Psalm 96:1-13; Daniel 6:1-15; 2 John 1-13
When I read Daniel and 2 John in the same reading, I am reminded of my responsibilities on the CPM committee in my Presbytery - Committee for Preparation for Ministry. The meeting of the satraps and presidents sounds like the bunch of elders and ministers and Presbytery representatives who consider the readiness of individuals for ordination within our denomination, through stages of inquiry, candidacy and ordination. I'm not sure I'm a satrap or a president, but I, like Daniel, have for sat before them on my own journey to ordination. Now I'm one of them.
Daniel flew through the process and became a superior leader among them because he had "an excellent spirit within him," and had not broken the law of God. But jealousy seemed to creep in among the others; he was just too good. And on top of that, he was a fundamentalist. Can't have that in this denomination. And so, a new requirement was imposed, to give homage to the King over God. But Daniel stayed his conscience and his faith. He maintained first and foremost his allegiance to God over his King. And he stepped into the trap set for him by his colleagues.
When we examine candidates, we presidents and satraps are asked to have them uphold the essential tenets of the reformed faith, even though they might stray from our "standards" outlined in the our constitution (confessions and Book of Order) in "good conscience." In fact, they can even have a scruple with the essential tenets, as I read the PUP report and the committee, and in the name of diversity, the CPM can pass them on. Our General Assembly has passed a guideline for us to examine people for this aspect - the Peace Unity and Purity (PUP) report which leaves open the possibility for candidates to be less than "fundamental" on the standards, and ambiguous about the essentials, even though they might have "wonderful gifts," love the Lord, and be hard working and likable. Even if their practices and teachings might cause some to stumble or minimize the authority of scripture, or the Lordship of Jesus. Even if they cannot stomach calling God their Father. And so on.
But if they're too fundamental, they might make the rest of us look bad, or have to consider our own compromises with the truth when it gets in the way of our lifestyles or conflicts with our hearts or experiences. Or when the ministry of the gospel includes prohibitions that have gone out of vogue, such as sexual purity, the Lordship of Christ alone in a pluralistic world, and biblical literacy among others. When winning lost souls is too uncomfortable for some Presbyterians who would rather feed the poor, and settle for sloppy teaching, than sound proclamation and evangelism. Fundamentalists don't belong in the PC(USA).
The writer of 2 John saw this coming too, as he chastised the woman for allowing "deceivers" into her community - into her home no less - and apparently they were leading her and the community astray. She must have been a woman of influence in the church. It seems her children, however, were fundamentalists, or so we could decide from this text. And their fragile faith was in jeopardy by her inclusiveness. I don't see this as a mandate to exclude people form the gospel, but apparently, this "deceiver" had been undermining the fundamental teachings of the community who were filled with new converts: 5But now, dear lady, I ask you, not as though I were writing you a new commandment, but one we have had from the beginning, let us love one another. 6And this is love, that we walk according to his commandments; this is the commandment just as you have heard it from the beginning—you must walk in it.
What are the commandments? God alone is God. Love God first and foremost, above the institution, above the denomination, the polity, the tradition, the structures and rules. God is Lord of the conscience, but not at the expense of the authority of scripture. And as professing Christians, the essential of our faith is Jesus Christ: his life and his work and his teaching.
When I talk to candidates I want to hear them profess Jesus Christ as the way and the truth and the life - before all else. I want to hear that they have "the excellent spirit of Jesus" in them and how the Holy Spirit is working in them. The denomination may come and go, but God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. And either we believe his commandments hold as truth for today or we don't. God is God, not us.
I see my work on CPM as dicey and necessary and occasionally controversial. For as what would be defined fundamentalism, I align with the writer of 2 John as I discern the readiness and competency of those who will lead and teach the essentials of our Christian faith to future generations: 8Be on your guard, so that you do not lose what we have worked for, but may receive a full reward. 9Everyone who does not abide in the teaching of Christ, but goes beyond it, does not have God; whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.
Jesus was fundamental in his faith and his obedience to the Father, so evident in the gospel of John. Jesus alone is the fundamental way to salvation. Sin blocks our way to God. This is what he taught. Lest we forget, when Jesus came in this encounter today in Luke with the leper, he was more concerned with healing sins, than physical needs. Sin. A fundamental human condition that is fundamentally defined in our scriptures, and fundamentally accounted for in the life and death of our Savior. If we embrace the fundamentals of the way to salvation - Repent, believe and follow Jesus, who alone is the way to wholeness and to God, we shall never be moved.
No matter what traps might be set before us.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
I am confused by this. You seem to be saying that it's okay to have people ordained who do not accept scriptural truths and will be teaching something other than the fundamental truths, that they can be pastors without having to say God the Father. What about the fact that Jesus rose from the dead and the virgin birth? And that those who are fundmental in approach to scriptural truths in lifestyle and language are weak in faith when in fact they are strong in believing what the Bible says in the face of those who preach compromise.
I don't claim to be a bible expert, but I believe the fundamentals that set true Christianity apart from all other religions. God is sovereign. God created all things. Man is is a state of separation from God due to being born with a sin nature. Jesus is the Son of God and man who led a sinless life as fuly human, and as fully God, died for all sins on the cross; that he rose again bodily from the grave and ascended into heaven from where he will one day return. I believe all Christians, and only Christians, have the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit, who is one member of the Triune God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I believe that Christians are to live lives set apart from the world in thought, word and deed in order to be a witness of Jesus, God's grace and his righteousness that all born again believers have inherited.
If all that causes me to be labeled a fundamentalist, then I gladly embrace the title. And yes, I don't think "fundamentalists" are weak in faith. I think Pastor Lyn was using her work as one who is examining cnadidates as a means of saying what the modern church needs, and especially the Presbyterian church, are more pastors who embrace the fundamental elements and theology of the faith that has been handed down through the ages, beginning with those who actually saw and touched Jesus. We have a wonderful faith tradition that we can embrace and celebrate.
The confusion stated by the first comment seems to stem from the denomination's muddied rules, which may not be shared by all of those serving on the committee. The truth will be spoken by Jesus' followers, whether or not this denomination chooses to take a stand. The increase of non-affiliated churches is a direct result of demoninations' concentration on theology and not evangelism.
Do you find it satisfying to willfully misrepresent the content of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity report?
That report sets out, in excruciating detail and with great care, the delicate balance of truth and goodness, right living and right believing, faith and faithfulness, that a "bipartisan" group of Christian leaders unanimously agreed on. It sought to find ways to build bridges and to allow even CPMs to seek reconciliation where there has been brokenness. It calls not for less emphasis on theology, but more. It frees CPMs to delve as deeply as they see fit and to set the standards that under the guidance of the Spirit and under the authority of Scripture they discern to be appropriate. You, in this post, like many others before you, oversimplify and misrepresent in a way that seems designed to foment division and further misunderstanding. And you do all this in the guise of reflecting on scripture. It is hard to imagine anything that is more scandalous to the gospel, and more hurtful to the building up of the body of Christ.
Could it be that your qualm is not with the process but really with the fact that others, presumably just as led by the Holy Spirit as you, come to a different conclusion about the meaning of scripture? Could it be that others know just as well, if not better?
Anonymous said: Could it be that your qualm is not with the process but really with the fact that others, presumably just as led by the Holy Spirit as you, come to a different conclusion about the meaning of scripture?
Are you inferring that the Holy Spirit has caused this division? If so, are you not in danger of grieving the Holy Spirit?
I don't read the earlier comment as saying that the Holy Spirit has caused division. It seems to say that the Holy Spirit can be at work in the hearts and minds of Christians who, with authenticity and faith, come to differing conclusions. This is not division. Part of the problem with those who espouse the viewpoint that Lyn is espousing is that they equate disagreement with division, while in fact fomenting division by emphasizing doctrinal agreement above biblical values like love and forbearance.
To clarify the confusion for anonymous in the latest post, I do not think it is OK to ordain people who do not accept scriptural truths, including the virgin birth and the resurrection, among other essential tenets. Those fundamental in their approach to scripture I see as strong in their convictions and beliefs, not weak. The weak are those new converts or seekers with fragile faith, the biblically and theologically illiterate, those who have not experienced the grace of God, or examined for whatever reason, the basics of the Christian faith. The weak are those who have been abused in any way, including spiritually. They are those needing boundaries in their lives. They are easily led astray by false teaching, feelings, and/or confused by ambiguity on matters of doctrine and essentials, including standards of conduct.
As for the concerns over my "pleasure in willfully misrepresenting" the PUP report, I believe it is an exquisite document and stunning in its langauge and encouragement to go deep theologically in our faith journey and examination process. There is a beautiful balance between truth and grace put forth. I have enjoyed our CPM committee's discussions of the essential reformed tenets we conduct before each examination with candidates. They are fruitful and have given us frameworks for discussions.
However, the PUP report states standards, then allows them to be scrupled. To someone weak in the faith, this can be confusing for people looking for answers to where the Presbyterian church stands on matters of faith and life.
I also speak of my experience with the inconsistencies in how we apply PUP to each candidate's exam. I sometimes think we are inconsistent. I do not believe we yet have a clear sense of what to ask, when and how, what to bring forth to the floor, and what to keep in committee. For example, in committee we have never asked a candidate to discuss their personal standards for sexual purity, though we spend lots of time making sure they can articulate the Trinity, (political correctness allowed for) and have reformed understandings about the sacraments and knowledge of our polity (with exceptions to the rules allowed for if supported by their theology). We delve into psych evaluations and academics. We enforce field education requirements and preaching and pastoral care skills. All good. But I also want to hear about behavior and character, and their take on sexual purity. All of it in my mind are important.
Are any of you delving into this in your exams? if so, how do you examine purity, as well as peace and unity?
Jesus offended religious people of his time. He said things that the Pharisees found scandalous, but he spoke the truth regardless of the often angry responses. Though we are called to humility and graciousness, the fact is following the Lord will mean sometimes offending those who do not agree with the orthodox tradition of interpreting scripture. I am no theologian, but I do know there are things that simply cannot be compromised in terms of essential truths. When people can be ordained who do not believe in the virgin birth or the literal bodily resurrection, or that marriage is between a man and a woman, period, there is a serious problem. It is not surprising that when someone speaks up in defense of biblical truth there are angry responses from those who disagree. Angry responses shut out dialog.
As far as asking candidates and inquirers about their sexual behavior, our cpm's approach has been consistent with the "probable cause" principle. If a candidate or inquirer has not said or done anything that has created a reason to ask questions about sexual ethics, the cpm is probably not going to go digging for it.
To our cpm's credit, when something has come up (through the psych. evaluation or the candidate/inquirers own divulgence), that body has tackled the question head-on. I have yet to see our cpm subjugate concerns about sexual ethics to "political correctness."
In the end, the committee is the people who are on it, and the questions asked of candidates are the questions the cpm members ask.
Also, another thing to remember about our process is that it's structured around a covenant. We enter into a covenant with candidates and inquirers, which makes us more than a "selection committee."
Covenants have trust built into them. Candidates trust us to not ferret around their personal lives, to not go digging for dirt, while we trust candidates to live lives of Christian virtue and to not mislead or deceive us about that.
If that trust gets broken (on either side), then the process becomes filled with suspicion and fear, making it harmful, not helpful. Candidates and inquirers go there at their own peril, as does the cpm. But until that happens, the covenant relationship between the cpm and its candidates/inquirers requires a modicum of trust.
In other words, let's look for the good in one another first, before we have any reason to look for the bad.
Thanks for the follow up, NPH. I am indeed not interested in digging up dirt on a candidate. I agree with you - unless we need to clarify what has come to our attention, we do not delve. And yes, I have applauded the grace with which we have approached that when it has been germaine. However, I do think it is relevant to know how a candidate would interpret and apply the biblical standards on sexual purity in their pastoral care and teaching, the standard we put forth in our constitution.
I see this issue extremely important for candidates to be prepared to articulate so as to counsel and care for people who are broken sexually. I know it has in my ministry, which has been to gays and straights, single and married, youth and adults.
Perhaps we can discern this like we do for other inquiries, in a hypothetical pastoral situation?
wow...I'm going to have to come back and re-read this.
Certainly, wanting to know how a candidate would apply Biblical standards of sexuality in a pastoral situation is important. There's no reason to not ask those kinds of questions, unless the intent is to subject people to a sort of lithmus test in which failing to provide the "right answers" regarding standards of sexuality disqualifies a person from ordination. We should also ask them how they would apply Biblical standards of financial management and retaliation in a pastoral situation.
What the PUP has done is 1) acknowledge that talk about a "Biblical standard" for anything is misleading; when it comes to something like sexuality, the Bible doesn't just speak with one voice. Faith requires more than cutting and pasting a standard onto a contemporary situation, but rather reading the text carefully (in conversation with the confessions) and then applying it with humility and a recognition that one could be wrong.
The second thing PUP has done is to allow for the conversation at all. We are moving from a situation where sexuality discussions with candidates was an all-or-nothing proposition (it's either the dominating concern or an irrelevant one) to one where we can speak openly, admitting everyone to the conversation, and no assuming bad faith with those who disagree.
I think that's a step in the right direction.
I finally need to weigh in on this. I have to say that the conscience is only a sure guide as it is informed by scripture and the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does not contradict scripture. Paul addressed sexuality purity in his letters. There is no ambiguity in his teachings, though there appears to be much in the PC(USA) which dismays me greatly. I am a former lesbian who has been transformed because of the word and the power of the Holy Spirit. The PC(USA) has not made it easy with its evasiveness on the issue. There cannot be subjective personal interpretations based on experience or desire. It is what it is and God does not change. His love is unconditional, but it is clear that he has expectations of purity in the church. If it was not for the steadfastness of some within the church, I would be struggling with my identity. While non-denominational churches that teach traditional doctrine are growing, the PC(USA) and other mainstream denominations are losing members. What is needed is clear and forthright stands and not a “leave it up to what anyone thinks is acceptable” approach to sexual purity. In the days before the judges, the Bible says that each did as seemed right in his own eyes. Reading the Book Of Judges makes it pretty clear that the conscience was not a good guide. God sent judges to bring Israel back.
I want to know that those who pastor me are holding fast to the traditional truths of scripture, not being carried about by the winds of cultural change. The church is a place of refuge as well as a place of hope. I had hope of transformation and God made it possible. It was because I believed the word as applied to my sexuality. It has not been an easy road, but I have walked it and do so with those who will uphold the teachings of scripture.
I know that some will say I never was gay and in doing so invalidate my experience. But God knows where I’ve been and where I am in this journey and has placed church leadership in my life that will hold me accountable and love me into wholeness. For that I am eternally grateful, and pray that others like me will find the same.
Thank you, Anonymous, for your comments. I thank God for God's transforming work in your life. I also know heterosexuals who have been delivered of sexual brokenness, by the grace of God and gentle, non-judgmental pastoral care. Wholeness is what we seek,but we need to know what the Bible calls whole and what is broken. The PC(USA) is confused over this.
To NPH, I agree we should ask about financial and retaliation issues - conflict management and time management questions. I assume we have some "right answers" we seek on these topics.
But are you saying we don't have any "right answers" regarding biblical standards for sexuality? At the end of the day, people in good conscience on the CPM can disagree about how to apply biblical standards, and we are back where we started on this: there is no unity on matters of behavior. I find that troubling.
I think all of our hypothetical questions to candidates are "litmus tests" to see if the candidate can articulate reformed understanding of whatever and healthy lifestyles, and pastoral instincts to the committee's satisfaction. Problem is we sometimes don't know what the "right questions" are.
A motivating discussion is definitely worth comment.
There's no doubt that that you should publish more about this topic, it may not be a taboo subject but generally people do not talk about such topics. To the next! Many thanks!!
Also visit my webpage :: book of raw spielen
Post a Comment