Presbypiscopal or Episcopresbyter?

I'm catching some flack from a numpty (not this numpty, but one of his devotees) about my having switched teams (left the PCUSA and joined the Anglican Communion). He's very upset that I "have decided to renounce not only the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church, but the presbyterian form of government itself in favor of the papacy" and "ditching Westminster and the presbyterian form of church government."

I see. So broad swaths of the PCUSA can ditch Westminster as a whole (which it did in C-67) and let presbyterian government largely be undermined in favor of denominational lackeys (when it's not being ignored by "non-schismatic pastors" that choose to abandon constitutional restraint - acting as though their local congregations and presbyteries are able to act without waiting for GA to ratify constitutional ammendments) - but if I hold to the essence of the Reformed faith as put forward in Westminster and seek an ecclesial structure where the highest-ranking clergy seek the consent of their subordinate clergy and the laity, while acting in concert within a college of equals, then I'm apostate and abandoning biblical polity? (Excuse me...he actually lumps me with "orthodox schismatics" ilk.)

Let's set the record straight. I know that there's a lot of history between the Presbyterian Church (i.e., the Reformed Church as it developed in English-speaking countries) and the Anglican Communion (i.e., the Protestant Church that continued some form of episcopal succession). It's generated no small amount of animosity. In fact, the Reformed Episcopal Church seceded from the Protestant Episcopal Church precisely because the latter - taking on Anglo-catholic leanings - began impeding the cooperation that had marked Presbyterian and Episcopalian relationships for the preceding 150 years. But we should echo the cry of the Reformers - Ad fontes! - and go back to our sources if we are to see clearly the challenges of the present.

Presbyterianism is a creature of the supreme orthodoxy shown in the Westminster Confession of Faith and the rejection of monarchical claims (whether by kings or by bishops). Its political history is checkered with moments of assent to and dissent from an episcopal polity. John Calvin and Thomas Cranmer were corresponding about the restoration of the historic episcopate to the Church of Geneva. "Power-mad" Calvin declined episcopacy for himself, and his successors and the successors to the archepiscopacy of Canterbury lost touch in the ensuing decades of turmoil. Eventually, both parties hardened into positions that their founders eschewed. Calvin's objection was to a sacerdotal system* - not to rule by bishops. We should also note that Calvin was not objecting to a sacramental system - but insisted on the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (cf. B. A. Gerrish's Grace and Gratitude: The Eucharistic Theology of John Calvin).

Father of Presbyterianism, John Knox, gave assent to bishops in the Convention of Leith in 1572 (cf. Ian Haslett's The Reformation in Britain and Ireland for brief analysis). The Reformed (Presbyterian) Church in Hungary continues to be headed by synodical bishops who have a non-pressed but very real succession from the historic episcopate. The Reformed Church in France (Calvin's homeland) also uses bishops to maintain their synodical government - though they do not claim an unbroken succession. Similarly, the Churches of Sweden and Finland (Lutherans) maintain an unbroken episcopal succession - just as the Church of England did.

An excellent study of the many issues involved in church polity - from biblical, theological, historical, and practical perspectives - is given in a book called Who Runs the Church. Therein, representatives of episcopal, presbyterian, and congregational systems give their side and graciously critique the positions of the others. I'll let you decide who wins....

For what it's worth, I'm an Anglican because I think that it has the greatest chance of bringing about catholic unity - not by bridging the divide between Rome and the Protestants, but by reuniting every Christian Church with the past and the present (including the Eastern churches) in practice and polity, as well as in barebones orthodoxy (via the Nicene Creed) - without the dogmatism on developments after the first ecumenical councils. And I'm proud to stand next to defenders of the faith like these guys.

* Don't let the English word priest be confused with the sacrificing priest pictured in the Roman sacerdotal system. The word priest is just the Old English pronunciation of presbytĕrātus, the Latin transliteration of the Greek presbys (πρέσβῠς ). It refers to one holding the office of the ministry of Word and Sacrament. It is emphatically not a translation of the Latin sacerdos or the Greek ἱερεύς!

Epistolary Epiphany

Sunday was Proper 22A, and the appointed epistle reading was from Paul's letter to the Philippians. The passage begins so familiarly - "But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus." With texts like these, the sermon simply writes itself. The parable of the tenants was the more challenging text, and it's what I preached.

Yet, I found myself struck anew by Paul's words...or rather, his emotion, as the epistoler read the lesson this morning.

"For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ."

While he later mentions a striving between Euodia and Syntoche, I don't think that's what is in view here. Rather, I think Paul is grieving for people who have fallen away from the faith.

We read the letter to the Galatians and think that Paul is just ready to give both barrels to anyone that dares sniff of apostasy. And in 1 Corinthians, he doesn't hesitate to hand a notorious sinner over to the devil for judgment. Yet here in Philippians, Paul is talking about someone who used to strive to attain the heavenly calling...and then fell.

Heretics.
Liberals.
Apostates.
ReFORMERlies.
Mainliners.
Corpse-churchers.

Whatever you've said about them in the past, did you do so even with tears?

I know I haven't...not until this morning.

Thank you, Jesus, for still speaking to those of us you've called to speak for you.

Help Hurricane Vicitims

Rev'd Bill Crawford at First Presbyterian of Thibodaux has set up a PayPal account where the church can process donations for immediate relief of hurricane victims.

Please help if you can.

Becoming a Popular "Evangelical" Writer

There've been a string of pomo "evangelicals" getting lots of press / publishing attention in the last few years. (Think Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, Shane Claiborne, etc.) I like to just call them emerjerks. But I do envy their success. Thanks to Doug Groothius, I now have the secret tools needed to write like them so I don't have to be "right" anymore. It's so...liberating?


Click here for Groothius' list.

Meanwhile, if you don't mind being a crusty old fundamentalist, check out the action at Classical Presbyterian.

Being Right When You Wish You Were Wrong

This is what it feels like to be one of the conservative observers of the mainline decline.

In other words...being right isn't the same as being happy about it.

(I do have to say, though, that some are reveling in Schadenfreude over the recent announcements from Anglican and Presbyterian meetings...and they're like the guy in the last frame.)

h/t: AmazingSuperPowers.com

Reminder to those who allege reductionism

Since the California ruling on Same Sex Marriage, my inbox has been full of requests for money and activism to support traditional marriage. Some of the Christian organizations even ask me to pray. (Shame on the others!) There have been insightful commentaries and legal musings (can you say balkanization), along with the standard tripe. There's just a tremendous amount of energy going toward dealing with the issue.

Plenty of people on the other side say that the right is obsessed with homosex. Now that's like saying that during a flood, Iowans are obsessed with sandbags. But even if we do come off as a bit fixated, there's a reason beyond morbid obsession that the battles rage these days over sexuality:

If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the Word of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Him. Where the battle rages there the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battle front besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.

(Luther's Works. Weimar Edition. Briefwechsel [Correspondence], vol. 3, pp. 81ƒ.)

In each age, we are asked to give allegiance to the powers of this world or to the Kingdom of God and His Christ. Everyday, we choose sides. The place where Christians must rush in to fill the gap is where the nay-sayers allege that Christ's Kingdom does not extend. If it is sexuality, we will speak of His Lordship there. If it is economics, we must contend for him there. If it is freedom of conscience, we will challenge those against it.

Right now, a tiny contingent of the population* is waging an enormous rhetorical (and now political) campaign against Christ's Lordship over human relationality & sexuality. It's a big deal, because Paul describes that sacred bond as a mystery illustrative of Christ and His Church. As stewards of the mysteries, our service to Christ cannot constitute an erosion of that union.

If nothing else, think of the children and the minorities.

*Less than 3% of men and 1.5% of women, according to Sex in America: A Definitive Survey, Robert T. Michael, John H. Gagnon, Edward O. Laumann, and Gina Kolata, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1994, p. 176.

Catch that Calvinism

I just got an Easter card from a friend. It's lovely and well rendered, graphically. Take a look at it here. Do that before you read the rest of the post.





Now....can anybody guess why I find this card disheartening? Two thumbs up to the first contestant that gets it right!

Emotional responsibility

This has ended miserably each time I've tried it - for all parties involved.



For the dangers posed by this in the pastorate, see Toby's blog on the Therapist Caretaker model.

(p.s. - There is a difference between responsibility and responsitivity.)

Only Six Quirky Things?

I’ve just been “tagged” by David at The Reformed Pastor to provide “six unimportant facts/quirks/habits about myself.” Harumph! As if there were even on unimportant fact about me! And my habits and behaviors are quite normal...it's everyone else who is out of sync!

Okay...enough self-justification. Past the arms and through the fingers, careful gang...the scent will linger:

1) I have an unhealthy knowledge of academic dress. I know enough about proper academic decorum and decoration to put most marshals and provosts this side of the Atlantic to shame. I actually collect certain varieties of gowns and hoods. I belong to list-servs dedicated to the subject (and to academic culture in general - such as post-nominals, historical universities, etc.).

2) I have a similar fascination with ecclesiastical vesture. Now these are actually quite interrelated as, historically, the clergy was the educated class. Most academic regalia is patterned on monastic habits. Similarly, in the English speaking world, Protestant churches are where you're most likely to encounter academic garb outside of the university setting. I also wrote an FAQ on vesture for the PCUSA while I was an intern for the Office of Theology and Worship. As my buddy Dave said, it's a subject in which I have a vested interest. (nyuk nyuk nyuk)

3) I'm fascinated with zombies. I like reading about them, watching movies about them, thinking about my plans for our family's survival in a post-apocalyptic zombie-infested America. It's really weird. We're looking at buying a house now, and my wife is already starting to anticipate my “that's not really zombie-proof” quip when the realtor points out all the natural lighting from a bay window.

4) I learned to cook from TV. It all started with Mr. Rogers making snacks in the kitchen. Then, I advanced to the The Frugal Gourmet. I remember back when the TV Food Network was only broadcast on for a few hours each day. Then they expanded the airtime by simply repeating the shows! How to Boil Water gave a great overview of the basics, and Mario Batali (whom I dressed as for Halloween one year when my hair was still long) taught me simple Italian cuisine. I still enjoy cooking shows, but my work schedule keeps me out of the kitchen.

5) I have trouble going straight through a book. I don't know what it is, but I can't seem to make my way through a single book without picking up two or three to work in on the side. I think part of it is this nasty compulsion I have with checking references. I refuse to leave a footnote unread; sometimes, I even go and check the reference myself. I'll even scan the end notes for a chapter and mentally tick which ones need to be read when I encounter them just to save time (after all, there's no sense flipping pages just to read an ibid. or idem). This isn't just for academic reading. I do this all the time. It drives Mrs. GrknDeacon nuts. About the only text I don't do this with is the Good Book, but then I trust its author implicitly.

6) I can't let a bad pun lay undone. I'm incorrigible when it comes to this. If I hold it in, my internal organs start to liquify or something. Anyone who has been around me for more than 10 minutes will start to groan and wince as I do this about that often. I have to seriously work at keeping them out of sermons, lectures, etc. It's a bit of a pride thing, as it's easy to get caught up in my own cleverness. But occasionally, I'm also able to make somebody smile. (Dave, thank you for good-naturedly groaning at them.)

I'm not tagging this to anyone because, outside of the consistory, I have no idea who reads me regularly. But if you do read this, and you decide to take it up, please link to it in the comments section.

Still a Calvinist, after all these years...

It's been a while since I did this. I figured I'd better show that I've still got some Calvinist "street-cred" since I've crossed over from English-style Reformed Church to Church, English-style.

What's your theological worldview? created with QuizFarm.com

You scored as Reformed Evangelical You are a Reformed Evangelical. You take the Bible very seriously because it is God's Word. You most likely hold to TULIP and are sceptical about the possibilities of universal atonement or resistible grace. The most important thing the Church can do is make sure people hear how they can go to heaven when they die. Reformed Evangelical 79% Neo orthodox 71% Roman Catholic 68% Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan 64% Fundamentalist 50% Emergent/Postmodern 46% Charismatic/Pentecostal 43% Classical Liberal 39% Modern Liberal 21%

New Wineskins Reflections

First, I want to thank the good Presbyterians of Cuero, TX. Your benevolence towards me will not be forgotten. It was such a time of refreshing and reconnecting with my call to the ministry of the Word that I can hardly express my gratitude. It was also good to meet your pastor and so many other blogging friends. I was able to pray with them, break bread with them, and smoke with them!

Second, I want to thank Gerrit Dawson for submitting to the leading of the Holy Spirit in departing from his assigned text to focus on John 18. I believe God spoke encouragement directly to my presbytery situation through that text (see around time sig 48:00). It was also exactly my experience in seminary (and here).

Third, John Shuck has started blogging about New Wineskins. Great. He says that when representative bodies decide on taking an action, then we should accept that action and obey its mandates* even if we disagree (and choose to work for change). I think it's the height of irony that a man who endorses those in willful direct violation of our constitutional standards should turn around and tell the Reformed Evangelicals of our denomination to tow the line or lose your property. Ironic...but far from surprising.

* "I think it is great that you advocate for change. I do, too. We have the best process available to enact change. Whether or not people agree or disagree with the Theological Task Force report or whatever, it was passed by a representative body. It is very different to work for change and go with the process even when your vote is not in the majority from not getting your way and then trashing the place on your way out."

Who is obsessed?

Alan, a blogger who is posting over at Classical Presbyterian, accuses "conservatives" of being hung up on "the gay issue." He thinks that evangelicals have nothing better to do than file accusations against those who disobey their church's constitution. He thinks conservatives are just obsessed with gay issues to the exclusion of having any kind of life. I'm guessing Alan would not identify himself as a conservative.

However, by his own criteria, I would classify Alan as a closet conservative. Of course, I do so dispassionately because 5 out of the last 15 blog posts of his have to do with "the gay issue." Interestingly, world-renowned obsessive gay-basher Toby only manages to obsess over gays in 2 out of the last 15 of his posts with anything concerning gay issues (although you could argue that this one does as well).

Hey Toby...maybe the meds are working after all!