The Nature of Doctrine

Again, I've been listening to a podcast from Pittsburgh Theological Seminary about the recent General Assembly report on the doctrine of the Trinity. In the lecture, Charles Partee spends some time discussing the practice of theology and the nature of doctrine. Here are some excerpts (the emphasis is my own)...

I would have liked to have seen a much more dramatic approach to the question of what it is to do theology. That is, how does one create doctrine, and for what purpose.

This is my suggestion. Theology in my mind is not science. It simply is not science, and the disciplines of science have only a tangential reference to what theologians do. Secondly, theology is not philosophy. We do a lot of talk about reason and synthetic a priori and analytic a priori and concept of experience and all those kinds things. But in the last analysis, theology is not philosophy no matter what tools that one might appropriate from that discipline. At the same time, theology is not poetry. There is a real reference. There are factual components, and what we do in theology is to make truth claims of a particular sort.

My conviction then is that what theology is trying to do is not explain but protect. It maybe entirely too avant garde for a committee of the General Assembly to try to make that point. But I would suggest that in a classroom setting that you at least reflect on the notion that theology is not the truth but is in fact an attempt of the reverent Church to protect the truth which is quite beyond our comprehension…

In the Christian Church for all our academic emphasis, the first orders of speaking are, in fact, preaching, hearing, singing, and praying. Theology is in my judgment a second order of activity. It is an attempt in our thinking to be faithful to these other parts of the church’s life. The whole language of the Christian Church is not classroom language but is church language. Therefore, a lecture and a sermon are very different activities.

Candidates for ministry vow to "receive and adopt the essential tennets of the Reformed faith." As we examine candidates and discuss essential tennets within the church, some reflection on the nature of doctrine is necessary. Theology is secondary to worship. Our theology must not begin with humanity or an abstract notion of God. It begins on our knees in worship. Ultimately, doctrine is in service to the Church. If it does not protect the Biblical witness, then it is useless. I agree with Partee here.

Renewing One Congregation at a Time

Jim Berkley is a reporter for the Institute on Religion and Democracy which has spent the past several years seeking a change in the social and political witness of mainline denominations. As a Presbyterian, Berkley primarily concerns himself with issues facing the PCUSA. He attended the recent Presbyterian Coalition and the Presbyterian Global Fellowship meetings in Atlanta.

Berkley suggests that the Presbyterian Global Fellowship is following a specific playbook.

The Presbyterian Global Fellowship (PGF) attitude seemed to be that the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is largely irrelevant. Thus, the PGF folks will just go ahead and build strong churches that have an outward, missional focus. They're not going to spend much energy anymore thinking about polity machinations or Louisville decrees; they're just going to pursue excellence with a band of missional companions, despite the denomination.

Whether this attitude is an accurate appraisal of PGF remains to be seen. Berkley himself admits as much. No matter how accurate, however, the thought represents the view of many evangelical pastors and elders within the denomination. Whether weary of the battle or happier in hands-on ministry, evangelicals often concern themselves with their local congregation, ignoring the happenings in the greater church.

If Berkley is correct, I do not see this attitude as much of a change from the status quo. Vibrant, healthy churches have always existed in the PCUSA. Unfortunately, as individual congregations have improved, that improvement has not translated to the greater denomination.

Can this strategy bring about renewal in the denomination? Only if congregations become less insular. Healthier congregations should partner with weaker ones. Coalitions of congregations should develop and promote resources for renewal. If possible, these should be accomplished through presbyteries. If not, congregations should do these things on their own. Many small, struggling churches are begging for assistance. Evangelicals should make a concerted effort to help these congregations. Through local churches, the denomination can be renewed one congregation at a time.

One Cheer for Christendom

During a mission trip to Senegal, I had an opportunity to teach church history to some future West African pastors. At one point in the class, we were discussing about how Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. Raised on Jacques Ellul and Stanley Hauerwas, I began to decry the heresies of Christendom. I argued that the political recognition of Christianity was a negative mark on the history of the church. The students were confused. Many of these students had come from countries where Islam was the dominant religion with either cultural or political sanction. They could not imagine that a Christianity without persecution could be a bad thing.

I thought of those students recently when I heard a lecturer condemning the evils of Christendom. What was once an important and novel critique has unfortunately become cliché. Church history before Constantine, good. Church history after Constantine, bad. To be fair, the sins of Christendom still haunt us. The largest is the church’s abdication of it’s witness to the kingdom of God. Instead, the church has often been a chaplain for the existing cultural and political order.

I taught my African students that the official recognition and protection of Christianity opened the door to heresy and laziness. They taught me that being a persecuted minority isn’t much fun. Although flawed, Christendom deserves one cheer if not three.

We must not forget that Christendom Christianity witnessed to the gospel in its own imperfect way. Christendom produced Martin Luther, John Calvin, Karl Barth and even Stanley Hauerwas. Along with its sins, the Christendom church has done a multitude of good works. The church is always a mix of wheat and tares. To emphasize the tares to the exclusion of the wheat is patently unfair.

The real danger of making a caricature of Christendom lies not in the past, but the future. Christendom is by most accounts dead. The post-modern church will not be susceptible to the sins of past. However, she will be tempted in many new ways. Being anxious to condemn Christendom, we make ourselves blind to our own temptations. Again, the church is always a mix of wheat and tares. Every age demands sober reflection on the nature of the church.

Hate-Word of the Month: Missional

I have recently subscribed to the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary podcast, and I was listening to a classroom discussion dated 5-3-06 concerning the General Assembly report on the Trinity. The discussion is a good addendum to an article written by Andrew Purves and Charles Partee in the March/April 2006 issue of Theology Matters.

Given some of the recent discussion concerning the Presbyterian Global Fellowship, I found this intriguing quote by Andrew Purves...

I've decided over the last couple of weeks that my hate-word of the the month is "missional." I've gotten tired of "missional." And I've gotten tired of "missional" because I see it more and more functioning as an abstract adjective. Then it gets filled in with content from wherever. I keep wanting to use the word, "christological." Because if we are in union with Christ, of course, we will be a mission people. We can't be otherwise.

I am a pastor whose favorite books in seminary were Calvin's Institutes and Bosch's Transforming Mission. I believe Guder's Missional Church is essential reading for pastors. I am currently leading my congregation with the help of the Center for Parish Development to become more "missional." Despite all this, I am totally in agreement with Purves.

Jesus Christ is more foundational than the mission to which he calls. Mission has definitely been a neglected part of ecclesiology. However, we must not over-compensate by neglecting christology.

PGF and a Warning from Fox News

"Can Rick Warren save the world?"

That question was the subtitle from a Fox News special last night about Rick Warren and his plans for ending "poverty, disease, illiteracy, spiritual emptiness, and egocentric leadership."

Can Rick Warren make an impact in the world? Yes. Can Rick Warren make a positive influence? Yes. Can Rick Warren save the world? No. There is only one Messiah, and Rick Warren ain't him. I don't blame Rick Warren for the Fox News title. I'm sure he was embarrassed. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Warren had a hand in Fox News changing it on their website (Check out before and after).

After attending the Presbyterian Global Fellowship, the offensive Fox News title was a good reminder of the dangers before us. Being missionally-minded must not become a righteouness based on our works. It is easy to be overwhelmed at the pain of the world. Likewise, it is easy to become prideful at our efforts to alleviate suffering. The focus then becomes us. Some might become self-righteous on their own good deeds, but the majority will become burned-out or guilt-ridden because they can't do enough.

Should we reject works? Do we ignore the call to be missional? Heaven forbid. Faith without works is dead, but we must be ever vigiliant to avoid idolatry. The Presbyterian Global Fellowship and our missional congregations must preach and teach the amazing grace of our Lord, Jesus Christ. We should see obedience to Christ and our good works as gratitude to God. The only way we can be "outwardly focused" is to be "inwardly strong."

I am not suggesting that the leadership of PGF intends anything amiss. I just know that they have hard work ahead of them. I pray for their wisdom and courage.

We cannot save the world. Thankfully, Jesus Christ can and has.

Presbyterian Global Fellowship

I’ve been to Atlanta and back. For the past few days, I’ve been attending the Presbyterian Global Fellowship meeting. This group was born out of evangelical frustration with the fights on sexuality and the financial decimation of the Worldwide Ministries Division of the PCUSA. They are committed to missions abroad and to being missional at home. They are also committed to remaining in the denomination. Several friends recommended that I attend, and I see now that I needed to be there.

I didn’t realize that the stress of pastoral ministry and the frustration caused by the General Assembly have wore me down. Gathering with other evangelicals in Atlanta was therapeutic for me. I wept as I listened to stories of God’s faithfulness. As one speaker suggested, we need to remind each other of who Christ is and what his purpose is for our lives. In the midst of life, we forget too easily.

Clearly, I had a good experience, but I do have concerns. The Presbyterian Global Fellowship is still young, without form or function. We do not know what its relationship with the Presbyterian Church USA will be. We do not know how it will relate to the other renewal groups such as Presbyterians For Renewal, Presbyterian Frontier Fellowship, and the like. We do not know how the fellowship intends to foster the revitalization of congregations. These are not complaints. Rather, it is an acknowledgment that the leadership of the organization has some difficult waters to navigate. General Assembly Moderator Joan Gray was right that they should lead from their knees.

As the organization moves forward, more time will be needed to develop theological clarity. Missional has become a buzz word in churches. In Atlanta, I heard a variety of interpretations of its meaning. Some assumed that missional merely meant more outreach programs. Others saw missional simply in terms of cross-cultural mission trips. Some spoke of organizing the church around mission implying that our unity was found there. I believe these are simplistic understandings of the term. The church is organized around Jesus Christ who sends us into the world. Thankfully some were expressing a more biblical and profound understanding of mission. I hope that these voices will dominate in the future of Presbyterian Global Fellowship.

People were pumped after the meeting this week. A speaker declared that the Atlanta event was the most important event in the PCUSA in twenty years. The truth of that statement remains to be seen. I don’t want to sound like a wet blanket, but the future of our corner of the kingdom of God deserves sober reflection.

Evangelical Politicking

The face of evangelical politics is changing according to Michael Gerson, the chief speechwriter of President George W. Bush during the 2000 campaign and first term. In an interview with Christianity Today, Gerson suggests that younger evangelicals are rejecting the one or two issues of the Religious Right and embracing a broader agenda of “social justice.”

Will compassionate conservatism survive rising deficits, the cost of Katrina, and illegal immigration?
There are some members of the Republican Party who do not understand the power and appeal of this set of issues and who have a much more narrow view of government's role…

Until recently, the Republican Party and Christian conservatives have complained that government is the problem. Is that a view they will likely return to?
I think it's a temptation, but I don't think it's going to happen. One reason is because of what's changed in evangelical political involvement.

I think there are lots and lots of young people, in their 20s to 40s, who are very impatient with older models of social engagement like those used by the Religious Right. They understand the importance of the life issues and the family issues, but they know the concern for justice has to be broader and global. At least a good portion of the evangelical movement is looking for leaders who have a broader conception of social justice…

You're starting to sound like Jim Wallis!
No, because I also don't think the answers can be found in the Religious Left. I don't think we can minimize some of the traditional issues. I don't believe it's possible to be concerned about social justice without being concerned about the weakest members of the human family. I also think that America can play an active and positive role in the world and that we're not at fault for everything.

A few comments of my own...

1. As these comments suggest, Compassionate Conservatism is more than a cynical rhetorical device. Gerson believes that it is a real governing principle. Despite six years into an administration which wears the term as a mantle, the movement remains ill-defined. Gerson seems to equate Compassionate Conservatism with a secular version of Christian "social justice." George W. Bush was apparently more telling than many thought when he named Jesus as his favorite political philosopher.

2. Jim Wallis is the founder and editor of Sojourners. He has been the default spokesperson for the Religious Left in the United States. Gerson interestingly doesn't seem to have a problem with Wallis' view of "social justice." Both seem concerned with poor and the downtrodden. Calls for battling the AIDS crisis in Africa or for providing perscription drugs for the poor resonate with Christians of all political stripes. The only difference Gerson suggests is that the Religious Left has walked away from traditional morality.

3. Gerson seems to reject the notion of limited government. He suggests that evangelical resistance to active government in the past was based upon the character of that government and not about the limits of government itself. He may be correct. Since evangelicals have had more power to influence policy, they have been less inclined to limit the government's role.

Although I am sympathetic to Gerson's goals for "justice" in society, I am very suspicious of an energetic and ever-expanding government. The attitude reminds me of the naivete of the social gospel movement a century ago. Government is a blunt instrument, and "hubris" is a real problem. The evangelicals of today need to be reminded of the pervasive problem of sin. Human depravity even pollutes our good intentions. Reinhold Niebuhr has much to teach this generation of evangelicals.

For those wishing to pursue their faith within the society, more thought should be given to the natural limits of government and power. We should realize that local governments, better than centralized ones, promote responsibility and accountability. We should also remember that structures such as the family, the church, and voluntary associations can often promote justice and human dignity even better than government. Most of all, we must know that true justice will remain ellusive on this side of the God's kingdom. We ignore these principles to our peril.

Preaching as Calling

The other day, I was doing some work on the "marks of the Church." What I discovered was an article on renewing congregational life by a mainline pastor printed in the Christian Century in 2000. In the article, there was a quote that intrigued me. The author, Anthony Robinson, writes...

After the dedication of a new community youth center, a leader in my denomination was invited by the mayor of the city to have coffee. The mayor, who happened to be African-American, told the minister, "You know, I appreciate all your efforts in getting this center opened, and I also appreciate your remarks today. But you are a Christian minister and I didn’t hear you say anything that couldn’t have been said by someone else. We need to hear something different from you. We need to hear something from the gospel."

This is a wake-up call to all preachers, including myself. When I first had the thought that God might be calling me into ordained ministry, I had a quandry. Why did I have to be ordained to preach? I mean, we are all called "to make disciples," to be "Christ's ambassadors," or to be Christ's "witnesses." What makes the preacher different? While in seminary, I was not ordained, but I preached every Sunday. What would be different in my preaching after my ordination?

Finally, I accepted a solution albeit an imperfect one. The preacher who is called and ordained must share God's Word. He or she must be Christ's witness. There are times when the gospel may be inconvenient, embarrassing, or even risky. The ordained preacher must speak the Word of God when no one else will.

It is so easy to lose track of this vocation. In the midst of ministry, preachers will acquire multiple interests and talents. Some become junior psychologists. Others are experts in marketing or management. Still others become political activists. These abilities are not bad things. In its own way, each can bring glory to God. A good preacher uses these talents to inform preaching, bringing them in submission to the Word. Occasionally, we forget our calling, and these talents replace our preaching. We've all heard sermons that were merely political diatribes, self-help advice or sociological analysis. Resisting these tempations, we must cry out with John the Baptist, "[Jesus Christ] must increase, but I must decrease" (John 3:30).

Teach for America: An Alumnus

The June 2006 edition of Readers Digest has a good article on Wendy Kopp the creator of Teach For America, the national teacher corps. It's like the Peace Corps except instead of going overseas, participants teach in inner-city and rural schools. I'm also an alumnus.

The organization has grown considerably since I was in the Mississippi Delta corps from 1992-1994. TFA is certainly more organized and efficient, but I wonder if it retains the entrepeneural spirit that existed. Back then, ideas about teaching and leadership were coming fast and furious. The organization was very experimental. We would discover (or more likely rediscover) good ideas and reject plenty of bad ones. At least we learned from our mistakes. Most emerged from teaching a bit less naive, more experienced, and committed to Teach for America's mantra--"Every child deserves a quality education."

Laughter Cannot Heal

I recently read an interview with Robin Williams from the April 2006, Readers Digest. The interviewer asked about doing comedy after 9/11. Finally, the interviewer asks…

Readers Digest: But in this case the laughter really did have a healing power?
Robin Williams: Healing isn’t the word. Therapeutic maybe, or cathartic. After being in extreme situations, it kind of brings you back to life.

The interview allows this exchange to stand without comment. A few years ago, I read Anatomy of an Illness by Norman Cousins. In this book, Cousins described the anesthetic effect of laughter. Since that time, I have heard so many people describe the healing properties of laughter that it has become cliché. As a result, Williams words took me by surprise.

As I have reflected on Robin Williams’ words, I think he’s right. Laughter can be therapeutic, cathartic or even medicinal. However, laughter cannot heal. I think of John Belushi or Chris Farley, and the pain which the laughter masked. If laughter actually healed, then both of these comedic greats would still be around. Like other medicines, laughter can be used and abused. Used correctly, laughter can help facilitate true healing. Used incorrectly, it’s like every other drug used to escape the brokenness.

Newsletter: Influential Churches

Dr. John Vaughan, a researcher and consultant to churches, has recently compiled a list of the fifty most influential Protestant churches in America. I’m sorry to tell you that First Presbyterian Church of Vernon did not make the first fifty. In fact, none of the churches in Vernon did. The list is a "who’s who" of mega-churches in growing metropolitan areas. To even be considered for the list, a church had to have more than 2,000 in weekly attendance. Dr. Vaughan compiled this list based on the polling of the pastors from these same mega-churches.

I don’t want to be considered as unappreciative of the hard work that went into the list, but it seems that the results were bound to be skewed. Perhaps if our congregation had made the list, I would feel differently, but it seems that Dr. Vaughan had a particular understanding of "influential." Don’t get me wrong. There are faithful congregations up and down that list. Mega-churches have made and will continue to make a huge impact on the landscape of American Christianity. Still, I wish Dr.Vaughan had asked me what I thought were the most "influential" churches in America.

Now, granted I’m biased. So I would list our congregation at the top of the list. Then I would list Presbyterian churches in Irving, Texas, in Lexington, Indiana, and in Waynesburg, Malvern, Carrollton, Loudonville, and Berea, Ohio. I would also list a Methodist church in Diboll, Texas, a Southern Baptist church near Elaine, Arkansas, a Nazarene church outside of Houston, another Nazarene Church in Times Square, a Methodist church in Cordele, Georgia, and a couple of Roman Catholic churches in New Jersey and Ohio. This is not a complete list, but you can see that my list is varied. These congregations are large and small. They have nothing in common except one thing. They have all made a personal impact on me or the people I love.

When the disciples argued about who was the greatest, Jesus said, "If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all" (Mark 9:35). We are the most influential when we serve one another. Staying up all night with a friend in need, providing a meal, or teaching a Sunday school class that no one else will are tangible ways we influence the world for the gospel. The measurement of influence is not attendance, size or budget. Rather, real influence is faithfulness. Jesus said that the kingdom of God is like a mustard seed (Matthew 13:31). Starting small and inconsequential, its impact is greater than you can possibly imagine.

Pray for Rain

In my research for sermon on 1 Kings 18:17-39, I discovered an article from Jewish Heritage Online Magazine. The beginning of the article makes much about Israel being a land that is fed by rainwater rather than river water.

Rainfall is a symbol of divine providence. Furthermore, according to the biblical stories, in the great riverine countries a nation's sense of ownership of its land and mastery of its destiny is reinforced, leading to the development of tyrannical regimes and slavery. In land that drink rainwater, on the other hand, man constantly senses his dependence on God and for that reason such a land will sustain a regime of justice, free of subjugation.

Whether ancient Israel was a regime of justice is probably an open question. The Old Testament prophets certainly had their doubts. In the aforementioned passage, Elijah calls the people of Israel to faithfulness and repentance after worshipping the idols of Ba'al. After God embarrasses the prophets of Ba'al on Mount Carmel and the people return to faith, the long drought ends.

Still, there may be some truth to the claim. By this description of places that drink rainwater, the Texas plains must be a land that "will sustain a regime of justice, free of subjugation." Perhaps, we are. Being dependent on God, we certainly are suspicious of those who wish to usurp our freedom. Recognizing the sovereignty of God we, Texans, certainly have a transcendent understanding of justice.

Still, we are tired of our current drought. There may even be some who are willing to give up a bit of that freedom if it would bring some rain. This is one of the driest seasons on record for Wilbarger County, Texas. In the midst of a difficult drought, we've learned our lessons well. Many of us are crying, "Okay God, we've got it. We are ready to move on now."

So we pray for rain. Some may have read about officials in the city of Lubbock calling for a day of prayer and fasting. I was a little surprised to see the story highlighted on the Drudge Report. If I had to guess why Matt Drudge thought the story worthy to link was probably surprise that those quaint Red Staters pray for rain or maybe that the drought is so bad that people are praying in desparation. Either way, the coverage has had another effect. Christians and a few non-Christians from all over the country are now praying for us.

I understand that God is mysterious and beyond our control. That may give little comfort as crops fail and cattle must be sold. Still, we remember the times of blessing. We remember God's faithfulness and his promises to us. We remind each other of these things, and yes, we even remind God.

Lord, please send us rain.

Task Force Never Got Started

Barbara Wheeler asks in her recent Outlook article, "Did the Task Force Succeed?" The answer she suggests is a mix. Where Presbyterians have agreed with the Peace, Unity and Purity Task Force, she counts as success. Where there has been contention or controversy, for her, success is elusive. The reasons for the lack of success, according to Wheeler, are primarily a sex-obsessed secular media and the "church lobbyists."

Admittedly, I am not fond of our new authoritative interpretation. I cannot imagine that something that causes so much confusion can further the peace, unity and purity of the church. Laying those objections aside, the PUP task force never succeeded because it never got started.

I was on the committee that formed the task force at the 2001 General Assembly. We developed its mandate, which was approved overwhelmingly by the General Assembly. Most of us were concerned with the lack of trust within the denomination, and we prayed that we had created something that was not church-as-usual. In response to the Confessing Church Movement, there was a desire to meet churches at the "grassroots." In fact, "grassroots" became one of the catchwords for that year’s Assembly. We purposely wanted to avoid a process that appeared heavy-handed. We did not want a group to make pronouncements from on high.

The moderator of the 212th General Assembly, Sygman Rhee, pushed for a commission like occurred in the 1920s, which dealt with the modernist-fundamentalist controversy. In 2001, our committee rejected the language of "commission" in favor of "task force" because we perceived that a commission could take action on behalf of the entire General Assembly. Instead we wanted an organic process that included "conferring with synods, presbyteries, and congregations."

The task force was "directed to lead the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) in spiritual discernment of our Christian identity in and for the 21st Century." Many of us realized that our problems would not be solved by a report of a task force. Our problems are deeper. We have an identity crisis among Presbyterians. We are unsure who we are or what our purpose is. Our fights about ordination standards reveal deeper, more fundamental questions.

Many hoped that the task force would lead the entire denomination in the hard work of theology and spiritual discernment. The task force took another route. They gathered among themselves. They worked in isolation, often behind closed doors. Although much of the task force’s work was commendable, the people in the pews were not particularly involved. Many of us only saw the task force after the discernment process was over. A few months before the 217th General Assembly, the task force was in the presbyteries "selling" their report and policy recommendations.

Imagine someone who goes to a spiritual director needing help in discernment. The spiritual director responds, "I’ll get right to work on that." Then, the director disappears, occasionally reappearing offering updates on her progress. After a few years, the director produces a written report with some discussion questions at the end. The director may have done some discernment, but the person who needs it has gained nothing. I found it telling that when the PCUSA described the work of the task force, the mandate was changed. One bulletin insert used to introduce congregations to the task force’s final report stated, "They were asked to discern the church’s ‘Christian identity in and for the 21st Century.’"

Even if the task force achieved Christian nirvana in their closed-door meetings, the rest of us have not benefited from that process. They may have changed, but we haven’t. Does the denomination in general have a better theological background to make tough decisions? Is there now a consensus of who Jesus is? Do we even understand what the problems are that face our denomination? This hard work remains to be done. Then when individuals in the denomination actually try to engage in discernment by debating the policy recommendations or making suggestions to change them, members of the task force tell us that we are being divisive. The task force believes that its job has been completed with a report and a murky authoritative interpretation. Although some decry their efforts, I believe that the affinity groups in their imperfect way are trying to do what the task force failed to do–to lead the denomination in spiritual discernment. Nature abhors a vacuum.

Finally, I am not suggesting that the problems we face solely rest on the failures of the Peace, Unity and Purity Task Force. To suggest such would make me guilty of the same failings. Unlike the rhetoric that I’ve been hearing, the task force and its recommendations are not Christ or anti-christ. We can only blame ourselves for the impasse that we’ve reached in our life together. We have looked for easy solutions, and we have allowed others to do our work for us. Let us take up the difficult tasks of prayer, worship, theology, and discernment. We have a Savior. Let’s follow him.

La Dolce Vita

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2006/07/07/ftdolce07.xml

All right, I am convinced. I want to be Italian. Whether true or not, the lifestyle depicted in this article reveals the worst of American and apparently British life. We over-eat, eating lousy food, alone in front of the television or computer screen. We over-work, looking at sleep with suspicion. We are like children trying to stay up later and later thinking we may miss something important. We sit more than we move probably because we are so tired. We live in isolation, sharing a house but rarely a home. I’m ready to pack my bags.

Americans are obsessive with "the pursuit of happiness." Most Americans, however, haven't spent much time concerned with the meaning of happiness. That doesn't mean that Italians have. Instead, they have received a tradition and a culture which just may be more conducive to life in community. Indeed, there are Italians which long to be American or British. They see American life as better than "la vita italiana." The grass is always greener.

Nonetheless, facing the faults of the American life, we can choose something better. I think the Church should speak to these issues. Perhaps, we can offer an alternative to the fast-paced, lonely, excessive American life. We can be something truly counter-cultural.

Do they need missionaries in Italy?

My Dirty Little Secret

Okay, I admit it. I am the intellectual grandchild of Leo Strauss. You know Leo Strauss, the evil father of neo-conservatism. The person who runs the Bush administration from the grave on its quest for world domination.

In college, I studied political philosophy. I even wrote a short thesis on David Hume and Ludwig Wittgenstein. My professor was a student of Strauss. Through that professor, I became acquainted with other heirs of Strauss--thinkers like Alan Bloom, Thomas Pangle, and Francis Fukuyama. Strauss is a dense read. I would be surprised if the hyperventilating critics actually have a clue what he thought.

Steven Smith has a nice introduction into the thought of Leo Strauss. Quickly one realizes that the bogeyman of the American left has almost no resemblance to the actual man. Primarily Strauss was concerned with the reading of good books by great thinkers. In the same vein, my professor taught me to read books with the assumption that the author knew more than me. Bringing this humility to a text allowed me to plunge deeply. I wrestled with apparent contradictions, assuming that the author was trying to teach me something.

As Smith recounts, Strauss himself wrestled with questions that few ask anymore. "Is reason or revelation the ultimate guide for life?" "Has the quarrel between the ancients and the moderns been decided in favor of modernity?" and "Are the philosophers or the poets better educators of civic life?" The diversity of thought on these questions by Strauss' students suggests that Strauss himself was not interested in promoting a rigid ideology.

The most difficult part of Strauss is his rediscovery of esoteric writing. In this way of thinking, great writers would not always come out and say what they thought. For example, we cannot assume that the words of a character in a Shakespeare play are Shakespeare's own thoughts and ideas. In fact, they may be the opposite of his own. Perhaps, the character is a foil, or perhaps the dialogue itself is what is important. In a novel, play or dialogue, this may make sense, but Strauss even suggests that prose writers may hide meanings within a text. I found such hidden meanings difficult to ferret out. Perhaps, even the hidden meaning was the product of my imagination. Listening to my professor, you would think that almost every author was a a closet atheist.

Laying that criticism aside, I owe an incredible debt to Leo Strauss and his intellectual heirs. First, I love primary texts. I much rather read an author than about an author. Second, I try to suppress my pride as a read an author. Rather than casting judgment on a text, I try to listen. This attitude was instrumental in me becoming a Christian. Dropping my arrogance, the Holy Spirit opened me to the truth of the Scriptures. Finally, I have learned that words and ideas matter. I am able to ask hard questions. Was Tertullian right that Athens has nothing to do with Jerusalem? When conflict occurs in the biblical text, is there a greater meaning? In my own sermons, where is the gospel and where is my own cultural baggage? What are the idols of our age, and what can we do to avoid them?

For me, Leo Strauss' legacy is a method not an ideology.

Help vs. Solidarity

In "Jesus Nation: Sweaty Solidarity Forever," Jeff Sharlet decries the lack of a serious religious movement on the political left. He is unsatisfied with the smiling face of Jim Wallis on television providing "balance" to spokesmen of the religious right.

Do I care about the religious left? Not particularly, no more than I care about the religious right. Still, I was intrigued with at least one premise of the article. In dealing with the social ills, "help" is insufficient.

Sharlet offers a quote from black theologian, James Cone: "authentic love is not 'help'--not giving Christmas baskets--but working for political, social, and economic justice, which always means a redistribution of power. It is a kind of power which enables [the oppressed] to fight their own battles and thus keep their dignity."

I haven't been a fan of Cone since I discovered I fit his description of a "Christo-fascist"--someone who places Jesus Christ at the center of faith. (On the other hand, I have wore the label as a badge of honor. It certainly gets the attention of others.) Moreover, I am deeply suspicious of calls for "redistribution of power." Political leftists have a poor track record. Nonetheless, there is a deeper truth here at which Cone hints. The kingdom of God is more than charity. The kingdom of God is about transformed lives.

Every person who comes into my church seeking assistance needs more than a few bucks. Perhaps, the deeper problems are addiction, destructive relationships or simply poor money management. I tell each one that they need the support of a God and a community that loves them. Unlike Cone, I think there is a place for "Christmas baskets." Still, faithfulness demands that we walk with those in need. More than a hand-out, they need Jesus Christ and his Church. In the words of the article, they need "solidarity" not "help."

I think this lesson taken from a radical like Cone, needs to reverberate in our denomination, locally and nationally. The PCUSA has a ton of opinions on social issues. Most of those opinions are expressed by lobbying the government to change laws and policies. Unfortunately, government policies are unable to provide the "solidarity" that the poor desparately need. Rather than making ourselves feel good through lobbying or throwing money, we need to come alongside the poor and the oppressed.

A few years ago, the PCUSA boycotted Taco Bell. We paid someone half a salary to help organize picket lines. We were concerned about migrant tomato pickers. We could have sent missionaries, lawyers, and teachers to the migrant workers. We could have helped them break the cycles of poverty or navigate the difficulties of immigration law. Instead we settled for one cent higher price per bushel of tomatoes. With inflation, that benefit will soon disappear, but the poverty will remain. "Help" is always easier than "solidarity."

Pastoral Letter: The Need for Discernment

Recently our congregation has begun a process of discernment. We are asking some tough questions about the direction of our congregration. More importantly we are listening to God to give us direction. Here is a pastoral letter to my congregation about the discernment process.

Dear Friends,

Q. How many Presbyterians does it take to change a light bulb?
A. What? Change?

Whether warranted or not, Presbyterians have a bad reputation about adapting to change. Let me be the first to say that this is not necessarily a bad thing. In the past few generations, we have seen the world change at a dizzying pace. We should be thankful for many of those changes, but we also should recognize that not every change is good. The church’s role is not to change for change’s sake, but rather we are called to respond in new ways to new situations with the same Jesus Christ. Reaching out to the world with the gospel means translating it into the language and culture of our place and time. At the same time, we use the gospel to critique, to criticize, and to expose the idols of our age.

Our congregation faces a much different world than the one faced by Vernon Presbyterians in 1888 or even in 1988. After years of cultural primacy, Christianity is no longer the dominate force in Western society. As our society becomes more cosmopolitan, it becomes the locus for clashes between various religious traditions and even no religious tradition. For many, truth has become relative, completely dependent on particular context. At the same time, religion has become privatized, a hobby. Even the increasingly large Christian subculture in America looks and acts often like their non-Christian neighbors. For example, high divorce rates, sexual immorality, materialism and biblical illiteracy plague the Church as well as society as a whole. In our modern world, many feel more isolated, more hurried, and less grounded. After years on foreign shores, many missionaries have returned home and acknowledge that the United States is now a mission field.

In the past, the Church has acted like a chaplain to the greater culture. The Church accepted the roles and limits assigned to it. She merely addressed the religious needs of the community. As the culture has changed, the Church must now act as a missionary. Rather than a dispenser of religious goods, she must herald the kingdom of God, proclaiming the good news of God’s reign to a skeptical world.

Our temptation in this time of transition is great. There are plenty who peddle solutions for what ails the Church. Fads and gimmicks abound. Instead of adopting a few quick-fixes, we need to listen intentionally to God. Our congregation has begun a season of discernment. We want to hear God’s call, and we want to respond in faith. In the coming months, we ask for your prayers and participation. We hope that this season will be a time of renewal and revival for our congregation and for you.

Grace & Peace,
James

Natural Backlash?

Concerning the recent actions of the 217th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA, I am afraid that only a relative few will become hot and bothered unless the standards actually change. Presbyterians have learned how to distance themselves from the national denomination--Angela Davis, Re-imagining, the Layman-declared "apostate" General Assembly, Israeli divestment, etc. Our congregations have stuck with the denomination through all of this. A confusing and murky Authoritative Interpretation which keeps the standards in place is unlikely tomotivate us to clean house.

Take a cue from our friends in the Episcopal Church. Conservatives have been ticked with the direction of the church for a while. The American hierarchy have been quietly electing priests and even bishops who deny the divinity of Jesus Christ or are involved in unrepentant sin. The folks in the pews complained but were satisfied that their congregation was different. When the denomination ordains an openly practicing unrepentant adulterer as a bishop, essentially redefining sin, the folks in the pews couldn't ignore it. An inevitable split is on the way.

It has been my experience that the folks in our pews can't stand defiance, but they can tolerate hypocrisy. Burn a little incense at G-6.0106b but then live your life any way you want. For this reason the PUP Task Force's AI was perfect. It is hypocrisy, plain and simple.

I raise these issues because I don't think that there is a natural backlash. Yes, plenty of us are mad, and we can fill a bunch of auditoriums easily. However, we can't just wave the flag and expect the church to rally. As pastors, we have a difficult job of teaching and leading. The church is in need of conversion, repentance, and discipleship. I don't expect the hard work to end until my Savior returns.

General Assembly Fallout

I guess that I’ve been pretty quiet about the direction of the Presbyterian Church USA. I was in Birmingham for part of the 217th General Assembly, and I’ve been carefully watching events unfold. My silence on-line has not been matched by silence in my congregation. I have made presentations to the session and to interested parties before and after the assembly.

The General Assembly brought a number of interesting results. We declared that terrorism and suicide bombing are crimes against humanity. (Osama Bin Laden is quaking in his boots now that the Presbyterians have weighed in.) We declared that babies in the womb which are viable should be allowed to live. We backed away from divestment in Israel. We "received" a deeply flawed report on the Trinity as if we received a UPS package for the next door neighbor. (In other words, it carries no weight.) We cut forty missionaries. We even directed the Stated Clerk to lobby the president on the benefits of medical marijuana.

However, all these actions seem to pale in comparison to the issue of sexuality. In 2001, the General Assembly created a task force to lead the denomination in spiritual discernment. Instead, the group met together, discussed, wrote papers, and made policy recommendations. One policy change is the infamous Recommendation 5. Some claim that this recommendation merely affirms traditional Presbyterian polity. The denomination sets national standards, and they are applied at the local levels. Others see this recommendation as allowing local authorities the option to ordain openly unrepentant adulterers. The confusion is great, and every word that comes out of the Stated Clerk’s office creates more of it. The national standards have not changed, we are told again and again, yet no one knows what that means any more. "John Calvin, I’d like you to meet Jacques Derrida."

Now what? There are several groups which are meeting this summer to wrestle with the new situation. Some are talking schism and splits. Others are talking about living faithfully within the new structure. I am willing to be patient.

I used to think that the denomination would split within my lifetime. I don’t think so anymore. Unless the denomination changes dramatically, it will go out with a whimper. Local churches will join together in various associations and partnerships. Some will be sponsored by denominational structures. Others will not. Para-church organizations will continue to multiply. Healthier ministries will prosper. Others will wither on the vine. The 1950s denominational structure built on the models of General Motors or IBM will disappear. Granted the new world looks much messier, but personally, I would shed few tears. I care more about the loss of reformed theology and tradition, but the denomination has already done little to prevent that from happening. Ultimately, I am concerned about our faithfulness to God. By God’s grace, I pledge to be faithful in the PCUSA and whatever may come after.

Rejection of the Religious

When talking to others on the subject of faith and belief, one of my favorite cliche's that I hear is "I'm spiritual but not religious."

What that usually means is the person has rejected "organized religion" in favor of the mystical, the obscure, or a syncretism of one's own creation. Sociologically speaking, there really is no distinction. Spirituality or religion is the same thing. We acknowledge something beyond the material. We reach outward to embrace the divine.

In a fascinating article written around Christmas of 2005, Umberto Eco speaks to the universality of religion.

"Human beings are religious animals. It is psychologically very hard to go through life without the justification, and the hope, provided by religion."

and later...

"It is the role of religion to provide that justification. Religions are systems of belief that enable human beings to justify their existence and which reconcile us to death."

Eco was raised Roman Catholic but has rejected the church. Still he accepts the superiority of the Christian religion. He states, "I have a profound respect for the Christian traditions." Moreover, he specifically calls the religious celebration of Christmas, "a clear and coherent absurdity."

This I would argue is the conservative position. Christianity has proven itself as a religion. It is tried and true compared to the occult and more novel beliefs. As a religion, it has a track record. It's influence in the development of Western Civilization has been on whole a positive for all humanity.

However, the Western Church is dying. Eco notes,

We in Europe have faced a fading of organised religion in recent years. Faith in the Christian churches has been declining.

The ideologies such as communism that promised to supplant religion have failed in spectacular and very public fashion. So we're all still looking for something that will reconcile each of us to the inevitability of our own death.

G K Chesterton is often credited with observing: "When a man ceases to believe in God, he doesn't believe in nothing. He believes in anything." Whoever said it - he was right. We are supposed to live in a sceptical age. In fact, we live in an age of outrageous credulity.

The "death of God", or at least the dying of the Christian God, has been accompanied by the birth of a plethora of new idols. They have multiplied like bacteria on the corpse of the Christian Church -- from strange pagan cults and sects to the silly, sub-Christian superstitions of The Da Vinci Code.

The conservative position is ultimately weak because the superiority of the Christian religion is no guarantee of it's viability. The appeal made by Eco treats Christianity as one choice among many -- granted a superior choice but still merely a choice. That argument already concedes so much. The God we Christians worship is more than a choice. He is the Lord of lords, King of kings. This God has a legitimate claim over all of our lives. If we fail to praise this God, the very rocks will cry out.

Instead, I would argue that Christianity is not a religion. This is not a new thought. Karl Barth takes this position. Religion is about our reaching upward to God. On the other hand, Christianity is about God reaching downward to us. Religion is a human work. Christianity is a divine grace.