For the Joy:
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
The Covenant Network: disqualifying orthodox candidates
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Compromise & syncretism
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.
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.
Monday, November 7, 2011
The Presbyterian dilemma for the orthodox
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.
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.
Friday, November 4, 2011
An overture & same gender marriage
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.)
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.)
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
A Pastor in Enid Oklahoma & "A Time to Play the Long Game"
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:
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).
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).
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
What to sing about... and write about
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.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)