 6:9-11; Romans 12: 1-2; Matt. 5:8; 1 Peter 1:1-15)

Reformation: The authors of the Guidelines, when addressing gay and lesbian sexual relationships and the Reformation seemingly put an emphasis on the insistence of the Roman Catholic Church that priests be celibate. They write “At issue were matters of both belief (like the primacy of Scripture) and personal conduct (like a requirement that all clergy must be celibate).” (4) In another place writing of the various changes in sexual ethics they write, “Leaders of the Reformation rejected the Roman Catholic rule that all clergy must be celibate.”(9)

But this is again an elusive reference to both sexual ethics and the Reformation. It says little. The Reformers were very clear. Marriage between a man and a woman was biblical. Just as it was unbiblical to insist that all pastors stay celibate, it was unbiblical for the clergy to live with a woman outside of marriage. And with great compassion Martin Luther tells those priests who are living with a woman and who have children to pay no attention to the Pope’s rules, but to marry according to Scripture. And certainly it would be unbiblical to allow same sex sexual relationships. All was predicated from the biblical text. For the Reformers the Scripture was primary; all of life including sexual morals must conform to the word of God.

And since the authors writing about the Reformation and sexual issues are also discussing the liberty of the conscience and make reference to two chapters in the Institutes of Calvin it is important to clarify. Calvin insists that the Christian is above the law—has liberty from the law because the believer is justified by Christ, comes before the judgment seat of God clothed only in Christ’s righteousness and yet in the same chapter Calvin writes:

Still, it cannot be rightly inferred from this that believers have no need of the law. It ceases not to teach, exhort, and urge them to the good, although it is not recognized by their consciences before the judgment seat of God. These two things are very different, and should be well and carefully distinguished. The whole lives of Christians ought to be a kind of aspiration after piety, seeing they are called unto holiness (Eph 1.4; 1 Thess. Iv. 50. The office of the law is to excite them to the study of purity and holiness, by reminding them of their duty. (Book III, Chapter XIV. 2.)

And when, in the same chapter Calvin explains that liberty of conscience has to do with things indifferent, he also writes:

Let my readers only bear in mind, first that whatever be the offences by which Satan and the world attempt to lead us away from the law of God, we must nevertheless strenuously proceed, we are not at liberty to deviate one nail’s breadth from the command of God, that on no pretext is it lawful to attempt anything but what he permits. (Book III, Chapter XIV. 13.)

Duplicity. The duplicity of this paper lies in actions and words occurring back several years. I am thinking of words that speak of unity, peace and purity, words that even now plead for unity and peace within the denomination. Recently Mary Lynn Tobin and David A, Van Dyke, Co-Moderators of the Covenant Network of Presbyterians, signed a statement about the Fellowship of Presbyterians. The last paragraph in the statement is:

We urge the brothers and sisters of the “Fellowship” who are looking for “a place to stand” to join the rest of the PC(USA) in seeking to stand humbly under the Lordship of Jesus Christ (G-2.0104b). When our differing interpretations of Scripture lead us to divergent understandings of what faithfulness to Christ entails, may we bear with one another in love, firm in the conviction that nothing in all creation can separate any of us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

I can only ask, did they really mean that, because the “Guidelines for Examination of Church Officers” speaks differently. Its speech is hard and its words seem to be saying, “We now have what we want so please go. You are good Christians but we really don’t want you standing beside us anymore.”

[1] If and when I do receive an answer I will add it to this paper.

[2]For this statement the Guidelines references John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (1559) BK. III, Ch. 19 and BK. IV, Ch.10 (John T McNeill, ed.) (Ford Lewis Battles, trans.) (Philadelphia Westminster Press, 1960) and long with a journal article.

[3]See Works of Martin Luther vol. two, (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg 1943)121-22.

[4] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Trans. Henry Beveridge, 1559, reprint (Grand Rapids: W.M. B. Publishing Company 1989).

I know it is Sunday Morning...but:

2011-11-12T22:25:00.000-08:00

Garlic, IPMN, Circumcision, anti-Semitism

It is Saturday night as I write this, and I am feeling very sad. I should be busy thinking of planting garlic and fava beans for a winter garden. I should be plotting where the Christmas tree will go, how many people will be here for Thanksgiving, whether we should play musical instruments for both holidays, etc., etc. Sometimes it is hard to think about anything except what is happening in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). It is hard to even be logical or feel rational. To the point, after my meanderings, I have discovered that for some reason I can post comments on the Israel/Palestine Mission Network site.

Tonight I saw that they had linked to this article, The Zionist lobby's First Lady in US Congress - Salem-News.Com on this site http://www.salem-news.com/. The article is by Alan Hart and it is also on Veterans Today, a vile anti-Semitic site which believes that Israel was behind 9-11, that they are trying to take over the world and control the United States. They have several sister sites which use the same writers and the same articles. One sister site is Salem-News.Com, the one the IPMN linked to. And IPMN links to the sites all of the time.

I discovered that Salem-News is now catering to the anti-Semite who is attempting get laws passed that no one can have their child circumcised. In California, before the court stopped it, a referendum, if it had passed, would have forced all Jewish parents who practice their faith by circumcising their sons, to leave the city of San Francisco or go to prison. The article I first saw is, “CIRCUMCISION as Attenuated Homicides.” There is a whole page of such articles.

There is also a vulgar one, “Vulva Girl Serenades Foreskin Man on San Francisco Election Day.” And in case you wonder, Foreskin Man is a superhero created by Matthew Hess, the man who attempted to put the referendum on the S.F. ballot. In one comic he attacks the evil rabbi who loves performing circumcision. In the above article, “Circumcision as Attenuated Homicides,” you can understand the underlying foundation of anti-Semitism by reading one of the footnotes # 27:

Note: Circumcision was brought into the 12 tribes by the Levites. Jews are from the tribe of Judah which since the Dispersion of Rome in 70 AD incorporated the tribe of Benjamin, but not the other 10 tribes. To make a point: Moses and Aaron were not Jewish, yet were Levites even though neither of them circumcised. Also, the Christian Apostle Paul was not Jewish. Paul (Saul) was a Benjamite – Romans 11:1.

This is all to say that I put a comment under the link on the IPMN Facebook page:

Please! this article is on a news site that is a sister to Veterans Today. They are both horrible anti-Semitic sites. They both believe that the nation of Israel was behind 9-11. Now they have on their site articles about how Circumcision is wrong which is a sick attack against the Jews. VT writes articles about the Jews attempting to take over the world just like the Nazis did Alan Hart writes for both sites. And Veterans Today is advertized on Salem-News.Com. Please, please, I am a Presbyterian don’t shame us in this manner. Quit using junk.

And then, yes, rather irrationally, I placed it on the Facebook page of the Director of World Missions, Hunter Farrell, with a plea to do something about the problem. He, of course deleted it. I can’t blame him, but something does need to be done.

So, when this is read on Sunday morning, I will undoubtedly be in Church singing of the Jewish man who is also God, who died for all of our sins including members of the Israel/Palestine Mission Network. May they and all of those who read their site be moved by the Holy Spirit to work towards a peace that includes Jews and Arabs, Israelis and Palestinians. May they learn to love both sides and tell their story without using anti-Semitic sites. It is possible.

For the joy ...

2011-11-10T22:50:00.000-08:00

For the Joy:

The Covenant Network: disqualifying orthodox candidates

2011-11-09T19:06:00.000-08:00

Lady Bug Lady Bug-fly away home-your house (denomination) is on fire-and your children will burn-Jesus Christ Lord of the Church have mercy on us.

The Covenant Network of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), just a few weeks ago wrote of their desire for unity, but their actions and words belie their true hopes and plans. They are ready to muffle the orthodox and force them out of the denomination. There will be none left if their plans are blessed by higher leadership-or if their arguments are used in presbyteries. In a paper entitled, “Guidelines for Examination of Church Officers,” they have pointed back to the Kenyon case and subsequent ones that forbade ordaining a candidate for Teaching Elder from being ordained. Towards the end of a very flawed document they write:

“ … a person who wishes to engage in ordered ministry must be prepared to carry out the functions of office. General Assembly has affirmed that an examining body “cannot excuse a candidate’s inability to perform the constitutional functions unique to his or her office (such as administration of the sacraments).”28 Consistent with this, a series of judicial cases has made clear that a presbytery may not ordain or install someone who declares that he will not participate in the ordination of women.29 Indeed, it is fundamental to our polity that the responsibility for assessing the fitness of officers-elect is vested in councils (sessions and presbyteries), not in individuals. Accordingly, the pastor who officiates at an ordination thereby performs a ministerial act that is required by the Constitution (not a discretionary one), and the act of officiating indicates neither approval nor disapproval of the congregation’s choice of leaders and council’s approval of them.30 This point pertains primarily to pastors, who must officiate at child baptisms, ordination and installation of church leaders, and the like. While candidates who cannot agree to perform such functions in conformity with Presbyterian polity may be fine Christians, they may not be ordained or installed in the PC(USA).”

This comes after a shotgun scattering of reasons why it is biblical to ordain LGBT persons, an attempt at proving that it would be against Presbyterian polity to refuse ordination to any homosexual or heterosexual who are sleeping with someone outside of marriage, an insistence that no presbytery or session may set standards and a further insistence that debates within Presbyteries are not to be about the right or wrong of essentials but about the over all qualifications of a candidate. But last and certainly not least is the above attempt to disqualify any candidate who states that they will not ordain unrepentant gay and lesbian candidates.

If one godly candidate comes before a presbytery anywhere and states that they will not ordain an unrepentant sinner and is disqualified for that reason, because the progressives will use these guidelines, the split in the denomination will be wide and deep. The denomination will be guilty of despicably persecuting its own people including the already ordained. May Christ be with all of us as we stand in the midst of wickedness.

Compromise & syncretism

2011-11-08T23:15:00.000-08:00

In the time of Jeroboam, the priests of Israel left behind their houses and lands in order to serve God without compromise. And other Israelites followed them in an act of seeking God and turning away from heresy. But the crux of the matter was that the Levities were excluded from the religious life of Israel. New places of worship, with a syncretistic religion had, for the ten tribes of Israel, replaced the Temple of the Lord in Jerusalem.

Jeroboam led away ten tribes from the 12 tribes of Israel and thereby Judah and Benjamin were left standing alone. Jeroboam’s cause was right and God had promised to make his kingdom and house like David’s if he remained faithful. But he did not remain faithful; instead he provided an alternative religious system for the ten tribes. He tried to prevent his people from returning to Jerusalem to worship, fearing they would abandon his leadership.

Jeroboam provided the Israelites with several different places of worship and different gods, calves or Baals, idols linked to fertility worship. In doing so he excluded the Levites, choosing whoever he pleased to be priests. Abijah, one of the godly kings of Judah, would later accuse him of making priests of whoever would bring an animal for sacrifice.(2 Chronicles 13) The one who needed to come in repentance with his sacrifice instead became the priest who made the sacrifice.

So the sacrifices that were meant to be to Yahweh were mixed with the worship of Baal a fertility god, and those who offered the sacrifices failed to live up to the requirements of God. They were not Levities. As the text states:

For the Levites left their pasture lands and their property and came to Judah and Jerusalem for Jeroboam and his sons had excluded them from serving as priests to the Lord. He set up priests of his own for the high places, for the satyrs and for the calves which he had made. Those from all the tribes of Israel who set their hearts on seeking the Lord God of Israel followed them to Jerusalem, to sacrifice to the Lord God of their Fathers. (2 Chronicles 11: 14-16)

In the early beginning of the ten tribes as a separate nation, religion was simply a ruse to prevent loss of kingly power. Jeroboam did not care for his people; he certainly did not care for the Lord. Eventually Jeroboam lost his power and the Northern kingdom of Israel, faltered, slipped downward through the years and was conquered because of disobedience and faithlessness. (2 Kings 17)

The people were carried away by Assyria. The Assyrians replaced them with other conquered peoples. The syncretism developed earlier continued to evolve. The text explains that since the worship of the Lord was unknown among the various groups, God sent lions among them. And the ruler of Assyria sent one of the former Israelite priests to live among them and teach them about the God of Israel.

But how could a priest who had himself existed and ministered within such a false religion teach others without encouraging a destructive pluralism. Afterwards the people worshiped the Lord but they also worshiped their own gods even burning their children to the gods Adrammelech and Anammelech. And as the Tyndale Commentary puts it, “Worship of the Lord must be faithful and exclusive, never part of paganized worship (vv. 37-40).Those who do not do this do not in fact worship God, whatever they profess.”

History is full of God’s setting aside peoples, churches, (denominations) who will not serve the Lord as he has commanded in his word and through his covenant with his people. The O.T. worship was to be followed by those truly seeking to worship God with hearts totally given over to him. The design was a shadow of God’s promised coming Messiah. It was the faithful heart obedient to the word of God that made the difference.

With the coming of Christ all was fulfilled; the faithful now have a true sacrifice, a true and innocent Priest. Now the command to worship is fulfilled in and through Jesus Christ. He is the exclusive One, the One who cannot be denied. Jesus is the only Way to the Father, and the One whose word demands our exclusive obedience. The faithful will give up, “ pasture lands and their property,” everything for this One who saves from sin.

The Presbyterian dilemma for the orthodox

2011-11-07T17:41:00.000-08:00

Yes this post is about sexuality and it intentionally addresses LGBT issues. So what is the dilemma? The Christian is called to several ministry tasks. Among the tasks are bringing good news of healing to the broken, equipping the saints for ministry and keeping the wolves away from the sheep. But too many times the hurting are the wolves and the wolves are wolves because they are hurting. Carefully, one must walk in ministry to all.

This dilemma confronted me recently as I was reading a news articles on Presbyterian News. The article, “Great Ministry Practices: Using social media to broaden the reach of traditional ministries,” features several women in leadership who are using social media, blogging and Facebook to connect others in fellowship and ministry. The article provided links which I followed out of interest, after all I blog, I use Facebook and I am a member of Presbyterian Women’s All Women in the Church.

But one of the links I followed, and followed further, left me troubled. Part of the original article referred to two pastors who both blog and have created a Facebook page for those women who for various reasons cannot meet in the conventional circles of Presbyterian Women. The group is “Presbyterian Women Interest Group.” It is a private group. One of the pastors who started it, Katie Mulligan, has several blogs, and exploring I found this, “Inside/Outed:Mother/Pastor/Queer/Me.”

For October, Mulligan mostly wrote on intimate violence and she did a good job. She suffered as a child from sexual abuse and she has first-hand knowledge of her subject, plus she is a winsome and interesting writer. But then the dilemma, she is also a pastor; she oversees sheep, who can themselves be hurt. And she writes on her blog, Letters From Inside Out, that in taking her vows of ordination she could not tell the truth. (Well she didn’t quite put it that way, but she didn't tell the truth.)

And then when writing of marriage and the push for same gender marriage, I'm Queer, I'm Here, and other such things, she writes, “There's a lot of folks seeking equality (however one measures that), and I'm glad the folks who want to marry are getting their chance. But that's not my goal. Part of the fun (yes, FUN) of claiming a queer identity is setting myself at odds with normative structures in this world.” Still, despite her desire to not confine her sexual practices to marriage she does offer to help those seeking same gender marriages.

So here is a woman who has found a way to defend herself against the past events which broke her body and soul; that is by defying “normative structures” in the world. I should add in the Church as well! But who will protect the sheep? Not the PC (U.S.A.) as an institution. And who will help her, out of love, learn of the transforming good news of Jesus Christ? Not the PC (U.S.A.) as an institution.

In fact the trajectory is going the other way. Another Presbyterian pastor, Adam J. Copeland, has written new curriculum for The Thoughtful Christian.com , an ecumenical site hosted by the PC (U.S.A.). The curriculum is entitled, “Same Sex Marriage: for Better or for Worse?” It is written for youth and comes with multiple perspectives according to the question Copeland asks in his blurb, “Are you looking for a way to discuss same-sex marriage with youth, a way that gives credence to multiple perspectives and acknowledges that (no matter your personal view) Christians read the Bible in different ways?”

This is truly our dilemma. It is our nightmare and disaster. We are encouraging the sinner, not helping them. All of our sins will eventually multiply a thousand times over. All the hurt will come back to plague the already hurting.

So what must the orthodox do? Simply this. Learn to die the death that Christ calls the Christian to. “He who has found his life will lose it, and he has lost his life for my sake will find it (Matt 10:38). Learn to die for the sake of Christ so that others may find forgiveness, transformation and real love in Jesus. We cannot be afraid to say-“that is sin,” or “You need the transforming power of Jesus Christ,” or “You are causing the ones Christ died for to be hurt by your careless handling of sinful issues.”

The sinner who leads others astray needs to be admonished, but the same one needs to be enfolded as much as possible into the love of Jesus.

An overture & same gender marriage

2011-11-04T05:58:00.000-07:00

The Presbytery of East Iowa has sent an overture, [OVT-009] to the 220th General Assembly seeking to change the language of the Book of Order as a means of allowing same gender marriage. The overture asks that language in W-4.9000 be changed. In W-4.9001, W-4.9002, W-4.9004, W-4.9006 “man and woman” and “husband and wife” would be changed to “two people.” The rationale for the overture is contrived and theologically misconstrued. It is also dangerous for the life of the whole church. It is based on three thoughts.

1. Using [F-1.01] God’s grace is for everyone “We are called to make disciples.”

2. Marriage is a response to God’s word proclaimed “The Marriage ceremony is worship.”

3. Our polity is contradictory because we are not allowing all to worship. “The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) shall guarantee full participation and representation in its worship, governance, and emerging life to all persons or groups within its membership.” [F-1.0403]

The first point in the rationale is certainly biblical, we are called to make disciples and no one is to be turned away from following Jesus Christ. However the next two points do not follow from the first.

In the second part of the rationale the authors of the overture state that “Responding to the Word is a demonstration of the love of God for God’s people.” Instead it is the believer’s response to the love of God for God’s people as heard in the word proclaimed. And more importantly it is the act of participating in the work of Christ as the great high priest of his people. In our union with him we freely come before God in adoration. In fact, we do not come before God in any other way but through our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Book of Order lists many ways that worshipers respond to the word proclaimed, including marriage, but it is a response to God because of his word, and it is, if we are believers, always through Jesus Christ. Furthermore, the BOO explains the response as being expressed “in an affirmation of faith and commitment.” That means one has faith in the word and is committed to that word preached. Response to the word by same gender marriage has two possibilities within the mandate of this overture.

One possibility is that the word preached is not truly the word but a false word that teaches that marriage is not only between a man and a woman. (Matthew 19:4-6) In that case the ceremony would not be true worship because the word is false.

The second possibility is that the word is rightly preached but the response is not of faith or commitment to the word. For if one does not believe that marriage is between one man and one woman then there is no faith or commitment to the word. Those attempting to worship by responding to the word with a same gender ceremony would be worshiping falsely because their commitment and faith toward the word is false.

Finally if one worships in union with Christ, it will be in obedience to his word, since he is the sinless Son of God and the fulfillment of the law.

The third part of the rationale, that the church is denying some the right to worship, isn’t at all true. If we worship rightly we will have faith in and be committed to the word of God. No one is denied this when same gendered marriage is denied, because the word is not denied but rightly preached. All may freely worship by honoring the word.

And finally if we accept the final thought in this rationale, that F-1.0403, “The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) shall guarantee full participation and representation in its worship, governance, and emerging life to all persons or groups within its membership,” means that we must allow for same gender marriage it will follow that all will not only be required to subscribe to the ordination of practicing LGBT people but all will be required to marry same sex couples. This will effectively end the participation of all the orthodox in the life of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)

A Pastor in Enid Oklahoma & "A Time to Play the Long Game"

2011-11-02T21:03:00.000-07:00

Two opposing forces met today in my reading material. One was an article in a newspaper in Enid Oklahoma; the article Enid minister removed from post. Rev. Roy Schneider was removed from his church, First Presbyterian, by an Administrative Council of Cimarron Presbytery. Schneider had already announced his retirement on Dec. 18th, but because his church has voted to leave the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) by a vote of 131-69, the pastor, it seems, is being punished by the AC. His removal, just a few weeks before his retirement, is unconscionable. This is church politics at its worst.

The other article was on the Theology and Worship blog site, Thinking, Praying, Living. The article written by Barry Ensign-George is A Time to Play the Long Game. In the article, Ensign-George is trying to encourage both sides of our denominational split to be civil with each other so that in the future there might still be a remaining relationship. He writes:

Let us live our present disagreements, sharp as they are, in ways that refuse, wherever possible, to break relationship completely. Where it is necessary to take leave of one another (and we have the witness of faithful sisters and brothers that in some cases it is necessary), let us seek steadily to do so in ways that establish new relationships that leave us praying for, and genuinely wishing God’s gracious goodness for one another – however differently we may understand what that goodness is.

But this has not happened at the Cimarron Presbytery in Enid. The AC is playing the short game. And I have a suggestion for those in top leadership positions in the PC (U.S.A.). Ensign-George's article is good, there are some very good suggestions, but in some cases, the Enid case in particular, one cannot use only abstract principles. Leaders of the PC (U.S.A.), leaders of Cimarron Presbytery, be bold! Lift up the hurt and point out the harassment of a good pastor. Risk something for the sake of Christ, give the church back its pastor until after Christmas.

Perhaps no one in leadership cares to caution against such actions but history will place you on one side or the other of a damaging event. When all of the events of this time have moved on and records are filed away in dusty bins and boxes some annals historian may look through all the dust and name you and/or the offenders.

But more importantly, God, who holds all of history, even the minute events in his hands, who sees clearly in the human heart and promises to care for his own, will not forget at all (Unless there is repentance).

What to sing about... and write about

2011-11-01T23:53:00.000-07:00

Lately I have been feeling like this! An old song of Barry McGuire’s after he came to Jesus. The recording was made in 1974. He was the musician who sang “The Eve of Destruction” and was in the play “Hair.” He used to give concerts at the Warehouse where I went to church. The song in the video is “Anyone but Jesus.”

The Day of the Saints & holiness

2011-10-31T22:37:00.000-07:00

On November the 1st many liturgical denominations in the West celebrate All Saints Day. It is a wonderful time to think about the holiness of the saints. Landon Whitsitt, Vice Moderator of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), has begun writing about the foundation parts of the New Book of Order on a blog for the Synod of Mid-America. Using, F-1.0302b, he writes about The Holiness of the Church. I like Whitsitt's thoughts that holiness belongs to Christ rather than to ourselves and how holiness means we are set apart to bear witness to the love of Christ.

But I think that more needs to be said about how that occurs and what it means that because of the love of Christ our sins are taken away. And although Whitsitt opines about our concern to build a firewall for orthodoxy, I think it is unnecessary to toss aside the importance of doctrine or orthodoxy when we think about holiness and Christ’s great love. Rather, I’m in agreement with Dorothy Sayers, the lay theologian and author of the Peter Whimsy detective stories, who insisted that “The Dogma is the Drama.”

To put it another way, the fact that Jesus, fully human, fully divine, loved us enough to bear our sins on the cross is a beautiful and grand drama of God’s redemptive love. The dogma is so deeply intertwined with our life and confession that we cannot in anyway dismiss it. And yes, because of the drama that is the dogma, we who have put on Christ have been clothed in his righteousness and made holy. Better still as Paul explains in Ephesians 2:4-10 we have been redeemed by grace and now walk in the good works that God had already prepared for us:

“But God being rich in mercy, because of his great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come he might show the surpassing riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of god; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we would walk in them.”

So how do we bear witness to the love of Christ-we tell what God has done for us by sending his Son to die for us. Of course that also entails Christ’s life and resurrection. We also walk into the good works that God has prepared for us. And because we are set apart, made righteous in his righteousness, we live for Jesus, with the help of the Holy Spirit, striving to be obedient to his word. As Paul puts it in another place “present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice.” (Romans 12: 1) That has to do with what Dietrich Bonhoeffer referred to as costly grace as opposed to cheap grace.

This is the paradox we live with; Christ did not buy our salvation cheaply, therefore we do not wear it for nothing. Freely it is given, freely we receive it, but because of it we walk through many valleys. His burden is light, because it is his, but still he calls us to carry it in hard places. We are sinners all, but also saints, who are being transformed into his image. Praise the lovely name of Jesus.
Picture by Stephen Larson

The Covenant Network seeking unity

2011-10-30T22:43:00.000-07:00

10-A, the overture that has allowed some to ordain LGBT persons, has passed; what is coming next?[1] The Covenant Network, an affinity group connected to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), has agreed that it is too divisive to endorse overtures asking that the Book of Order be changed to allow same sex marriage. They will not support such overtures at the 2012 General Assembly.

The group, whose main focus has been to change the constitution to allow for LGBT ordination, states, “Given that there are many in the PC (USA) who are troubled by the change in ordination standards, the Board of Directors lifts up this effort mindful of its commitment to tend to the unity of the denomination.” Instead they will lift up and endorse overtures, “seeking Authoritative Interpretation to protect pastoral discretion to celebrate same-gender marriages where they are sanctioned by the civil authorities.”

Two troubling issues arise with this decision. The first is the issue of unity; the second is the issue of aligning morality with the prevailing culture. Both are, however, alike; they put aside biblical teaching in order to pull the cultural milieu within the denomination. The world seeks for unity as well as diversity but not a unity founded on Holy Scripture and the Lordship of Christ.

But unity has already been broken; it cannot be so easily fixed by withholding support from overtures seeking to change the Book of Order. The truth is the Covenant Network, surely unintentionally, is seeking a worldly kind of unity which has nothing to do with the faith. Instead it is seeking after a unity that would mix biblical authority with experience, sin with righteousness and cultural norms with biblical mandates. It isn’t real. There is no such unity. But the seeking has taken a different turn.

The decision to uphold Authoritative Interpretations that would allow ministers to marry same gender couples in a state where it is legal is an attempt at alignment with a worldly culture. And this is where we must remember that the Kingdom of God is not the kingdoms of this world.

Some are standing in the wilderness with Jesus and Satan is pleading worship me and I will give you the kingdoms of the world. Jesus quoted God’s word back to him and Satan, the Scripture text states, “left him until an opportune time.” And Satan did come back. And he keeps coming back to the Church. This is not the first time that the Church has been tempted to lift up sexual immorality for the sake of its life in the world.

I am reading a book mentioned by Dr. Richard Mouw, The Lord as Their Portion: The Story of the Religious Orders and How They Shaped Our World by Elizabeth Rapley. Over and over the Church and the monasteries became a part of the world by choosing worldly riches, power and sexual immorality. Over and over they needed reformation. And still today, the same temptations involve the Church in seeking to conform to the sinful positions and laws of secular governments. And it is in many ways as much a temptation for power as it is for conformity.

This places the faithful in a dire position which has nothing at all to do with unity and everything to do with submitting to the Lord of the Church and his written word. There will be no unity when those in the PCUSA align with secular power while their brothers and sisters take the more humbling seat of refusing to walk with the culture.

[1] This is still to be settled in a court appeals case- see- An Appeal Will Be Filed

Reformation or descending darkness-a leadership letter to congregations

2011-10-28T15:56:00.000-07:00

The king went up to the house of the Lord and all the men of Judah and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem with him, and the priests and the prophets and all the people, both small and great; and he read in their hearing all the words of the book of the covenant which was found in the house of the Lord. The King stood by the pillar and made a covenant before the Lord, to walk after the Lord, and to keep his commandments and his testimonies and his statutes with all his heart and all his soul, to carry out the words of this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people entered into the covenant. (2 Kings 23:2-3)

The Presbyterian News Service recently posted a news article about a letter sent to congregations by “Cindy Bolbach and Landon Whitsitt, Moderator and Vice Moderator of the 219th General Assembly (2010), Gradye Parsons, Stated Clerk of the General Assembly, and Linda Valentine, Executive Director of the General Assembly Mission Council.” The letter was meant to uphold Reformation Day which occurs October 31st. The news article included the letter. I was troubled by several affirmations in the letter.

The affirmation I found the most troubling is the leadership’s belief that the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is in the midst of a “new reformation.” Another similar affirmation is that this is a time of another “great” reformation. The author’s of the letter did not base their affirmations of the “new reformation” on a return to the Holy Scriptures, nor an emphasis on justification by faith, nor did they write about the denominations return to Christ as the only Savior.

Instead they emphasized works, change, organization and visioning. And they wrote this at a time when some Presbyteries are simply falling apart as churches scatter looking for a denomination that will uphold the Holy Scriptures and the Lordship of Christ.

The other affirmation is that God is doing a new thing, that God is “creating a new church in and through us.”They use Isaiah 43:19 to support their affirmation. But they are misinterpreting the verse. And they also misunderstand how God has and does create his Church. The verse is speaking of how God will bring the Israelites out of exile in Babylon and rebuild the nation. This was new because it was different than bringing them out of captivity as in Egypt. Instead this was a time of redemption from exile caused by sin. The new thing also had implications for the future; it pointed to the coming Messiah. And it is in the Messiah that God, not us, builds the Church.

There are several stages that lead to reformation but if one looks at Church history it always begins with a return to the word of God. Of course that return occurs when the old institutions have become corrupt and turn toward all kinds of innovations to bolster diminishing fervor and growth. Both in monasticism and churches the cycle is almost always the same. Lack of faith, greed and sexual immorality destroy the integrity of Christian institutions, and then both leaders and laity turn toward politics, programs, power and even redefinitions of the essentials of faith in order to avoid a return to the clarity of God's word.

But the Church will not remain the Church if she does not return to the word of God. In the early years of America a group of men in Congregational churches, which had grown weak in faith, disregarded some Scripture texts. Their early beginnings included universalism but moved on to discarding the atonement and the Trinity. They became the Unitarian Church.

In the twentieth century they became the Universalist/Unitarian Church allowing any religious belief to be a part of their denomination. By the end of the twentieth century their adherents included both pagans, mainly wiccans, and atheist. Casting aside parts of the Bible was not the beginning of reformation; instead it was the beginning of darkness. In my library I have a study book used by some women, and men, in the Universalist/Unitarian Church, entitled Cakes for the Queen of Heaven. In the book a pagan goddess, Asherah and her son Baal, are honored; Jeremiah, the prophet, becomes the enemy.

We, likewise, have not entered a time of great reformation but a time of turning against those who call for reformation. Whether it is a teaching elder in Tennessee who calls the faithful, right-wing and superstitious, another who suggests that a devout pastor's letter should be read with a barf bag, or the Vice Moderator, tweeting that, those pursuing biblical morality standards in a church court appeals case are whining and costing the church money, the denomination is drifting toward rough seas. A subtle persecution of those who wish to bring the denomination back to the authority of the word is emerging rather than reformation.

One can repeat the words “Great Reformation” in the same manner that a new age devotee repeats a mantra, it will mean nothing. But like the ancient Israelites who found the lost book of the law in the temple we must find again the word of God and, as they did, submit to its authority. It is the word of the Lord of the Church. As we submit to him, we will submit to his word. We pray that in mercy through Father, Son and Holy Spirit, our denomination will turn back to the word, repent and be truly reformed.

[1] See both Leaving & Staying in Faithfulness: looking at various church ages & movements 2 and Leaving & Staying in Faithfulness: looking at various church ages & movements 3

[2]Conrad Wright, The Beginnings of Unitarianism in America, (Boston: Starr King Press 1955).

[3]See Jeremiah 7 and 44.

Rich Mullins & the Ragamuffin Band-and a verse from Psalm 23

2011-10-27T21:16:00.000-07:00

Have you ever had God drop a Scripture text into your heart and mind unexpectedly? Just as our plane was landing coming home from the fellowship gathering, this summer, a verse from Psalm 23 dropped into my mind and I couldn’t wait to get home and do a study on it. The verse, “You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies.” There is more to that verse but that is what God dropped into my heart. I wrote a posting on that verse and my study, A table prepared by the Lord.

Today someone mentioned and linked to a song by Rich Mullins. It was a beautiful song and I listened, but as I was listening I noticed another video of Rich Mullins which was a whole concert with both him and the Ragamuffin Band. I had never heard of Rich Mullins until my daughter Penny told me of her grief that he had been killed in a car accident. Then I found that another daughter, Jenny also was deeply grieved over his death. His music is beautiful.

But the fun thing for me is that in this concert two friends that used to come and visit me every so often when I was doing apologetics in the ARC office at Warehouse Ministries are a part of the Ragamuffin Band. I haven’t heard Jim Abegg or Aaron Smith play for many years. But returning to my original theme “a table prepared by the Lord” and that in the presence of my enemies, God through this beautiful and joyous concert reminded me of all of his many blessings.

I am thinking of all blessings, family, friends now and yesterday, of Jesus’ presence in the midst of many trials, now and yesterday, of his promise to come again. His tender care of all of his children, the Church. His word that lights our way. This is the table He spreads for me and for all of you as you walk with him in the presence of enemies.

I am posting the video here. It is almost an hour long, but please listen, you will be blessed. You will know who Jim Abegg is when he sings about a dream. Aaron Smith is the fantastic drummer.

Carta a la Iglesia PCUSA (Letter to the PCUSA)

2011-10-26T22:01:00.000-07:00

This is a letter written in Spanish to members of the PCUSA by Rev. Hector Reynoso. It was published in English by the Layman on October the 13th. Now the whole Spanish speaking Church can read it. I am placing it here for several reasons. One reason is that it is a call to the church to repent of sin and turn and be faithful again to Jesus Christ. Another reason is that the Presbyterian News Service placed a letter, written by Archbishop Desmond Tutu to the PCUSA, within a news article about the troubling problems that have occurred among partner churches in other nations because of the PCUSA’s decision to ordain gays and lesbians.

Tutu’s letter, sadly, assured the leadership of the PCUSA that they are setting a good example to other Global churches. This was posted in a letter reminding the denomination that the National Presbyterian Church of Mexico had cut off partnership with the PCUSA. After this the PNS posted the same letter in Spanish which was surely aimed at the Presbyterian Church in Mexico.

So besides being for the Spanish speaking PCUSA members in the United States this letter, as far as I am concerned, is for all Spanish speaking Presbyterian Churches including those in the Global South.

Carta a la Iglesia PCUSA

Querida Iglesia PCUSA, miembro(a)s, anciano(a)s y diáconos, consistorios, pastore(a)s, presbiterios, sínodos y AG

Les saludo en el dulce, amoroso y poderoso nombre de Jesucristo nuestro único Señor y Salvador. Mi nombre es Héctor Reynoso y soy pastor en la iglesia Presbiteriana USA (PCUSA). Vengo ante ustedes en un espíritu de amor y humildad y espero que reciban esta carta en este mismo espíritu. Me motiva a escribir el amor tan profundo que tengo por la PCUSA y toda su gente.

Seguro que muchos de ustedes habrán leído y escuchado que un gran número de iglesias a nivel mundial están cortando sus relaciones con la PCUSA o están haciendo fuertes declaraciones en contra de ella. Esto está sucediendo específicamente por una razón, la inclusión de la enmienda 10-A (ahora G-2.0104b) en nuestro Libro de Orden. Estas son noticias muy desalentadoras.

En verdad que ha sido triste ver como a través de los años la luz de esta denominación se ha ido apagando poco a poco. Sin duda alguna la aprobación de la enmienda 10-A ha acelerado este proceso. Pese a todas las advertencias en cuanto a las consecuencias, la mayoría votó a favor de la enmienda 10-A a nivel Asamblea General y después a nivel de presbiterios. Las implicaciones de esta enmienda van mas allá de simplemente remover “fidelidad y castidad” como estándares de ordenación. Lo que esta enmienda hace es darle vuelta a un orden divino pre-establecido…antes de 10-A, entendíamos que Dios, de acuerdo a las Escrituras definía el pecado…ahora nosotros lo definimos. Nosotros escogemos lo que es el pecado y lo que no es…como si fuéramos dioses. Además, afirmamos que Cristo murió por nuestros pecados, pero si nosotros podemos escoger y definir lo que es pecado y lo que no es, entonces debemos preguntarnos seriamente, ¿Por qué pecados murió Cristo? La enmienda 10-A implica que Cristo murió por nada, o para nada; amigos y amigas, la enmienda 10-A crea un cristo diferente al que Dios nos ha revelado en las Escrituras.

Aún mas, la enmienda 10-A reduce la Biblia, la Santa Palabra de Dios de ser La Palabra inspirada por Dios y la única autoridad para la doctrina de la iglesia a ser simplemente una guía, al mismo nivel que las confesiones. Si creemos de esta manera, ya no podemos tomar en serio pasajes de las Escrituras tales como el Salmo 119. Este Salmo dice en le versículo 4, “Tú has establecido tus preceptos, para que se cumplan fielmente (NVI).” Permítanme presentarles una traducción tal vez un poco sarcástica, simplemente para establecer mi punto. “Nosotros hemos modificado tus sugerencias, para que se consideren fielmente.” Querida iglesia PCUSA, la enmienda 10-A hace a un lado la autoridad que Dios le ha dado a las Escrituras.

Además, esta enmienda no solamente abra las puertas a la ordenación de la comunidad LGBT (lesbian,gay, bisexual, transgender) como ministros, ancianos y diáconos, sino que también abre las puertas a la ordenación de cualquier individuo(a) que se encuentra envuelto en cualquier actividad sexual que la Palabra de Dios llama pecado. Esta enmienda de ninguna manera llama a nadie que busca la ordenación al arrepentimiento ni a reconocer su pecado. En vez de confrontarnos con el poderoso, amoroso y transformador evangelio de Jesucristo nos enseña que nuestro pecado sexual es algo natural, una inclinación normal, no algo que escogemos, que es simplemente un estilo de vida, que Dios nos hace de esta manera y que El completamente acepta esta manera de vivir.

Sin embargo, el propósito de esta enmienda es la ordenación de la comunidad LGBT; esta enmienda no busca la ordenación de gentes envueltas en otros pecados sexuales. Muchos han señalado que la practica LGBT es un pecado de acuerdo a las Escrituras, La Santa Palabra de Dios; yo afirmo lo mismo. La Iglesia PCUSA está llamando bueno al pecado, estamos llamando al pecado algo deseado por Dios, no solamente esto sino que también estamos forzando al cuerpo de Cristo, su Iglesia, a aceptarlo y adoptarlo.

Querida Iglesia PCUSA, en algún tiempo fuimos la luz de Cristo en un mundo caótico, ahora estamos trayendo obscuridad y confusión al mundo. Amada Iglesia PCUSA, hemos cometido adulterio puesto que hemos creado nuestro propio dios, nuestro propio salvador, nuestra propia biblia, nuestra propia definición de lo que es santo y de lo que es pecado. Ya no podemos ver claramente, necesitamos ayuda. Como institución, hemos abandonado al que dio su vida por nosotros, al que sufrió por nosotros, al que pago con su sangre por lo que ahora nosotros llamamos un estilo de vida.

No puedo evitar que las lagrimas corran por mis ojos el escribir esta carta…como pudimos hacerle esto a nuestro Señor y Salvador, no titubeamos en poner nuestros deseos antes que a El y sobre El, antes que a sus ovejitas. Pastores fuimos llamados a cuidar el rebaño del Señor! No el nuestro! Fuimos llamados a guiarlos a Cristo y a la Santidad de Dios pero los hemos dejado y ensañado a que hagan lo que quieran.

Tristemente, concluyo que la Iglesia PCUSA, como institución, ha perdido su camino…pero no la Iglesia de Cristo, puesto que dentro de la PCUSA hay gente que no ha doblado su rodilla a otro dios o a otro salvador, hay gente que reconoce que son pecadores, de lo peor, pero saben que han sido rescatados, transformados y perdonados por la sangre del Cordero de Dios. En la PCUSA hay gente que está herida y en dolor, así como Cristo lo está, por los pasos que ha tomado esta denominación, hay gente que está lastimada y enojada así como también Dios en su justicia está enojado por todo esto, dentro de la PCUSA hay gente que está tratando de amar y mostrar cariño hacia aquellos que han escogido un camino contrario a las Sagradas Escrituras, hay gente que está tratando de ser fiel al Dios de Abraham, de Isaac y de Jacob, al Padre de nuestro único Señor y Salvador Jesucristo quien nos da su Espíritu Santo para guiarnos hacia la verdad de acuerdo a las Escrituras.

No soy más que un pecador perdonado, sé que no merezco su atención, pero mi Dios ha escogido no permitirme dormir hasta que hable a aquellos que escuchen. Amados amigos y amigas, Dios no es simplemente un muñequito que dice “si” a todo lo que queremos, El te ama, El me ama…y su amor es poderoso y transformador, y se encuentra solo en, y por medio de Jesucristo. Este es un llamado a la confesión y al arrepentimiento. Humildemente vengo ante ustedes en el nombre del Rey de reyes y Señor de señores y con amor y en el poder del Espíritu Santo hago un llamado a la Iglesia PCUSA para arrepentirse por la aprobación de la enmienda 10-A.

Con cariño y amor en Cristo

Standing for Jesus

Rev. Hector Reynoso

Disclaimer: I am not speaking on behalf of my presbytery, or on behalf of any organization I belong to or have belonged to in the past. I am simply communicating what I believe our Heavenly Father wants me to say to the PCUSA.

Deepak Chopra & pantheism

2011-10-25T15:08:00.000-07:00

Deepak Chopra upheld spirituality against the attacks of atheist apologists, including Richard Dawkins, but in doing so he opened a different can of worms.[1] In the religious section of the Huffington Report, in an article entitled “War of the Worldviews: Let’s Talk God,” Chopra expressed the usual eastern view of religion, pantheism. The God he counters atheism with is actually located in creation rather than outside of creation. Chopra, after caricaturing the biblical God, presented several thoughts about the identity of his version of divinity:

I think a new and expanded spirituality can deliver a God that is the same as pure intelligence, creativity and consciousness. Such a God is our source without being human -- a source from which all possibilities emerge and flow. Quite a number of credentialed scientists are thinking in the same direction without necessarily being religious. It would explain a lot about the cosmos if we fit into a living, conscious universe.

In other words Chopra’s God is the universe seen as “pure intelligence, creativity and consciousness. Chopra also asks, “If God is the word we apply to highest purpose, why not keep it?” and even suggests that we find this within ourselves. There is another name for this kind of religious viewpoint; it is called “supernatural naturalism.”

The implication is that there is nothing outside of the universe. God, or intelligence or consciousness or whatever you want to call it is the universe which includes humanity. So in a sense there are miracles, spirituality, and supernatural events but they are a function of the universe-they are supernatural but they are also natural in the sense that they are a normal event in the life of the universe. There is nothing that is other, the universe is everything.

C.S. Lewis, in his book Miracles writes about this ancient religious viewpoint. Lewis points out that Christians face pantheism as an opponent:

Platonism and Judaism, and Christianity (which has incorporated both) have proved the only things capable of resisting it. It is the attitude into which the human mind automatically falls when left to itself. No wonder we find it congenial. If “religion” means simply what man says about God, and not what God says about man, then Pantheism almost is religion. And “religion” in that sense has, in the long run, only one formidable opponent—namely Christianity.

Chopra reveals how his beliefs about spirituality are in opposition to Christianity when he writes, “It's in the very nature of spirituality not to conform to everyday reason and logic. The point of spirituality is to transcend the ordinary world and reveal something invisible, unknown and yet part of ourselves.” This is not the spirituality of Christianity which is based on something altogether different.

The Incarnation, God taking on flesh is a historical one time unique event. It does not come from humanity but from God. It is not unreasonable; it is beyond reason yet based in history. It is about Jesus, the one who was uniquely God and human. He could be seen, heard, touched. (1 John 1:1-4) And this coming of the transcendent God, the God who is beyond us, to humanity is deeply personal. “What we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.”

Knowing Jesus Christ gives the Christian an entirely different kind of spirituality than that promoted by Chopra and all other advocates of the various forms of pantheism. In ourselves we find uncertainty, darkness, lostness and evil. Our spirituality consists in being connected to that which is all goodness, holiness, truth and personal. We do not deliver a god through our spirituality, instead God delivers us into the fullness of his love through his Son who lived, died and was resurrected that we might know forgiveness and walk continuously into the purposes of God.

Drawing by Melissa Tregilgas

[1]The article “War of the Worldviews: Let’s Talk God,” was linked to at CHURCHandWORLD.

Above all Jesus Christ!

2011-10-24T22:06:00.000-07:00

“What an astonishing act of love was this, for the Father to give the Delight of his soul out of his very bosom, for poor sinners.” The Fountain of Life, John Flavel

Having shown in my last posting that the theology that bolsters the ordination of LGBT people and the push for same gender marriage is generally intertwined with a faulty Christology I want to address how one might respond as an orthodox Christian. Of course the issue of biblical prohibitions against LBGT sex should be upheld, taught and explained; and the ultimate work has already by done by Dr. Robert Gagnon. But the issue of Christology-who is Jesus, what is the meaning of the Incarnation, how does Jesus affect our theology must be the Churches biggest concern.

In making Christology the ultimate concern the devastating problems inflicted on the western mainline Churches by LGBT advocates will eventually be affected producing either a great expulsion of the orthodox from all mainline denominations or a renewal of biblical Christianity within. The truly biblical and confessional proclamation of Jesus Christ can never be ignored. The affect of that proclamation will be as Paul in 2 Corinthians puts it:

"But thanks be to God, who always leads us in triumph in Christ, and manifests through us the sweet aroma of the knowledge of him in every place. For we are a fragrance of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing; to the one an aroma from death to death, to the other an aroma from life to life. (3:14-17a)"

The proclamation of Christ also requires that all of the essentials of Christianity be lifted up including, the Trinity, the redemptive act of Christ and the sinfulness of humanity.

We understand from Scripture that Jesus is truly God as well as human, therefore the Trinity. (John 1:1, 14, 18; 1 Cor. 13:14; Col 2:9; Rev. 1:17-18; etc.) We know from Scripture that Jesus died for our sins, therefore the fall of humanity resulting in the sinfulness of humanity. (Matt 21:28; John 6:51, 10:11; Romans 5: 6-10, Eph 2:8-10; Rev 5: 9-10; etc.) We know from Scripture the promises of Christ that we will be empowered by the Holy Spirit therefore the power to be transformed. (Acts 1:7-8, 4 23-31; etc.)We know from Scripture that in our union with the resurrected Christ we bear the righteousness of Christ and are children of the Father. (Col. 3:1-4; Phil. 1:21, 3: 7-11; etc.) Christianity circles around the person of Jesus Christ.

This means that writing and speaking about the on-going battles over sexual sin in the Church, must be melded with proclamation about Jesus Christ. Simply put, if I say that homosexuality as a practice is sin, I must also say that Jesus Christ, who is Lord over all of life, loves the sinner and has died for sinners. If I write that homosexuality as a practice is deviancy I must also write that Christ transforms the sinner. But there is more.

The person of Jesus must be lifted up from a biblical position, and the words spoken saturated in prayer; his goodness and his beauty, his redemptive work and his kingship correctly and compassionately explained. The incarnation, from its lowly beginning in an animal’s food box to the powerful and glorious return of the King of Kings must be declared. We are compelled to speak of an empty tomb, the power of a resurrected Savior and the promise of life eternal.

And just as Martin Luther threw his ink bottle at the devil we should gather from Scripture every truth about Jesus Christ, reinforce the truth by confessional texts and throw it, so to speak, at the devil. As I stated in the first posting, “the lowering of sexual standards, is the place where the Church in the West, in this day, is called to do battle for the cause of Christ. It is here, on the issues surrounding deviant sexuality that all the essentials of the Christian faith can and will come tumbling down.” I add now, only the work of Jesus Christ on the cross will bring the great sins and heresies of our times to a halt. So preach, teach, proclaim the risen Savior in all his fullness and completeness.

The connection between LGBTQ ordination and Christology-Only bedroom issues?

2011-10-23T23:44:00.000-07:00

Recently on the comment section of one of my postings several people complained that the Orthodox Evangelicals in the PC (U.S.A.) were more concerned with bedroom issues than essentials such as the resurrection of Jesus. The complaints were made by both orthodox and progressive believers. They were referring to the issue of the ordination of LGBTQ people as well as same gender marriage.

I want to take issue with them in this posting by looking at the LGBTQ agenda for the Church along side the importance of essential doctrines of the Church. After this, in further postings, I want to look at the Christology of several LGBTQ theologians and/or leaders. That will mean a focus on queer theology.

The three areas I will cover in this posting are (1) the church’s need to address the issue of LGBTQ ordination and same gender marriage, which is being forced upon it, (2)a look at a subject that is frequently ignored, that LGBTQ theology is too often linked to very heretical Christology which is itself based on a poor view of Scripture, (3) and calling sexual sin, including fornication, right, healthy and good, is as damaging to the church as is any denial of basic tenets. Each of these areas overlap.

(1)The Church’s need to address the issue of LGBTQ ordination, same gender marriage and fornication, which is being forced its direction, is really developed further in the other two issues. But here I want to look at the technicalities involved. The reality is, there are no affinity groups connected to the denomination whose main goal is to change the Book of Confessions or the Book of Order in order to make it say the bodily resurrection of Jesus is untrue, or Jesus is not God, etc. There are only groups pushing for lowered sexual standards. While foundational Christian beliefs have priority in the Christian Church the Enemy of souls is pushing his agenda for false teaching by means of sexual liberation and there the Church must face its major battle.

But even here, within the issues of sexuality, the essentials of the faith are under attack. That is true because even some evangelicals have devalued or ignored scripture texts in order to affirm friends, supposedly work for human rights or align with what they see as good cultural norms. On the other hand, many progressives, hold few or no foundational beliefs at all, and easily add to their unbelief advocacy for the ordination of LGBTQ people, same gender marriage and living together without marriage.

(2)Very few theologians who advocate for the ordination of LGBTQ persons or for same gender marriage are orthodox. The few Evangelical teachers and theologians, who do advocate, tend to leave out parts of Scripture when preaching or writing about this issue. They generally begin their exegesis from experience, using only that text which fits their experience. But on the whole most progressives seeking to legitimize gay sexuality or even heterosexual fornication have a poor view of Scripture and a heretical Christology.

For instance, a recent book, Gathering Those Driven Away: A Theology of Incarnation, published by Westminster John Knox Press , a part of the Presbyterian Publishing Corporation, totally tears apart the Christian faith. The author, Wendy Farley is attempting, among other things, to make a case for the faithfulness of the LGBTQ lifestyle.

And Chris Glaser, a prolific author who writes on LGBTQ issues including past curriculum for the PC (U.S.A.), on his blog, “Progressive Christian Reflections,” a blog connected to "Unbound: An Interactive Journal of Christian Social Justice", writes of Jesus and the Gospel of John:

For example, during different phases of my life I have liked and disliked the Jesus of the Gospel of John. I love that John is a mystic and sees the deepest meaning in the life of Jesus. But at other times I have found the certainty of Jesus portrayed by John unsettling and unfriendly, formal and rigid. “I am the vine, you are the branches.” “I am the bread of life.” “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” These self-affirmations seem audacious and self-centered even in this day and age when self-affirmations are all the rage!

Margaret Aymer, who wrote this year’s Horizon’s Bible Study and who also advocates for LGBTQ ordination and same gender marriage, likewise, combines an alternative view of sexuality and Christology. On her blog, Mayog’s Posterous, Aymer is concerned with biblical exegetics from a feminist and cultural anthropological view.

Going through Acts, she focuses on the eunuch who was led to Christ by Phillip, she writes that he was the first, “explicitly gender-queer convert.” Later, Aymer, shows, through several postings the supposedly evolving identity of Jesus. She writes, “As we get further into Acts, Lesous [Jesus] functions less as a Holy Person and more as a Deity. As such we see the power of the name of Lesous to heal and to raise from the dead.” In another place she suggests that Peter separates Jesus from Deity.

The list of those who both advocate for LGBTQ issues and whose Christology is flawed is long. But the point is the issue of ordaining LGBTQ people as well as advocacy for same gender marriage is so deeply intertwined with unbiblical Christologies that to stand against one is to stand against the other. This should be enough to squelch any argument about the orthodox only reacting strongly to “bedroom” issues. But there is more that should be said.

(3)Sin un-repented of is damaging to any Christian’s spiritual life, and that includes all kinds of sin. Part of the damage is a breach in the relationship between the Christian and God. While God is holding fast to the sinner, the sinner, like Adam, is moving away, hiding and ashamed. Consider; that condition is caused by un-repentant sin.

But what about sin that is considered not-sin, sin that is blessed and even ordained. Sin that is taught and encouraged among those meant to live holy lives. The damaged, hurt lives will be the sin we must all confess. One should never disparage those who are now moving away from the PC (U.S.A.) because of the lowering of sexual standards. They are attempting to protect the people of God.

But one should also never disparage those staying to follow Christ. This, the lowering of sexual standards, is the place where the Church in the West, in this day, is called to do battle for the cause of Christ. It is here, on the issues surrounding deviant sexuality that all the essentials of the Christian faith can and will come tumbling down.

Lost in Jesus

2011-10-21T22:34:00.000-07:00

There are profound ideas in the music and the words of the David Crowder Band song "Sometimes." The words "Sometimes every one of us aches/Like we'll never be saved/," are in opposition to the words "we are lost in You."

What a wonderful thought-lost in Jesus. That not only turns the song around it turns our whole world around- we have been so wonderfully bought by his death that we can no longer be found in Satan's lair. God will not let us go because of Jesus. He is our righteousness-we are forever in his care.

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them and they follow me, and I give eternal to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of my hand. (John 10:27-28)
Picture by Ethan McHenry

The redemption of Christ: was his death necessary? # 4 & Final

2011-10-20T15:48:00.000-07:00

I give two examples here of groups that became evil when the cross of Christ was neglected. I end with a suggestion about contextulizing the gospel and the cross in a way that helps without denying Christ's redemption.

At this point, in my postings, I will look at an example of a new religious group and how their misunderstanding or neglect of Jesus Christ’s work on the cross caused irrefutable harm. In their very early beginnings in Sacramento, California, Aggressive Christianity, at first known as Free Love Ministries, began by putting more emphasis on demonology and an aberrant teaching known as “Manifested Sons of God,” than on the scriptural teaching of salvation by grace because of the death of Jesus Christ on the cross.

According to Jim and Lila Green, founders of the group, the sins of humanity were caused by demon possession.[20] They also believed that a group of people more spiritual than the average Christian would arise in the last days to overcome God’s enemies and death. This is the manifested Sons of God teaching. The Greens ignored the biblical teaching that Christ has already done the work of overcoming enemies, including death, on the cross.

We live in the already, not yet time, united to Him, waiting for our complete salvation. (Col. 2:13-15) Both of these teachings, Manifested Sons of God and demon possession of Christians, negate the grace of Christ’s death on the cross. That is because both teachings use humans and techniques to rid humanity of sin and problems. For Aggressive Christianity righteousness comes by removing demons from bodies and by becoming more spiritual. They believe that any encounter with God happens through a deeper spirituality and knowledge that is arrived at by such religious techniques as praying in tongues for several hours and fasting for excessively long times.

In order to keep new converts to Aggressive Christianity pure and free from demons, they were encouraged to move into the group’s commune and to not communicate with their families. Eventually several wives were branded as demon possessed and spiritually dead. They were made to live in a small shed and expected to do heavy labor. Their husbands were separated from then and encouraged to have nothing to do with them.

One small boy was tied to his mother’s leg while she worked since it was revealed by a revelation, supposedly given to Lila Green, that he also was demon possessed. Thankfully one of the women walked away and sued the group, which ended their time in Sacramento. This group divorced their concept of Christianity from any real work of grace. [21]

Aggressive Christianity began with strident and harsh concepts and methodologies devoid of the true meaning of the cross. The outcome led to the abusive destruction of families. Starting from a different direction, a kind of sloppy sentimentality, that divorced Christianity from the orthodox teaching of the cross, helped to shape a violent ideology which engulfed a whole nation.

Nineteenth century liberal theology in Germany developed a theology that was devoid of many orthodox Christian doctrines. To Friedrich Schleiermacher, (1768-1834) the father of liberal theology, human consciousness or experience led to knowing God. And that knowledge based on experience was intended to lead to an understanding that Christianity was the highest form of religion. The emphasis was on experience, the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of humanity; original sin and the need for a cross were eliminated.

Adolf Harnack (1851-1930) insisted that “the whole Jesus’ message may be reduced to these two heads—God as the Father, and the human soul so ennobled that it can and does unite with him--” [22] Ernst Troeltsch (1865-1923) who William Placher describes as ‘the leading theologian of the ‘history of religions,’ posited a view of religion which insisted that various religions were shaped and held by differing national groups due to their religions dependence on “the intellectual, social, and national conditions among which it exists.”

He did not invalidate other religions but rather insisted that the various religions and civilizations connected the people to various experiences of God in different ways. Troeltsch saw European culture as a product of a “deorientalized Christianity.”[23] Basically all three denied the necessity of Christ’s redemption bought on the cross.

This easy theology, devoid of serious Christology, Atonement, or any other important Christian doctrine was a seedbed ready for the German Christians to spring from. Arthur C. Cochrane in his book, The Church’s Confession Under Hitler, writes:

The “German Christians,” regarded from the standpoint of Christian faith, were a liberal, nationalistic sect which, at the initiative of the National Socialist Party, formed a union of various schools and groups. These schools and groups, in spite of all differences, were united in their nationalistic tendencies and liberal Christianity.[24] (Emphasis mine)

In an attempt to make love and brotherhood the basic doctrines of a reconstituted Christianity Liberal theologians and church leaders backed one of the most tyrannical rulers in history. Walking through a door that eliminated the holiness of God, the sinfulness of humanity and the cross of Jesus Christ, they had no way of comprehending the great evil that was on the other side.

They joined forces with what some have seen as the greatest cultic movement in contemporary times, the Nazis. Interestingly enough the views of this liberal Christianity began with attempts to do apologetics with people involved in enlightenment thinking and then with the Romantic Movement. Which means in contextualing the gospel for a different or diverse culture one should proceed with great care. How do we proclaim the good news to the many diverse new and old theologies and religions in such a way that they will hear the message? How do we do this without leaving behind the truth of God’s word?

So to push this question of contextualization deeper, how, for instance, does one go about offering the gospel to Delores Williams who believes “People do not have to attach sacred validation to a bloody cross in order to be redeemed or to be Christians?” She is not asking the same questions that early Jews and Athenians were asking about God, nor is she seeking the same kind of answers the medieval scholastics was when they formulated their theories about atonement. We might start from her questions or even from her weaknesses. We would surely start from her position as one who is an advocate for the needs of Afro-American women, and as one who is concerned for those who are ancestors of slaves.

Williams sees Afro-American women’s survival in the present, as well as the survival of those who were slaves, rooted in their strengths. She believes the cross, understood as sacrifice, harms her position. So she needs to see the cross as neither advocating for slavery nor wimpishness on the part of women. Nevertheless she still needs to see the cross as Christ’s great sacrifice for sinners. She needs a clear picture of God’ holiness, humanity’s sin, and God’s redeeming love.

Paul the Apostle is an example of a Christian who proclaimed the Gospel contextually. In his preaching in Athens he appealed to his listeners using the words of some of their Greek poets. And he used the many gods they worshipped as an opener to speak of the gospel of Jesus Christ. (Acts 17:22-34) In 1Corinthians 9 verses 19 through 22, Paul speaks of becoming as a Jew, becoming as a Gentile, (those without law) and becoming weak for the sake of the weak, that he, “may by all means save some.” Paul, however, has not denied the Gospel here, he has not compromised the person of Jesus nor found fault with the atonement.

Rather, he is avoiding offending their scruples that he might either bring them to Christ or if they are Christians “win them for greater strength.”[25] But Paul is strong in his emphasis on the doctrines of the faith in particular the cross of Jesus Christ. In 1 Corinthians he writes, “For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the Wisdom of God.” (I Corinthians 1:22-24)

Jesus Christ, the one who is fully God and human, who died for us, who carries our sin away on Himself, who stands before God the Father for us, this is the great offer to the religions and cultures of our day. We must come in a spirit of humbleness and empathy, shedding any of our cultural layers that are contrary to the gospel and harmful to Christ’s message. But we cannot compromise the gospel; we must preach only that good news which is scriptural, the crucified and resurrected Christ.

Those in Christ stand before God robed in the righteousness of Christ enjoying and pleasing their creator because of the death of Christ on the cross. Those in the religious world, including those who call themselves Christians, who deny the cross of Christ, stand without, striving to encounter God, and sometimes accepting a doorway toward evil rather than the One who is the Truth, the Life and the Way. (John 14:6)

[20] For a paper refuting the idea of Christians being demon possessed see, Gunther Juncker, “Doctrines of Demons,” at Naming the Grace, .http://www.namingthegrace.org/id60.htm & A Brief Analysis of Deliverance Ministry Doctrine by Dr. Robert Wetmore http://www.namingthegrace.org/id62.htm

[21] For information on Aggressive Christianity when they existed in Sacramento, see Viola Larson, “Aggressive Christianity Missions Training Corps,” http://www.rickross.com/reference/aggressive/aggressive1.html (Paper also on file at Naming His Grace) This group has moved on. I link here to there new site to the page that is telling- they are more then a New Religion they are a cult-http://aggressivechristianity.net/whonot.htm

[22] Adolf Harnack, What is Christianity, in Placher, Readings, 150.

[23] Ernst Troeltsch, “The Place of Christianity Among the World Religions,” in Placher, Readings, 154,155.

[24] Arthur C. Cochrane, The Church’s Confession Under Hitler, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press 1962), 74.

[25] Leon Morris, 1 Corinthians: Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, revised version, (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company 1996) 135-137.

The redemption of Christ: was his death necessary? # 3

2011-10-19T17:28:00.000-07:00

In this my third posting on the redemption of Jesus I look at some of the atonement theories, but mainly at Abelard's exemplar theory. I also look at how evil develops out of a crossless religion.

There exist several theories of atonement theology formulated through more than a thousand years of Church history. Thomas Oden in his book The Word of Life points out “four essential types of atonement exegesis.” He names “exemplar [moral Influence], governor, exchange, and victor motifs.”

Oden believes that these are all incomplete without each other. He writes, “They are best viewed as complementary tendencies rather than as cohesive schools of thought represented by a single theorist.” [9] Although Oden explains each, giving both their usefulness and problems, I want to look at the one connected to Abelard since that is the one which has gained popularity with those wishing to eliminate the atonement as the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross.[10]

First, it is true that the death of Jesus Christ for sinners should cause us to want to follow Him and to live a life of self-giving. That is very biblical. However, most of the theologians attempting to use Abelard’s view wish to eliminate God’s part in this act. That is, they do not believe that it was necessary for God the Father to send his Son to die for our sins. Rather they believe Jesus was killed for political reasons because he was friends of the poor and the outcasts of society. (This is of course, not an either/or situation; He was sent to die for our sins and he undoubtedly was killed partly because of His care for the poor and the outcast. It was not only the sins of the whole world that sent Him to the cross, it was also the particular sins of some Jewish and Roman leaders in Palestine two thousand years ago.)

Those who call themselves progressive theologians see Jesus as someone to emulate and one who pictures how God works and moves within a human totally given over to God. They totally reject the classical view that humanity is fallen and Jesus died for our sins.

Oden points out that, “The tradition of Abelard and Socinus, anticipated by Pelagius, is not a consensual tradition, but a distortion that reappears in heavier or lighter tones periodically.”[11] Abelard, in his Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans, questions how God could forgive humanity for killing his Son if he was not able to forgive them before this event. He also questions the goodness of God if it was true that God demanded the death of His son for the sins of the world. Abelard writes:

Indeed, how cruel and wicked it seems that anyone should demand the blood of an innocent person as the price for anything, or that it should please him that an innocent man should be slain—still less that God should consider the death of his Son so agreeable that by it he should be reconciled to the whole world!” Abelard concludes that we are justified, “in that his Son has taken upon himself our nature and persevered therein in teaching us by word and example even unto death-- [12]

At the instigation of Bernard of Clairvaux the Council of Sens condemned Abelard’s view.

Oden offers nine problems with this theory. The first three deal very much with problems in contemporary theology. That Christ was simply a “noble martyr,” and therefore there is no transforming aide for the sinner is the first problem. As an answer to this problem, Oden writes, “Humanity does not need merely to be instructed but to have sins forgiven, not merely enlightened but redeemed from sin, for we are not only ignorant but corrupt, not merely finite but sinners, not merely those who feel guilty but who are guilty.”[13]

Oden’s second problem with the exemplar theory is that it often “does not say enough about who the teacher was.”[14] This is very much in line with both the milder and more radical contemporary theological views that attempt to change or do away with Christ’s work on the cross. In Anna Case-Winters’ speech referred to in my first posting, she not only questions orthodox views of the atonement she also attempts to say that there is more to Christ than Jesus thus separating the person of Jesus from Christ.[15]

Delores S. Williams, (see in the first post) places the incarnation, first in Mary, then in Jesus then in the Church. As she puts it, “Incarnation in a womanist understanding of it in the Christian testament, can be regarded as a continuum of the manifestation of divine spirit beginning with Mary, becoming an abundance in Jesus and later overflowing into the life of the church.” [16]

Carter Heyward, (Likewise in the first posting), totally dismisses the incarnation of Jesus Christ writing:

In making Jesus the sole proprietor of the title ‘Christ,’ we Christians not only have heaped violence upon those who are not Christians (Jews, Moslems, pagans, Buddhists, et al.), but also have disempowered ourselves as Daughters, Sons, People, and Friends of the Sacred, bearers together of the same sacred—Christic—power that jesus experienced in relation to others in the Spirit that drew them together.[17]

Oden’s third problem with the exemplar theory is that its proponents have “too optimistically assumed that the will is not radically bound by sin and that no punishment for sin is required.” He adds that this is often linked to a “humanistic pantheism that views each individual soul as a spark of divinity.”[18] One can note that the above remarks by Heyward falls into this category.

This expectation of the human ability to conform to the holiness of God without the gracious work of Christ is one of the areas that lead to the rise of evil in the religious experience of even Christianity. The desire for an encounter with God, without His provision of the door of encounter, means failure and can be disastrous. I have addressed the problem of evil in religion in a book review of Proverbs of Ashes: Violence, Redemptive Suffering, and The Search For What Saves Us.

The two authors, Rita Nakashima Brock and Rebecca Ann Parker, see Jesus death on the cross for our sins as child abuse. I point out in the review the problem of evil inherent in any religion that minimizes the cross:

“For some, Islam is an example; God is so transcendent, so other, that he would not become human nor could he enter into our suffering. For others, for example Paganism, God is so “us” or “nature” that to know humanity or nature, even with all its/our corruption is to know deity. For still others such as Zen Buddhism, God is all there is and yet a void or emptiness, entered into only with the loss of self-consciousness.

The human propensity to do evil can be nurtured in very human attempts to connect with God by trying to imitate God’s perfection, integrating the good and evil or seeing such dualities as good and evil as unreal. If God is totally other and does not enter into our world in an act of grace and atonement we are left to overcome evil with our own will. If we are deity then all of our nature is divine, the evil included. If God is that which is all and non-dualistic, in the end evil does not matter.

Humans do not have the ability to live by religious moral codes perfectly. In fact, for some the attempt toward perfection leads to the radicalization of their religious beliefs. That is, in an attempt to obey the laws of their religion as a means of connecting with God, they apply the moral code so stringently to themselves and society that they become authoritarian in nature. For instance, in radical Islam women become non-entities, hidden people, in order to prevent lust and adultery. Radical Islamic men reach for God through the suffering and humiliation of their women.

In paganism, since God is seen as creation, the desire to embrace an ethic that honors and cares for nature often leads to nudity and sometimes sex is accepted as religious ritual. Every human protection against vulnerability, including clothing, is removed in order to manifest and connect with the divine in humanity.

A God who comes down in love, who suffers for humanity, is lost in this religious maze. The God who reveals himself in Jesus Christ removes the human effort to connect with God as well as any insistence that somehow evil is necessary or unreal. Jesus Christ’s death on the cross speaks to the awful truth of human sin while at the same time providing a way past humanity’s guilt. Individuals are set free to serve God knowing that it is the work of Christ rather than their own righteousness. Indeed, whenever Christianity moves away from the implicit meaning of the cross—there evil begins to rear its head—whether that means selling indulgences, burning witches at the stake or replacing Jesus as the suffering savior with a Jesus of noble blood as a means of elevating war as the German Christians under Hitler did.[19]

In my next and final posting on the redemption bought by Jesus on the cross, I will look at two examples of how evil arises from a so-called Christianity that denies the redemption of Christ on the cross.
[9] Thomas Oden’s two chapters, “The death of Jesus,” and “In Our Place,” in his book The Word of Life: Systematic theology: Volume Two, is highly recommended for anyone wishing to understand the atonement. 403. Also for a Reformed view see, louis Berkhof, The History of Christian Doctrines,( Grand Rapids:Baker Book House 1937) also, Andrew Purves, “The Ministry of the Priesthood of Jesus Christ: A Reformed View of the Atonement of Christ,” TheologyMatters (Vol3 No 4. Jul/Aug 1997) and , J.S. Whale, Christian Doctrine: Eight Lectures delivered in the University of Cambridge to Undergraduates of all Faculties,reprint, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1984.)

[10] One author who sees the idea of atonement leading to violence does reject Abelard ideas. Speaking of Abelard’s position J. Denny Weaver writes, “The result [of removing the devil from the equation], is an atonement motif in which the Father has one of his children – the Son – killed in order to show love to the rest of the Father’s children, namely us sinners.” “Violence in Christian Theology,” Cross Currents, at www.crosscurrents.org/weaver0701c.htm. 4.

[11] Oden, Word, 404.

[12] Peter Abelard, Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans, in Readings in the History of Christian Theology: From its Beginnings to the Eve of the Reformation, vol.1, editor, William c. Placher, (Philadelphia: Westminster Press 1988) 150,151.

[13] Oden, Word, 406.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Case-Winters, “Who Do You Say That I Am,” 4.

[16 ]Williams, Wilderness, 168.

[17] Heyward, Saving, 32.

[18] Oden, Word, 407.

[19] Viola Larson, “A Book Review” on Proverbs of Ashes: Violence, Redemptive Suffering, and The Search For What Saves Us, Rita Nakashima Brick and Rebecca Parker, (Beacon Press 2001)

The redemption of Christ: was his death necessary? #2

2011-10-18T17:06:00.000-07:00

In this second part of my paper on the redemption of Jesus Christ, I look at sacrifices in the Old Testament and how that relates to the Incarnation. It is really very basic but important before looking at the various views of atonement and how that relates to evil and religion.

The biblical view of atonement and Incarnation begin in the Old Testament. The sacrifices of the Old Testament are looking forward to the coming of Christ and to the work of Christ on the cross. They are incomplete without Him. We find in the first part of Hebrews 10 that the Old Testament sacrifices are a “shadow of the good things to come.” The author of Hebrews weaves the verses of Psalms 40:6-7 into the picture of Jesus’ body as sacrifice.

Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, ‘Sacrifice and offering you have not desired, but a body you have prepared for me; in burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin you have taken no pleasure. Then I said, ‘Behold I have come (In the scroll of the book it is written of me) to do your will, O God.’” (Heb. 10:5-7)

These verses, which seemingly deny the need for sacrifice as a means of salvation, really illustrate the need for the death of Jesus on the cross. F.F. Bruce, writing about these verses, sees the Old Testament sacrifices as requiring the “obedient heart” and Christ offers that “wholehearted obedience.” Quoting J. Denny’s The Death of Christ, Bruce writes, “Our author’s contrast is not between sacrifice and obedience, but between the involuntary sacrifice of dumb animals and ‘sacrifice into which obedience enters, the sacrifice of a rational and spiritual being, which is not passive in death, but in dying makes the will of God its own.’” [6]

Bruce goes on to explain that while it was the Father’s will for Jesus to die, “it was also His own spontaneous choice.”[7] Elaborating further and once again quoting Denny, he writes:

"It is the atonement which explains the incarnation: the incarnation takes place in order that the sin of the world may be put away by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ.” The offering of His body is simply the offering of Himself; if here sanctification and access to God are made available through His body, in verses 19 and 29 they are made available through His blood. Whether our author speaks of His body or His blood, it is His incarnate life that is meant, yielded to God in an obedience which was maintained even to death. So perfect a sacrifice was our Lord’s presentation of His life to God that no repetition of it is either necessary or possible: it was offered “once for all.[8]

Bruce and Denny’s commentary are important in light of the attacks occurring on the theology of atonement and in the context of religious evil. First, God’s desire for Old Testament people is not different than His desires for New Testament people.

His desire is that sacrifice be made with a willing heart; the desire to obey God is all-important. In the Old Testament the willing heart was bound-up with the sacrificial animal. However, only Jesus Christ could offer that perfect willing obedience. He made the perfect sacrifice and was the perfect sacrifice.

To eliminate Jesus as sacrifice on the cross is also to destroy the theology of the Old Testament. Christ’s death on the cross was not just the Father’s will it was the “spontaneous choice” of Jesus Christ. Atonement theology is infused with the doctrine of the Trinity. To redo or give up the meaning of the atonement tends to eliminate the Trinity.

The understanding that “the atonement explains the incarnation” clarifies the biblical understanding of God’s purpose in the incarnation. If a theologian says that for our salvation the incarnation “would be enough,” but fails to acknowledge the redemptive purpose of the cross he simply does not understand the biblical view of the incarnation. The biblical statements of the purposes of God concerning the incarnation are very clear.

Peter’s first sermon emphasizes the purpose and meaning of the incarnation in the death of Christ on the cross. “This Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.” (Acts2: 23) Furthermore, Paul writes to the Colossians:

For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven. (Colossians1: 19-20)

The final important note is that the sacrifice is “once for all.” This also speaks about the God of the Old Testament, who is of course the compassionate God of the New Testament. His grace of redemption covers all of the scripture, both old and new. The scripture confirms all of this:

But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. For if while we were enemies we reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled we shall be saved by His life. (Romans 5:8-10)

In the next posting I will look at various theories of atonement and how they should work together. I will also explain why using only an "exampler" theory is damaging to Christian faith.

[6]J. Denny, The Death of Christ, (London: 1951), p131, in F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to The Hebrews, The New International Commentary On The New Testament, reprint, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing 1981) 234.

[7] Ibid, 235.

[8] Ibid. Denny, Death, 131. in, and Bruce, Hebrews, 236.

Picture by Stephen Larson

The redemption of Christ: was his death necessary?

2011-10-17T16:52:00.000-07:00

Recently, it has been reported that the Presbytery of Coastal Carolina received a Teaching Elder (minister of Word and Sacrament) who does not believe Jesus died for our sins. This is not unusual in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). (See "Did Jesus Die for the Sins of Humanity, Or Not?)

In a similar way, in the Sacramento Presbytery, well over a year ago, we voted for a teaching elder who was uncertain if Christ needed to die. When I asked the Teaching Elder if he believed that the death of Christ was necessary he was unable to answer my question. I have written elsewhere about this, but as I left the meeting early a retired Teaching Elder, which we had also just voted in, grabbed me by the arm and asked how I would have answered my question. When I said with a “yes,” he started arguing with me. These are just a few examples of a growing problem.

In 2002 I offered a paper for a workshop at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Ministries to New Religions entitled “The Cross: New Religions, New Theologies and the Only Difference in a Pluralistic Society.” Since that time new books and differing theologians have emerged pushing the idea that Jesus’ death on the cross if instigated by the Father would be child abuse.
One book I recently wrote a review of “Gathering Those Driven Away: A Theology of Incarnation,” among its many heresies, defames the atonement of Christ. Another book not nearly so problematic yet still with problems is “Love, Violence, and the Cross: How the Nonviolent God Saves Us through the Cross of Christ.” The former book is published by the Westminster John Knox Press, a publishing arm of the PC (U.S.A.).

The problems are immense. I am posting in parts my essay, with the reminder that it was written in 2002.

The Cross: New Religions, New Theologies and the Only Difference in a Pluralistic Society.

Recently, in her address to the 2002 Covenant Conference,[*] Anna Case-Winters, Professor of Theology at McCormick Theological Seminary, suggests that for our atonement, “‘The incarnation’ would be enough!” She also advocates for the theological position of Abelard, the medieval scholastic who held a position of atonement referred to as moral influence or example. That is, the death of Christ on the cross becomes an example of the willingness to suffer for others and for that reason Jesus Christ is followed and loved. [1]

Other proponents of this view of the cross and salvation were Socinus, a sixteenth century theologian who also denied the Trinity, and Friedrich Schleiermacher the father of nineteenth century liberal theology. [2]Pelagius is seen as an early anticipation of this view, since he believed humanity capable of living up to God’s requirements of holiness. At present, some contemporary theologians are attempting to get rid of the meaning of the cross in far more radical ways. Delores S. Williams, Associate Professor of Theology and Culture at Union Theological Seminary, in her book, Sisters in the Wilderness: the Challenge of Womanist God-Talk, writes, “People do not have to attach sacred validation to a bloody cross in order to be redeemed or to be Christians.”

Going further, Carter Heyward, Professor of Theology at Episcopal Divinity School, pictures atonement on the cross as a feature of a violent aspect of patriarchal Christianity. She writes:

The deity we must reject is the one whose power over us is imagined to be his love, the god who morally can destroy us. Such a concept of deity is evil—a betrayal itself of our power in mutual relation—in a world being torn to pieces by violence done in the names of gods who demand blood sacrifice. Such god-images feed twisted psychospiritualities that normalize sadistic and masochistic dynamics, rape and intimate violence, abuse of children, relationships of domination and control, violence against people and all creatures, and wars justified as holy.

Contrary to these distorted views of the cross and atonement I wish to hold up the orthodox view and show how it is in reality the central difference in a world of diverse religions both old and new. My central theme is that Christ’s atonement on the cross is the place where evil is expelled from religious belief; that where the cross is emphasized in its true biblical meaning there is true transformation.

I also want to emphasize that all religions, including Christianity, hold within their traditions the seeds of evil. Where the cross loses its meaning there Christianity itself stands in danger of being overcome by the evil within humanity. I will begin by examining the biblical and historical views of atonement. I will look at the potential for evil in religion including Christianity and explain the importance of the cross in addressing the new religions and the new theologies of our time.

This entails explaining how Christ’s death on the cross is God’s answer not only for our salvation but cuts through the violence of human attempts to connect with God. I will show how both ruthless violence and sloppy sentimentality in religion are answered by the death of Jesus Christ on the cross.

In the next posting I will look at sacrifice in the Old and New Testaments and how Christians should understand sacrifice.

* The Covenant Network is an independent group within the Presbyterian Church USA whose members advocate for the ordination of LGBTQ persons and for Progressive Theology.

[1]Anna Case-Winters, “Who Do You Say That I Am? Believing In Jesus Christ in the 21st Century,” Address to the 2002 Covenant Conference, November 9, 2002, http://covnetpres.org/2002/11/who-do-you-say-that-i-am/

[2]For information on Socinus see: I. Breward, “Socinus and Socinianism,” New Dictionary of Theology, The Master Reference Collection, editors Sinclair B. Ferguson, et al, (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press 1988) 649.

My church voted to leave PC (U.S.A.) A reason to hurry away (A correction)

2011-10-16T21:41:00.000-07:00

Fremont Presbyterian Church, in Sacramento, voted today to leave the PC (U.S.A.). The vote was 427 to leave and 164 to stay. But a question came up that has been asked before in the forums we attended. Why are the orthodox churches, including Fremont, hurriedly leaving for the Evangelical Presbyterian Church rather than wait for the Fellowship of Presbyterians to form a New Reformed Body connected to the PC (U.S.A.)?

Well, of course, there are technical reasons, such as it will take so long, or it may not even happen if the General Assembly votes it down.
Picture by Ethan McHenry

But in my Presbytery I believe there are other reasons. And I address this because if other Presbyterians and Presbyteries listen in they may begin to understand a little bit some of the discouragements and real concerns among many of the orthodox in the denomination. (But first, as I have explained, ad nauseam, I am not leaving because God has not released me.) Also my explanation focuses on my own presbytery; I just believe it may image other places.

This is the discouragement part and it can only be understood by those who have been a part of Presbytery by being either a Minister of Word and Sacrament or a commissioned Ruling Elder: The utter weariness of fighting battles that contain such a dark side. One can debate or dialogue in good faith still expecting disagreement, and yet to have arguments and decisions mean nothing because of unconstitutional actions destroys all trust.

After the Peace, Unity, and Purity Task Force recommendations were adopted one of the churches in my Presbytery ordained two gay elders. (This was when we still had a fidelity and chastity clause in the Book of Order) The Sacramento Presbytery sent a committee to look into the matter and make recommendations. The committee ended by sending a letter of apology to the church and when a very faithful pastor complained in presbytery the head of that committee made fun of him on the floor of presbytery. He immediately apologized when many of us more or less booed. (Correction-I removed this last sentence because after doing a great deal of research, speaking to the faithful pastor, and finding no records, I am not sure that the person I linked to is the same person who made fun of the pastor in presbytery. I do not want to slander anyone.)

One of the gay elders, before 10-A was adopted, was elected by our Presbytery to be a commissioner at the General Assembly that voted in 10-A to be voted on by all of the presbyteries. All of this came about, not originally because of voting in the presbytery, but because a committee led by someone who wanted ordination for LGBT people, failed to apply biblical and constitutional correction and instead made fun of those who were concerned about that failure.

This is one evolving instance. There are many others. Another: a church deciding to marry same gender couples when it was lawful in California but still unconstitutional in the PC (U.S.A) - and no-I am not writing about that other person but about my presbytery.

Another is the speech made by one of the members of the discernment team today. He stated that contrary to Fremont the Danville Church in the San Francisco Presbytery had taken 16 months for discernment. He failed to state that part of that time was because an "ecclesiastical litigation was filed by three minister members against the presbytery (not the Danville church directly),complaining that the presbytery was letting the church go under terms that were too lenient. That case is now in mediation." They have been waiting for a long time and under great duress. (I have corrected this section with the help of a friend.-the outcome is the same.)

All of this has to do with the reason that many in leadership in orthodox/evangelical/reformed PC (U.S.A.) churches are inclined to hurry to a place where mission, fellowship and honest love can envelop them rather than fighting wearisome battles whose victory can be so easily thwarted simply by ignoring constitutional laws. This is a plea to all- In Christ’s high priestly prayer he not only called his church to unity but also to truth. Unity without truth would be a false unity—perhaps that is because Jesus is truth.

Occupy Wallstreet and anti-Semitism

2011-10-15T15:07:00.000-07:00

At this time in our history-we need awareness, concern and prayers. A movement moving toward anti-Semitism?

I placed another video here but it was asking for calls to leaders and that isn't something I want to do on my blog. There are other videos of anti-Semitism and the Occupy Wallstreet Movement on YouTube.

Found at The PJ Tatler

This was posted on PJ Tatler by Zombie-who in a comment explained how some use the phrase Zionist Jew:

"The phrase “Zionist Jew” is a euphemism used by modern far-leftists and American Islamists to substitute for the less acceptable “dirty Jew.”

Technically, a “Zionist Jew” is a Jew who supports the existence of Israel, but the Jew-haters use that as an identifying factor to classify any pro-Israel Jews as the enemy, while the self-hating brainwashed far-left anti-Israel Jews have sufficiently de-Jew-ified themselves to be acceptable.

But as soon as you hear the phrase “Zionist Jew” coming out of someone’s mouth, you know they are attempting to euphemize their anti-Semitism. It’s the phrase used by radical Islamists in America and Europe, so they can claim they’re not really against all Jews, you see, just “Zionist” Jews. This also gives cowardly Jews a way out — if only you were to drop your support of Israel, then we won’t kill you in the next Holocaust!
The most hateful speakers I’ve ever heard all used the phrase “Zionist Jews.”

My thoughts on the IPMN Symposium: Bible, Land and our Theological Challenge: A Presbyterian Conversation

2011-10-13T22:35:00.000-07:00

I watched part of the Israel/Palestine Mission Network of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) symposium titled, Bible, Land, and our Theological Challenge: A Presbyterian Conversation. I heard Dr. Gary Burge, Professor of New Testament at Wheaton as well as all of the afternoon forum and question and answer time. I have several thoughts about Burges speech and also reflections on a question that Dr. Charles Wiley, of the Theology and Worship office, asked.

It seems that much of the symposium was a reaction to the paper “Christians and Jews: People of God” that was offered to the 219 General Assembly. As the advertisement for the symposium states, the paper was referred back to the offices “of Interfaith Relations and Theology and Worship for broader consultation and revision, including individuals, networks, committees and caucuses related to issues of the Middle East and interfaith understandings.”

There are as yet no internet recordings so I am working from memory and my thoughts will be general. But I was stuck by the focus of Burge’s speech which was mostly aimed at Christian Zionism and included the 37th Psalm as well as part of the Sermon on the Mount as it is recorded in the Gospel of Matthew. By aiming at Christian Zionism and ignoring the reality of the needs of the modern State of Israel, I believe Burge failed to address them and his main audience which is the PC (U.S.A). The fact is his speech also failed to address the needs of the Palestinians.

Burge’s main idea was that for the Christian, Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of God’s promises to the Jewish people and I concur with that. But there is so much more that needs to be said about the Jewish people and about our responsibility to them. Burge tried to make a point that the early Christians no longer held Jerusalem as sacred or the land as important. That is simplistic since there was an evolving development of events and reactions that separated the Jews from the Christians, and it does not address the basic problems in the Middle East.

Members of the PC (U.S.A.) must address the problem from a Reformed position. We will not help anyone until we do so. And our sources must be both the Bible and modern history. From the Bible we gleam an ethical outlook which includes kindness and compassion but also truthfulness. As far as our faith goes, yes we are to proclaim Christ to the nations—all the nations. As the text states:

For I am not ashamed of the gospel for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek, for in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “But the righteous man shall live by faith.” (Romans 1:16-17.)

But as far as the Jewish people are concerned let us not forget their history—or ours. I will not say that the Nazis were Christians, they were not, but they killed 6 million Jews; they almost wiped out a whole people and when extraordinary events occur Christians are called upon to do extraordinary things. In our past century we witnessed this slaughter and we witnessed the boatloads of Jewish exiles seeking a haven. We witnessed those who were turned away from nation after nation. We need to know that history, but most have forgotten it.

Such hatred was built on a foundation already there; it was laid in the name of Christianity in medieval Europe and beyond. During the Nazi years it was introduced in the Middle East by some Nazis; it is still there, we see it in Iran, within Hamas and Hezbollah and among many other groups.

We also need to know the history of the Jews in Palestine. Jewish neighborhoods have always existed in Palestine. Many do not know this. They do not know that the Jewish section of Jerusalem was emptied of Jews during the war of 1948 when 5 Arab nations attacked the new State of Israel. So along with the sad and horrific stories of the Palestinians we need to remember the Jewish story.

We have an obligation, not because of some biblical mandate for land or for a temple but because as Christians we must love both the Israeli and the Palestinian and help them toward a two state solution. So why as Reformed Christians should we care about the Jewish people? Why do we still see them as chosen by God?

First, I was stunned by the callousness toward the Old Testament as I listened to the conversation. It wasn’t there in everyone’s voice but it was there. When one interprets the Old Testament, as a Christian, it must first be approached from a historical view. This is the story of the Jews; it is their history and the history must be respected, even loved. And then the Christian story seen in the types, the promises and the prophecies inform the Christian about her faith. In fact a study of the appearances of the Lord of hosts is a beautiful study of the eternal Son of God. Truthfully the plan of God, the compassion of God envelops the whole O.T.

So the beginning of the Reformed attitude toward the Jewish people is built on the Old Testament. Their Scriptures are also the Christians and the New Testament grows out of theirs. (Try reading Hebrews without constantly returning to the O.T.) Jesus when explaining to his disciples his resurrection, purposes and being, refers to the law, the Prophets and the Writings. (Luke 24: 44) Christianity is not connected to the Koran, the Upanishads, or the Book of Shadows, not to any other sacred text, but it is forever joined to the Hebrew Bible of the Jewish people.

Salvation came through the Jews who were chosen by God for that purpose. As Jesus explained to the woman at the well, salvation is from the Jews. And as Paul stated, “From the stand point of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable. (Romans 28-29).

David Torrance, a very Reformed pastor writes:

That ‘salvation is of the Jews’ was true of Israel in the Old and in the New Testament era and it is ever true. God revealed himself to his covenant people, in a way in which he has not revealed himself to any other people. To them were given ‘the very words of God’ (Rom 3:2), that is, God’s Word, God’s message, God’s Law. Within Israel God did great and marvelous things, many miracles, so that his power and his glory were made plain to other nations.

Torrance goes on to explain that Israel had no light in herself, but it was God’s light. And that Light was the Incarnate Son of God, Jesus Christ. And then he speaks of Jesus the Jewish man who is God and all of this through the people that God chose.

Morally we cannot be untruthful about the Jewish State of Israel and the needs of the Jews. Morally we cannot be untruthful about the Palestinian people and their needs. God holds us accountable to both, not just to one side. We must, as Christians love them both. I did not see that in the symposium I watched today.

Charles Wiley asked when we speak theologically about the Jew, what do we mean? Or how do we define the theological Jew? I do not believe anyone truly answered that question. They knew what they wanted to say politically and ethnically, but how do you say that the Jew is the chosen one? If you say that you must stand before God with empty hands. But only empty hands can be filled with the grace of God.

The true fire

2011-10-12T23:28:00.000-07:00

But he [Jesus] turned and rebuked them and said "you do not know what kind of spirit you are of; for the Son of Man did not come to destory lives, but to save them. (Luke 9:55-56)

Too often we forget who we are. And we forget the promises of God; we even forget the meaning of his words. Recently, in one of my Bible readings in the St. James Daily Devotional I use, there was a commentary on the “Sons of Thunder” who wanted to call down fire on a Samaritan village because they rejected Jesus. (Luke 9:51-62)

Patrick Henry Reardon wrote of how God planned that the disciples should call down fire on the Samaritans, but not the fire they intended. He wrote:

Luke, who describes the wrath of Zebedee’s sons against the Samaritans, also tells the ironic “second half” of the story, when he comes to the Samaritans mission in the Acts of the Apostles. After Phillip baptized the Samaritans, Luke tells us, the church at Jerusalem “sent Peter and John to them, who when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit.”

As Reardon puts it, from heaven came the “true fire.” I think so many of us, recently; have wanted to call down a bit of fire ourselves, but God is calling us to pray for fire from heaven. The true fire, so that hearts will be illuminated and many will once again be renewed and changed by the word of God, including ourselves.

God has called us into a ministry of giving out the true gospel by the power of the Holy Spirit. Whether in the PCUSA, the EPC, the PCA or any denomination, we have a calling and are to carry God’s concern for the lost and hurting. We are to also pray that the many wolves howling over our denomination will find mercy and seek forgiveness.

Wasting money or upholding the faith?

2011-10-09T23:06:00.000-07:00

On the 8th of October, undoubtedly while dealing with the complicated issues surrounding non-geographic presbyteries and whether to continue with synods, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s Vice-Moderator, Landon Whitsitt, stated a provocative yet forthright opinion about a different subject. That is, Parnell et al v. San Francisco which, as most know, has to do with whether Lisa Larges, an unrepentant lesbian, should be ordained.

Whitsitt after reading an article in the layman on the appealing of the decision of the Synod of the Pacific’s Permanent Judicial Commission regarding biblical and confessional standards and the ordination of Lisa Larges, wrote on Twitter:

This is ridiculous. #ga219 and a majority of presbyteries have settled this. Quit wasting church money, please.

The SPJC ruled that since there were disagreements on how to interpret the biblical texts surrounding the issues of homosexuality, San Francisco Presbytery’s decision to ordain Larges was theologically acceptable. Yet my friend Mary Naegeli, who not only is a PC (U.S.A.) Teaching Elder and a teacher for Fuller Theological Seminary, but also the lead attorney in the case, stated on October the 8th, on her blog, “Bringing the Word to Life”:

The SPJC decision in the Parnell case, if permitted to stand, is a declaration to Presbyterians and the world that the PCUSA is no longer anchored in the Scriptures as “the only rule of faith and manners” (F-3.0107). Cut loose from our scriptural mooring, we become a church “tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine” (Eph. 4:14), a church with “itching ears, accumulating for [our]selves teachers to suit [our] own desires” (2Tim 4:3). And thus, adrift, having relinquished our moral authority, which the denomination possesses only when its laws and decisions are founded upon the revealed will of God (F-3.0107), we can no longer offer spiritual refuge to a lost and hurting world.

I do not understand why we so readily want to succumb to the secular culture of our day. And why appealing a case that is fraught with so much damage to our own souls is wasting the denomination’s money. Discipleship is a part of the calling of the Church and leading followers of Christ into holy lifestyles is a part of that calling.

This particular case is no small thing. At its depths lie all of the foundational truths of Christianity. Using the same argument the SPJC used, a high court of the denomination could cite several differing interpretations of the biblical truth that Jesus is God, bringing forward some heretical views that insist Jesus is not God, and say that any view is acceptable because differing scholars have differing views.

And that is so for all Christian doctrine such as the Trinity, Christ’s redemption, even the being of God. Just at this time, all biblical and confessional truths have counter views knocking at the door of the domination asking to be acknowledged. This case sets a precedent which if allowed to stand would be unbearable.

The case must be fought and won for the sake of the Church universal. When the PCUSA sinks inward before the hardness of its own baals, as it will if the appeal is not won, a very small corner of Christianity will be gone. And a candle that was meant to glow beautifully in the night warming the heart of the broken with the good news of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection, will instead become a part of the night.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer & Scott Anderson- and the innocence of Christ

2011-10-06T22:08:00.000-07:00

Saturday, the 8th of October, Scott Anderson will be ordained as a teaching elder (pastor). He will be the first unrepentant gay person to be ordained as a pastor in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) since 10-A was passed on July the 10th. Many orthodox/evangelical Presbyterians, including myself, feel extremely sad about the day. We, who are a part of the PCUSA, are all complicit in the ordination because our denomination is a connectional one.

But we are sad about many other sins also. We have too often gone through our day without prayer and the study of God’s word. We have failed to plead for the lives of the unborn and cared little for the poor. I personally have too many times failed to love the prostitutes who live across the street. I am still praying to care for the pimps and the johns who use them.

The denomination, as a whole, including the orthodox/evangelical must all repent. Not just Anderson, but all of us as we stand before our holy God in our failure and our sin. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a Christian who often called the Church to repentance. From his prison cell he sent a letter to his friend writing of suffering, it shows that his time was not unlike our own. He wrote:

The righteous person suffers because of unrighteousness, because of the senselessness and absurdity of events in the world. He suffers because of the destruction of the divine order of marriage and the family. He suffers not only because it means privation for him, but because he recognizes something ungodly in it. The world says: That is how it is, always will be and must be. The righteous person says it ought not to be so; it is against God.

The above is from a small book, Meditating on the Word. It contains a few of Bonhoeffer’s sermons translated and published in 1986. The one that I have received the most help from is on psalm 58, one of the psalms of vengeance. This was written and circulated during the beginning of devastating times for the Confessing Church. The Editor of this book tells the story of a mother who went to visit her son’s friend in prison. The mother wrote, “’Evangelical Pastor’ is written in large letters above the cell door …”

And yet as Bonhoeffer exegetes the psalm he points a finger at all reminding them that only an innocent man may pray this psalm. And no one is innocent but Jesus. Bonhoeffer writes, “No, we sinners do not pray this song of vengeance, innocence alone prays this psalm. The innocence of Christ steps before the world and accuses it.” And then he asks us, “And when Christ accuses the world of sin, are we not ourselves also among the accused?

Reaching into the horror of the text, “The righteous will be glad when they see the vengeance; they will bath their feet in the blood of the wicked,” Bonhoeffer pulls out our very salvation. Christ is the wicked one; he takes the sins of the world upon himself:

Jesus Christ died the death of the godless; he was stricken by God’s wrath and vengeance. His blood is the blood which God’s righteousness required for the transgression of his commandments. God’s vengeance has been carried out in the midst of the earth in a manner more fearful than even this psalm knows about. Christ, the innocent, died the death of the wicked, so that we need not die. Now we stand beneath his cross as the godless ones, and now a most difficult mystery is resolved: Jesus Christ, the innocent, prays in the hour of God’s vengeance on the wicked of the earth, in which our psalm is fulfilled: “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” (Lk. 23:34)

Bonhoeffer goes on to speak of how now in our guilt bathing our feet in the blood of the wicked takes on a different meaning. “The blood of the wicked has become our salvation, making us clean from all sins.” And he also reminds the reader that whoever comes to Christ will never be touched by God’s wrath but whoever does not—“the one who despises the cross” will suffer eternal death.

So all of us, including Scot Anderson, in this our troubled and unrepentant denomination, must repent and then we may stand as the innocent in Christ awaiting his coming when all things will be made right.

A final on "The Rise of Radical Feminism in the Mainline Churches: A History"

2011-10-05T17:04:00.000-07:00

In my last posting on the rise of radical feminism in mainline churches I stated that I would post a follow up with some extra thoughts about radical feminism in the church today. Most of my thoughts are about the issues revolving around radical feminism, but also I want to offer a word of caution to the orthodox men in the church. I will begin with the latter.

As I posted my nine postings I noticed that I had only one male comment. But, for the orthodox this isn’t a ‘women only’ issue, instead it is about a movement and doctrines that have deeply affected all of the mainline churches and the PC (U.S.A.) in particular. Not only have I experienced the push for a change in ordination standards at all of the Presbyterian Women’s gatherings I have attended, as I review PW’s magazine Horizons, I have often had to write about some author’s heretical views of Christology and soteriology (the doctrine of salvation). These are two of the most basic Christian essentials.

As I traveled to the Fellowship Gathering in August I also discovered Presbyterian pastors who were unfamiliar with Voices of Orthodox Women a renewal group which writes about theological views coming from women in the Presbyterian denomination. This particular group, of which I am a board member, has very helpful information including a review of the 2011-12, PW’s Bible Study, “Confessing the Beatitudes” and reviews of Horizons which I generally write. The latest is here: Review of the September/October 2011 Horizons Magazine

And for an understanding of how Radical Feminism continues to affect the Presbyterian denomination one only need look at the last General Assembly held in 2010. Some of the overtures which came were attempts to change the Book of Order, in the section on marriage, from ‘between a man and woman’ to ‘couples.’ This was an attempt to change the denomination's constitution to allow same gender marriage. The Advocacy Committee for Women’s Concerns recommended passage placing this advice on the item:

The practice of excluding people who are gay and lesbian from marriage has its roots in the persistence of patriarchal standards for the lives of women and men. The notion that men and maleness is superior dictates that men and women behave in particular ways that abide by the rules their sex dictates. For this reason, same-gender loving women and men are perceived as a direct threat to the norms that patriarchy lays out, as they, in their loving, challenge the models of prescribed masculinity and femininity that patriarchy determines. Gay men are a threat as they are perceived as “too feminine,” and lesbian women are perceived as “too masculine.”

In withholding the right to marry from same-gender loving people, the church is upholding this patriarchal standard for humanity. As a group committed to standing against patriarchy and its effects within the world and the church, ACWC advocates that same-gender loving women and men be allowed to participate in the commitment of marriage. The ACWC draws particular attention to the vulnerability of lesbian women in this exclusion, as these particular members of the body of Christ find themselves excluded and marginalized both for their gender identity and sexual orientation.

The real truth is that both women and men, who are faithful to Scripture, care not at all for the caricatures the ACWC provided in their advice, instead they care for living out their commitment to Christ by obeying his word. Their desire is to bring sinners of all kinds to the loving, forgiving, transforming grace of Jesus Christ. Their desire is also that unrepentant sinners, of any kind, not be in leadership over the precious people of God’s pasture.

In an attempt to enlarge the theological diversity, including orthodox, of ACWC, and others, a commissioner offered an overture asking for just that. ACWC committee members worked double time defeating it, even stating that they did indeed have a theological diversity of people. (Alas, one evangelical among many and she was not consulted when the above advice was placed on the overture.) And the ACWC leadership was seemingly unaware that one of the orthodox ladies speaking for the overture to allow more diversity had been turned down for membership in the ACWC for no apparent reason.

Radical feminism is the movement which has pushed the denomination toward the brink. Its radicalized theology is now mixing heavily with Queer theology; the denomination which opens its doors to the evolving theologies will in the end be everything but Christian. I am in the midst of writing a review of a book published by Westminster/John Knox Press. Gathering those driven away: A Theology of Incarnation mixes apopthatic mysticism (the way of negation) with radical feminism, Gnostic texts and queer theology; nothing is left of the Christian faith. It is total reversal.

There are several ways one can, as an orthodox Christian, stand against such devastating theologies. One is simply to be aware of them and be prepared to give answers. The most important way is, of course, to keep proclaiming the biblical faith; lifting up Jesus Christ as the one unique Savior. Another is prayer and fellowship with one another. Above all, simply keep standing, remembering Jesus is truly Lord in every situation.

An important practical stance against radical feminism is to keep uplifting the ministries of orthodox/reformed/evangelical women. Lift them up because their ministries are important, not to fill quotas. I recently listened to one of the women pastors at a local Evangelical Presbyterian Church. She stated that it was such a relief to her, after leaving the PC (U.S.A.) to know that others chose her because of her gifts and not because she filled a quota.

I want to end this with a video of the President of Fuller Theological Seminary, Richard Mouw as he spoke at the Fellowship Gathering. Listen for three things: the lifting high of the redemptive work of Christ, the encouragement to women as they minister and the call for a broader ecumenicalism which includes not only the extremely progressive UCC, but also all of the other Reformed denominations such as the Presbyterian Church in America.

Richard Mouw, Thursday Evening August 25 at the Fellowship Gathering from Fellowship of Presbyterians on Vimeo.