What does this mean, "Queering the Marriage Discussion"?

Donna ‘Riley’s posting at More Light Presbyterians is “Queering the Marriage Discussion.”  She states that “there is something decidedly queerer at stake here than marriage equality. As with ordination the heart of this issue remains: they call queer relationships sinful; we call them holy.” In explaining the meaning of her use of the word queer Riley quotes Jamie Heckert:

To queer is to make strange, unfamiliar, weird; it comes from an old German word meaning to cross. What new possibilities arise when we learn to cross, to blur, to undermine, or overflow the hierarchical and binary oppositions we have been taught to believe in?

And this is basically what Riley’s posting is about, how to blur, undermine and overflow the biblical meaning of marriage, that is, marriage between one man and one woman. And since Riley pigeonholes biblical marriage in the same slot as racism and suggests that it leads to unjust economic systems she is attempting something more than seeking marriage equality.

Added to her renunciation of biblical marriage Riley believes that those opposed to same sex marriage are frightened of, as she puts it, “the realities of unmarried queers in deeply meaningful spiritual relationships.”

Frightened of people and their relationships, never!  But yes, we are troubled and longing in prayer for those whose sinful relationships and attitudes lead away from the embrace of God’s forgiveness. God loves the sinner, God longs for the sinner, God forgives the repentant sinner.

There is a family that is not the ‘nuclear’ family but the household of God, those who are centered on the Lord Jesus Christ and his word. Among the family members are married men and women, single moms and dads and the unmarried, all who have repented of numerous and various kinds of sins.

Jesus was a friend of a family of three single people, Mary, Martha and Lazarus. He praised Mary for sitting at his feet listening to his words. She had chosen the good part and it would not be taken away from her. (Luke 10:42) The household of God, the community, the body of Christ, sits at his feet. They listen to the words of Jesus.  They obey his word, the holy Scriptures.

Not just Riley, but all of us, God calls to his righteousness, his purity, his forgiveness.

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified  in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. (1 Cor. 6:9-11)

"The troubled find their peace
In true surrender.
The prisoners their release
From chains of anger.
In springs of living grace
I find a resting place
To rise refreshed,
Determined to follow"

Item 03-09 Having someone else's cake and eating it too

An item, 03-09, sponsored by the Committee on the Office of the General Assembly seems like an ethically sound recommendation, it, however does not address all of the problems that can take away the “independent judgment” of commissioners and advisory delegates to the General Assembly.  In fact in one sense it adds to the lopsided influence of governing bodies and organizations in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A) particularly during committee work.

The item, “Standards of Ethics for Commissioners and Advisory Delegates to the General Assembly,” is a recommendation that was asked of the coming 221 GA by a commissioner’s resolution of the 220 GA.  It has to do with commissioners and advisory delegates receiving gifts such as trips or gratuities “by those with an interest in or who are advocating for or against a recommendation or overture before the assembly.”

There are two names on the commissioner’s resolution from 2012, which is “On Establishing a Code of Ethics for Elected Commissioners and Elected/Appointed Advisory Delegates to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)”.  The two names are Aaron R. Doll, Presbytery of Genesee Valley and M. Melinda Thompson, Presbytery of National Capital.

And in this recommendation there are exceptions, the first one being, “Gifts, meals, outings, and relationship-building activities provided by Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) churches, middle councils, partner churches or related organizations.”

 The background on this commissioner resolution may be connected to a young man in the Middle East Issues Committee who had gone on a trip to Israel funded by a Jewish organization. He had also gone on trips which centered on the Palestinian Territories. I do not know if he was asked to, but he stated that he would not vote on some of the items. I honestly do not remember which ones.

The problem here as I see it is that one of the signers of the commissioner’s resolution, M. Melinda Thompson, also had some special interests. She has worked with and written for the Israel/Palestine Mission Network and The Presbyterian Peace Fellowship. Thompson has even worked with what is called an “Occupation Free Endowment Fund.”

Needless to say, this recommendation, which seemingly could lead to an ethical ideal, has a huge hole in it, and Thompson is an example of how that might work. She belongs to several Presbyterian organizations all seeking to brand Israel with apartheid status while attempting to pull the PC (U.S.A) into the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement. And this is how the recommendation will work if passed.

People like Rev. Albert Butzer, who was removed from leadership in the Middle East Issues committee because he traveled to Israel with other pastors and rabbis while studying about each other’s faith, a trip paid for by his hometown Jewish organization, and because he attended an interfaith Seder, will be eliminated from leadership work. But people like Thompson who works with organizations that promote trips which focus on only one side of the issues will be allowed to influence not only commissioners but most of those who speak to the committee.

The recommendation, item 03-09, needs a great deal of improvement.  Cutting out the first exception would help. That exception will only lead to greater and greater manipulation.

Also clarification about the kinds of trips commissioners take would be helpful. A Seder dinner seen as some kind of buyout is a wild fantasy. The idea that a community organization funded a trip for community pastors and rabbis in order to influence one of them to vote pro-Israel in a General Assembly he was yet to know about smacks of a wild conspiracy theory. This is the kind of McCarthy-ish problem that will come out of 03-09 if the wording is not changed.

It is possible to breed totalitarianism on the back of ethics when the proponents attempt to use the ethical principles for others, while they themselves ignore the principle. 

The Outlook: two articles, two churches in one denomination?

The Presbyterian Outlook has linked, on Twitter, to one article and posted another on their main site.  The articles, as I read them, seem to me to speak of the two different churches within the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).  The first one I read is by Professor Shirley C. Guthrie (1927-2004), posted on the Outlook. It is, “The Way, the Truth and the Life.” The other is, “’Our Second Mother’: Iran’s converted Christians find sanctuary in Germany.” The latter is in the Guardian, the Tehran Bureau.

The first article by Guthrie is meant as an explanation of what it means to speak of Jesus as the Way, the Truth and the Life, and how that coincides with dialogue with other faiths.  Guthrie’s views are aligned with universalism. That is when Jesus died and was raised by God he opened a door that brought reconciliation to all. This does not mean it brought the possibility that those in other faiths might be converted to Christ; rather it means that Jesus enters into the other culture and faith thus reconciling them, through another faith, to God.  As Guthrie puts it when writing about our need for openness to people of other faiths:

If we believe in a risen and living Christ who has been and is at work in the world outside our Christian circle, we will know that we do not have to “take” Christ to people of other religious traditions; we go to meet him in our encounters with them. We will expect and gladly welcome evidence that the grace and truth we have come to know in him has reached into their lives too. We will be glad to hear them saying things about their God and their faith that sound remarkably similar to what we have to say about our God and our faith. Without the slightest trace of reluctance or suspicion we will welcome such similarities as confirmation of our own faith in a living Christ who is present and at work not only among us but among them too. More than that, we will be prepared sometimes to discover among those whose religion is different from ours a depth of faith, personal integrity, gratitude for the goodness of God, commitment to justice and self-giving love for others that put us Christians to shame. We will be ready to confess that we sometimes see more of the way, truth and life taught and demonstrated by Jesus among them than we see in our own lives and in the Christian community. Just when we are committed to our own gospel we will enter into dialogue with them not only because of what we have to offer them, but because of what they have to offer us.

Guthrie goes on to list the various ways we can know the truth or falseness of another religion, and our own as well. He explains how we can recognize the “presence and work of our living Lord among non-Christians as well as Christians. I agree with a lot of his list, goodness among all groups, even among those who are atheists, is what the Reformed call general grace.

However, that is not the point of Jesus’ words that He is the way, the truth and the life.  (Matt. 14:6) There must be a living connection between the risen Lord and the individual. There must be conversion, which simply means repentance, turning from our sinful self to Jesus. This may be gradual, a process, among those who are baptized at birth. Or it may be that one comes to Christ out of another faith or out of nothing. 

Nevertheless, one does not go to the other person to encounter Christ, one takes the good news of Christ to those who are without salvation. And that is one of the points of the other article, Iran’s converted Christians find sanctuary in Germany. Many Iranians are coming to Jesus Christ from Islam and because of persecution they are seeking safety in other places. Germany is one of the places where they are finding safety.

One story of one convert who now lives in Germany and attends a church there is:

Afsaneh, a soft-spoken woman in her 40s is part of Martens’ congregation, says she was arrested because of her conversion and heavily abused in jail. Like other converts in this story, Afsaneh asked that only her first name be used to protect her identity. She was only freed after using her property deeds as collateral, after which she quickly escaped the country.

Afsaneh says she struggled to accept Islam for most of her life but ultimately and fundamentally disagreed with the religion. Her cousin, a convert, secretly introduced her to Christianity in which she found a better, spiritual fit. “I felt so relaxed,” she says after attending Bible study sessions held in the privacy of her house church. “I felt safe. I was so excited about Christmas that I put up a tree in my home and work.” Her public displays meant closer eyes and soon both her and her cousin were arrested receiving more than 70 lashes in jail. [1]

So how is this like the divisions in our denomination? One denominational division looks for what they deem as good within culture/cultures and sees Christ’s blessing there but fails to see the Scriptural demand that the church make disciples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, which involves a great deal more than simply encountering Christ in the other’s faith.  

The other division in the denomination, while hopefully noting what is good in other cultures, longs to introduce the broken to Jesus Christ. Sure, the Lord, through the Holy Spirit, is there already preparing hearts and minds, but it is the longing of the Christian to introduce the good Shepherd to the lost sheep, introduce the good bread to the hungry, the Redeemer to the one who has fallen beyond human hope.

While Guthrie insists that it isn’t the Christian’s business to show Christianity to be superior to other faiths, he fails to insist that it is the Christian’s business to show Christ crucified and risen, as above all other ‘so called’ gods and lords. In a real sense in the PC (U.S.A.), some find Jesus’ uniqueness everywhere diffused among every culture and religion until it means nothing but religious sentimentality and progressive morality. But the important understanding of His uniqueness is scripturally bound; He is Lord over the nations and his kingdom will come, but peopled by those who are united to the risen Lord, washed clean by the blood of the Lamb, transformed by the power of his resurrection.

---

[1] I have to laugh at the thought of being in a religion where one can relax but receive 70 lashes in jail. But remembering my own conversion and the great feeling of relief and joy while at the same time finding my parents were very upset, I think I understand just a tiny bit. Read the whole article it is wonderful to read about the conversions of these many Iranians.

Zionism attacked again on the Israel/Palestine Mission Network site

The Presbyterian Israel/Palestine Mission Network has posted a paper on their web site entitled “The Crisis of Liberal Zionism” by Andrew Levine. It is meant to show that liberalism and Zionism are incompatible. It is another attempt by the IPMN to slur Zionism and by doing so to slur the Jewish people.

Levine begins with questions which the IPMN have highlighted:

Does a commitment to Zionism entail support for a Jewish state?  Must that state be in Palestine?  Must Zionists support a revival of the Hebrew language?  How committed must they be to distinctive cultural forms and ways of life established by Jews in Palestine and, later, Israel?  What is Zionism’s relation to the Jewish religion?

While the writer opines that now that the State of Israel exists the above questions have become facts, he shows, with his questions, what both he and IPMN find unacceptable. That is, a ‘Jewish’ state, the fact that it is in Palestine, the fact that Hebrew is the national language and that many of the people celebrate Jewish customs.

Besides these concerns of Levine and the IPMN, the article, which with tongue in cheek attempts to reconcile liberalism with Zionism, has some nasty lies about Zionism. For instance that Zionists were the ones who made sure that no country opened their doors to those Jews trying to flee Nazism. Levine writes:

The fact that some six million European Jews were put to death under Nazi rule between 1942 and 1945 did give a certain urgency to Zionist demands in the immediate post-War period.

Needless to say, the case would be stronger had not Zionists worked so diligently to see to it that the survivors had nowhere other than Palestine to go, and had they not gotten so much help in this regard from the American government.

Slurring even liberal Zionist, with a few snarky paragraphs, Levine writes and the IPMN highlights part of his words:

The 77% share of Mandate Palestine that falls within Israel’s pre-1967 boundaries is mostly like that; it has been ethnically cleansed so thoroughly that its conquest by Zionist settlers, before and after the establishment of the state of Israel, is, by now, effectively irreversible.

A Palestinian state in the rest of Mandate Palestine is therefore just what the doctor ordered.  This is why the liberal Zionist’s commitment to a “two state solution” is sincere; unlike, say, Benjamin Netanyahu’s.  He is for it – or rather he says he is for it – only because he needs American and European support, and so he gives the Americans and Europeans what they want to hear.

As Zionists, liberal Zionists too would like Israel to incorporate all of Palestine.   But since that is morally and politically impossible, and since, as liberals, they want liberal principles affirmed too, they moderate their Zionist ambitions.   There is nothing else they can do.

These are hateful words for any organization supposedly attempting to help bring peace to the Middle East. But the article goes on trying to clarify all of the various Jewish views on Zionism and even on Judaism. Levine also attacks Christianity and eventually dismisses all religion as an example of how Zionism might eventually disappear.

And then the final attack in this rather dismal, meandering, insulting, article:

Liberal Zionism has always played a crucial role in keeping American Jews in line.  Just by being there, it provided assurance to a population that was and is overwhelmingly liberal by inclination that the Zionist project — and the state of Israel too, regardless of its policies – must be basically sound.

So long as that perception remains intact, Israel can count on the majority of American Jews remaining at least passively – and tepidly – pro-Zionist.  With money from Jewish plutocrats flowing in, and with the Israel lobby still strong enough to inspire fear and awe in Congress and the White House, that might be enough to keep the American government in its traditionally subservient role.

This really is meant to be an article aimed at the liberal Jewish community, so to end my thoughts I want to look at something Levine stated in the first part of his article. “In its early years, Zionism, like liberalism, was a contested ideal. And, as within the liberal fold, there was ample quibbling over what it involved.  But, at the doctrinal level, there was always a crucial difference.  Liberalism is universalistic, Zionism is not; its ideals pertain to Jews only, not to people generally”

But what is missed here is the general ideals of Zionism that translate into the needs of any culture or peoples. That is the need for freedom, the need to be secure from persecution, the need to have their culture, including their language, traditions and faiths respected. That the Jewish people should choose for themselves these values and call them Zionism hardly makes them less than universal. To say as a Christian that I value religious freedom is not to make religious freedom less than universal but rather to add my own distinctive needs to what it means to have religious freedom.

Israel certainly has a lot of work to do, as a democracy, to keep her democracy. It isn’t wrong to say so. But it is wrong to accuse her founders of the kinds of atrocities that occur in this article. And it is wrong to write that “There is therefore something oxymoronic in the very idea of liberal Zionism.”

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), goaded on by the IPMN, has become a weak institution allowing individuals and small groups to lord it over the concerns and desires of many fellow Presbyterians. That concern and desire is for peace in the Middle East with fairness and love for all peoples.

Picture of the  Exterior of the Hurva Synagogue, Old City, Jerusalem. It was blown up by Muslims in 1721. After rebuilding it was destroyed again during the 1948 war by the Arab Legion. It was rebuilt in 2010. See Wikipedia

Sacramento Presbytery: About marriage & the battle in and for the church

In the  May 2014 Newsletter of the Presbytery of Sacramento our General Presbyter, Rev. Jay Wilkins  has written a message about the debate going on in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) on same sex marriage. He is very polite and straight forward about it and I appreciate that, but I am bothered that Wilkins refers to it as a 'fuss.' I think that perhaps he and others, particularly the progressives in the denomination do not understand the seriousness felt by many of the orthodox Christians on this matter. 

 It isn't just about marriage; instead it is about the authority of Scripture. It is also about Christology. And yes, it is also about morality. It is all tied together. When Jesus spoke about marriage, in the context of divorce, he went straight to the heart of the matter. He bypassed all of his religious peer’s arguments and went to the beginning of the story of God’s creation of marriage.  Because God created a woman to be a companion to a man, the model is set with glorious consequences:

“For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.”

Jesus uses this beautiful picture to explain why, except in the case of immorality, there is to be no divorce.  To disobey the text is to disobey the Lord. But the door of mercy is wide. After Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:9 names many of the sins of his day, including homosexuality, he lists what God in Jesus Christ has done for the sinner, which we all are:

“Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.”

But to deny the sinfulness of any of the sins listed in verses 9 through 10 is to deny the word of God.  Yes, some of us are or have been fornicators (that means having sex outside of marriage), some of us are or have been swindlers, etc. The list goes on. But Jesus loved us while sinners and died for us. That is beautiful but we cannot deny the word of God, or the Lord of the word.

So to return to that word “fuss,” it hardly defines the battle orthodox Christians feel they are in for the sake of Christ and the church.  And on top of the desire to stand faithfully for the word of Christ, is that other new realization of marginalization. Wilkins very clearly defines one of the big problems with this:

"We do have a problem since many Presbyterians live in states where a different understanding of the civil contract exists, and the Book of Order is not accurate in those states. Some make a fuss by saying we should redefine marriage in light of the changing culture and laws. Others fuss that we should maintain the definition and fight changes in laws. From my perspective the comfortable church-state relationship we have had regarding marriage is ending."

But, how strange it would be if the laws of the church universal always agreed with the laws of the state. How frightening it would be if the morality of the church always agreed with the morality of the culture. Christ would be shamed and his people would be without the power that comes of a humble and broken heart.

No! It is a battle, a fight, but one that must be fought with kindness, carefulness, faithfulness and courage. And that for the sake of the sinner.

---

Item 07-01: A problem for Jews, a problem for Christians

It isn't often that a Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) General Assembly item has the potential to offend both Christians and Jews, but Item 07-01 has the potential. The item, sponsored by the Chicago Presbytery, is “On Distinguishing Between Biblical Terms for Israel and Those Applied to the Modern State of Israel.” Three actions by the GA are requested by the item.

1.     Distinguish the biblical terms that refer to the ancient land of Israel and the modern political State of Israel.

2.     Develop educational materials, with the help of our Presbyterian seminaries, for  clergy, church musicians, worship leaders, and Christian educators regarding the ‘ancient Israel/modern Israel’ distinction; and

3.     Inform our ecumenical partners of this action, nationally and globally—particularly within Israel and Palestine.

Item 07-01, has occurred because some are offended that the name Israel is used in the new Presbyterian Hymnal Glory to God, including a section of the hymnal, entitled “God’s Covenant with Israel.”

Palestinian American, Nahida Gordon, ruling elder and treasurer of the Israel/Palestine Mission Network, is probably the first to complain of the use of the word Israel linked to God’s covenant. Her open letter to officials of the PC (U.S.A.), from which a quote is taken for the item, can be found at the social justice journal Unbound. Gordon is also bothered by the use of the word Israel in some hymns. She believes that Presbyterians will equate the word with the modern state of Israel.

Here is the Jewish problem:

While it is very clear that the modern state of Israel is not the ancient nation of Israel, it is also clear that many of the inhabitants of Israel are Jewish. That is, both those Jews who are indigenous to the Holy Land and most of those who have immigrated to Israel are descendants of ancient Israel.  The Jewish people of Israel are the connecting link between modern Israel and ancient Israel.

There is much more that can be said about that connection.  The Hebrew language, Torah and community life and ritual have, for two thousand years connected the Jews to their ancient ancestors the Israelites.

To add to the problem, in the rationale a Bethlehem pastor, Mitri Raheb, is quoted. His statement is “The establishment of the State of Israel created … an intended confusion. … Huge efforts were put by the State of Israel and Jewish organizations in branding the new State of Israel as a ‘biblical entity’. (Italics mine) Besides the slander of his thought, he is a pastor who denies that the European Jewish immigrants to modern Israel are ancestors of the ancient Israelites.

Several years ago as one of the speakers at a conference in Bethlehem, “Christ at the Check Point,” Raheb stated that the Jews who immigrated to Palestine from Europe were not descendents of ancient Israelites but were instead descendants “from an East European tribe who converted to Judaism in the Middle Ages.” He was talking about the Khazars of Eastern Europe who during the medieval times converted to Judaism. They later converted to Russian Orthodox Christianity and no DNA testing has proven any connection to modern Jews.

Any commissioner reading this should understand that only anti-Semites insist that European Jews are not related to ancient Israel. This item, 07-01, has every potential to promote bigoted resource material.

Here is the Christian problem:

There have been attempts since the early days of Christianity to disconnect the Old Testament from the New. The heretic Marcion is one example. The Gnostics made the Old Testament God a monster. Some liberals of the nineteenth century were guilty of the attempt. The Nazis, of course, majored in disconnecting the Hebrew Bible from the New Testament.

Now I am not saying that any of those who wrote this item want to disconnect from the Old Testament, but attempts to draw lines between the Israel of today and the Israel of yesterday is fraught with that possibility because as I have pointed out the Israel of old is the past of the Jews of today who make up much of modern Israel. And it isn’t a state that is being torn away from its past, in our thoughts, but it is a people.

Let me give the reader an example of the problem: Felix Mendelssohn, a converted Jew wrote the beautiful music “There shall a Star from Jacob rise.” It is based on the Old Testament passage Numbers 24:16-17a:

"The words of him who hears the words of God and knows the knowledge of the Most High.
Who sees the vision of the Almighty,
falling down, yet having his eyes uncovered.
I see him, but not now;
I behold him, but not near;
A star shall come forth from Jacob,
A scepter shall rise from Israel ... 

Now consider, the Jews of today are the physical descendants of the people Balaam was prophesying about.  And out of them would come the Messiah, the star shall rise, who would bring salvation.  Christians are children grafted into spiritual Israel.  They are adopted children because of that promised star and scepter.  Still, the physical children still exist and many of them make their home in modern day Israel. To deny their modern history is to deny their past history, to break all the links. The Israelites of the past did not disappear; they were not annihilated, instead, many of them returned to the holy land and survived.  And to deny their past history which is so meshed with Christianity is to deny the faith.

Yes, the word Israel in our hymns, biblical text and linked to God’s covenant are about ancient Israel. But the Jewish people and our faith in Jesus the Jewish messiah cannot be severed from their connections. But with item 07-01, there is danger that this will happen.

Item 07-02: "The Interreligious Stance of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)" deconstructing the biblical text

The 221 Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s General Assembly will be voting on Item 07-02  which is chiefly focused on the document “The Interreligious Stance of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).” The General Assembly Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Relations (GACEIR) recommends that the General Assembly approve ‘The Interreligious Stance.’ Sadly,  it is filled with misunderstandings and distortions of the biblical text.  Item 07-02 includes, besides the action on the paper, ‘The Interreligious Stance,” eight other actions. One of the actions is an amendment to the Book of Order at G-5.0102. 

Although the Advisory Committee on the Constitution is not recommending the passage of action 2 of item 07-02, I will give an analysis of it below.

The action changes,”The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) at all levels seeks new opportunities for conversation and understanding with non-Christian religious entities,”

to this:

“The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) at all levels will be open to opportunities for respectful dialogue and mutual relationships with religious entities and persons outside the Christian tradition. It does this in the faith that the church of Jesus Christ, by the power of the Spirit, is a sign and means of God’s intention for the wholeness of all humankind and all of creation.”

The change in G-5.0102 is problematic in the fact that it changes the idea of Christianity from a religion to a tradition.  (A tradition has more to do with custom, norms and ritual than with absolute truths about God, faith and morals.)  And the use of the broader term of “religious entities and persons outside the Christian tradition” allows the PC (U.S.A.), using the language of the “Interreligious Stance,” to be in ‘solidarity’ with any kind of spirituality.

But the most troubling part of the item is with some of the content of “The Interreligious Stance of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).”

The document takes up most of the almost nine pages of item 07-02. And absent from both the change to the Book of Order and the ‘Stance’ document is the understanding that Jesus Christ is the unique Lord and final revelation of God. While the paper is divided up into such categories as “Biblical Backgrounds and Teachings,” and even “Mission and Evangelism” there is never an actual reference to what it is the Church wants those of other faiths to know about Christianity in general or Jesus Christ in particular. The love of God is often referred to but not the real meaning of God’s love as displayed in the redemptive life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

The GACEIR authors are careful to admonish Christians about providing a witness that is respectful and listens to the other; they are helpful in suggesting mutual activities such as doing justice work together and being neighborly, but they simply fail in helping the Christian to actually understand what her witness means in the face of religious pluralism. Added to this is a total deconstruction of many biblical texts.

Under the subtitle “Biblical Backgrounds and Teachings,” the authors insist that “appreciation” for interreligious activity must “arise out of interpretation of the Bible, the church’s confessional statements, Reformed theology, and the lived experiences of the church.” However the only biblical interpretation used in this section is outside of proper biblical exegesis. The idea of interreligious ‘appreciation’ is read into the text rather than the text speaking to the issue.  In the deconstruction of the text, knowledge about God comes by way of evolving events showing the love of God, but minus the redemptive life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

For instance, according to the document, in the Old Testament “the Israelites found themselves dwelling with Canaanite, Moabite, Babylonian, and Persian peoples among others and influenced by their religious understandings.”  There is no mention that this was always a bad influence. The authors go on to state:

The stories of God’s gracious activities through Abraham (Genesis 12-17), Joseph (Genesis 37-50), prophets, matriarchs, and patriarchs toward other peoples of the region are part of a growing understanding of God’s love. God’s love is particularized later to cities such as Nineveh (Jonah 3) and to empires such as Assyria and Egypt (Isaiah 19:23-25).”

Yes, God’s love was involved in the stories, but it was always a love that called the people away from false gods, sinful action and to relationship with the God of Israel. In fact, in the verses preceding Isaiah 19:23-25, God speaks of a return of Egypt to himself:

“In that day there will be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar to the Lord near its border. It will become a sign and a witness to the Lord of hosts in the land of Egypt; for they will cry to the Lord because of oppressors, and he will send them a savior and a champion, and he will deliver them.  Thus the Lord will make himself known to Egypt, and the Egyptians will know the Lord in that day. They well even worship with sacrifice and offering, and well make a vow to the Lord and perform it.” (19-21)

This is true religion, a true turning, because as J. Alec Motyer points out it involves an altar, there is prayer and “God makes himself known,” (revelation),  there is worship and if one goes to the following verse there is discipline.[1] And as we look through the lens of the New Testament, through the revelation of Jesus Christ, we know that the promise of knowing God comes always by way of the promises of a messiah who redeems his people.

The authors of the ‘Stance’ document turn to the New Testament and a little more carefully write, “As the followers of Jesus spread to the cultures of the Roman Empire, they were challenged and influenced by Greek philosophies, Roman emperor worship, Gnostic teaching, and mystery religions of the day.” But they do not take the time to sort out and clarify what influenced and what challenged. In fact, they fail to point out that much of the New Testament was written refuting the ideas found in those issues.

And later, turning to Paul, the authors write that from him we learn a great deal about how to relate to other cultures. They refer to his Athens’ sermon as one good example. And then write, “Paul took seriously the question: What claims do people of different religions make on one another as they live in accordance with what they believe to be true? Paul’s answer was to honor both our commitments to Christian conscience and our commitments to Christian hospitality.” And you might think with this that the authors approve of Paul’s continual stand for truth. But no, they don’t!

 Picking 1 Corinthians 1:22 from the New Testament and Deuteronomy 12:2-3 from the Hebrew Bible they write:

These passages [those I have looked at above.] come to us in the context of other biblical texts. Not all references are loving. Israelites are instructed to destroy Canaanite religious shrines (Duet. 12:2-3), and Paul uses negative terms to describe religious ideas of Jews and Gentiles (1 Cor. 1:22). Some Christians use similar statements to condone disrespecting the religions of other people. Overall, however, the biblical intent is clear: God loves all people—and we are to do likewise.

1 Corinthian 1:22 is, “For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom” and it is hardly an insult. Many of the Jews came to Christ because of the miracles Jesus and his disciples performed, and the Greeks did love wisdom—undoubtedly it was the Greeks love of wisdom that would lead some of them to Christ who is God’s wisdom. However Paul goes on to write, “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." In other words the crucified Jesus, when his crucifixion and resurrection is embraced, is that one who satisfies both the Jew and the Greek.

As for Deuteronomy 12:2-3, since the Canaanite religion required sexual fertility rites as well as the burning death of children it is hardly surprising that God told the Israelites to tear down their altars.

This section “Biblical Backgrounds and Teachings” of “The Interreligious Stance of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.),” makes the practical part of the document’s advice unacceptable. Lack of a clear statement about the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and the twisting of Scripture to fit into the author’s understanding of what interreligious appreciation means leaves the paper open to use by those who wish to deny the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and those who wish to find additional revelation to sit beside God’s final revelation.

---

[1] J. Alec Motyer, Isaiah: An Introduction & Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, D.J. Wiseman, General Editor, (Downers Grove Inter-Varsity Press 1999).