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!

Monday Ministry Musing

I know lots of people going through the ordination process in the PCUSA. Someone from the presbytery that oversaw my own process is facing some of the same challenges of being stuck. This individual wrote a poem that got me thinking about my own process. I didn't ask permission to post it, but I used it as a reflection piece - for myself and for those who are stalled out in the process. I changed the wording, but kept the structure and the overall theme. This is like an epistle - if you listen to this end of the conversation, you can probably hear what's going on in the original poem.

What happens if I focus on the ordination process,
becoming callous (non-reverent) from the handling of holy things?
Or, in a desire to be called “Reverend,”
ignore the adjective when it doesn't come from a committee?
What if I miss the everyday chances
to live into my own baptism
because I'm focused on someone else
as a child of the covenant?
What if I never break the bread of hospitality
and pour the cup of tea at my own table,
or if I don't recognize them as “the gifts of God for the people of God”?
What if my voice is never heard (in a choir)?
What if I don't listen to those who set foot in a pulpit?

What if I made seminary about a piece of paper,
Whether a diploma,
or an ordination certificate,
and therefore wasted my time
and all our resources?

What if I believe that my usefulness to God
is equivalent to my usefulness to a denomination,
a local governing body,
a committee,
or a single congregation?

What if I think I'm not good enough,
even though the Lord of the Universe
took on flesh and died in my place,
then sent His Spirit to reassure me
of my place at His table?

What if I used seminary
as a buffer against following God's call?
What if I missed growing during that time
because I was waiting on something at the end...
...instead of waiting on God?

What if I lost sight of the glorious
ministry of the covenant people of God
because I wanted to be in the lead?

What if I missed out on the call to serve
a congregation from out of the midst of them
because I would only listen to a call if it
were duly authorized and passed through
paper channels.

What if I passed over the garment of praise,
the garment of salvation,
and the robe of Christ's righteousness,
because it didn't look like a Geneva gown?

What if I made the mistake of taking a good thing
and missing out on the best thing.

Lord, I believe.
Help my unbelief.

Lord, You have called.
Help me follow You wherever You call.

Here's Martin Luther's prayer for his own ordination:

Oh, Lord God, Thou hast made me a pastor and teacher in the Church. Thou seest how unfit I am to administer rightly this great and responsible Office; and had I been without Thy aid and counsel I would surely have ruined it all long ago. Therefore, do I invoke Thee. How gladly do I desire to yield and consecrate my heart and mouth to this ministry! I desire to teach the congregation. I, too, desire ever to learn and keep Thy Word my constant companion, and to meditate thereupon earnestly. Use me as Thy instrument in Thy service, Only do not Thou forsake me, for if I am left to myself, I will certainly bring it all to destruction. AMEN.

May all who seek leadership among God's covenant people say Amen!

0.000121587

Mom told me I was special. She said I was "one in a million." I appreciate her sentiment, but the math geek in me says that I'm not even that special.

I may not be one in a million, but I am one in 57,572. As a family, we're 7 in 57,572 (thus the decimal title). My former cult lost record numbers of members this past year, and I added to the numbers. I'm not proud to have gotten to that point, and it hurt me to do it. I poured more than a decade of my life into working for the PCUSA, including 5 years of full-time study. However, I couldn't stay when the very act of wrestling with the demonic forces at work kept me from advancing as a minister in the church and in carrying out the ministry Christ has given me.

However, as a candidate for ministry who has left, who knows what the opportunity cost is going to be? The number goes far beyond my paltry seven. As of 1998, 33% of churches didn't have a pastor. The number is pushing ever closer to 50%, now. Yet churches without pastors rarely grow.

Denominations without pastors don't grow, either. Even if they have all the ministers they need....

Note to PCUSA GA Commissioners

Bob Davis is the go-to guy for issues surrounding the nFOG. I couldn't possibly add anything to his analysis of the multi-faceted problems presented in this tendentious reworking of an established and orderly process. However, I will say this:

Just because you can test something doesn't mean you should test something...especially if you haven't adequately considered the cost of the testing.

h/t Perry Bible Fellowship

Moral Relativism vs Relative Moralism

Okay...I'm no longer PCUSA, so I should probably keep my nose out of this. But I was startled by the PUPpies challenge to the GAPJC. However, I believe that a pattern being displayed is actually cross-denominational. It's what Dr. Albert Mohler has termed relative moral relativism.

I think Dr. Achtemeier is confused about who are the friends to whom he owes his highest allegiance. He wants to fight for his friends - that's part of what the getting together and dialogging is about - becoming friends. The PCUSA seems convinced that anybody can cross their principles so long as they have friends on the other side. It's the natural result of believing that propositional truth is in reality prepositional truth (whom you're with, whom you're against - rather than hath God said...).

What I mean by this is the silly notion that all of your allegiances and philosophicotheopolitical commitments are a result of the "folks ya run with" and not well-thought out convictions. For a large part of the populace, it is true that bad company corrupts good morals - thus, getting a broader view of the world can help mitigate those inimical forces that keep us ignorant and bigoted. Exposure to different view points, understanding where people are coming from, etc. is of great service in disposing of human bias.

(The same works in reverse - we can become skewed by the company we keep. I remember falling in with a KJV-only group in my early college days. It didn't last, but for about two months I was convinced that the NIV was sending people tah HAY-uhl!!! I got over that - though I still think the NRSV stands for the Nebbish Revisional Substandard Version.)

However, to continually mistake well thought out ethical / theological / political positions for ignorant and/or malicious bias is perhaps the capital obstruction to talking to "the left" on the issue of homosexuality. It's not bias...it's biblical. Fight the battle there and nowhere else.

As for who should take precedence in our allegiances? Jesus, the Word written, and the company of saints who have died to get it to us take precedence...not some people that you met in the last 30 years and worked with on a committee for 5. You're going to live in accountability to Jesus for all eternity, so make now count.

h/t Toby

On Expelling Dissidents

Hey Heartland Presbytery! Are you listening?

Creativity an essential to religion

CAVEAT: I'm not PCUSA anymore, so this is tongue-in-cheek. (I don't have the class that Will Spotts shows in just staying out of it.) But it's my blog, so I can vent like that. This post was written before I was tidily swept out of the ordination process. However, with the recent GAPJC ruling, I think it's relevant. The real mess isn't about THE GAY, but about THE GOSPEL. Disobedience to evangelical truth lies at the root of the rot - across the mainlines sidelines.

At the bidding of Clifton Kirkpatrick, I was reflecting on what is essential to Christian faith. Since the only folks who will determine if I've met those essentials (and CPE) are in Holston Presbytery, I decided it best to visit the teaching ministry of our most Reformed blogger, who - unlike me - is able to hold ordained ministerial status. I found there an essential of creativity. With that in hand, I thought about the general impulse of the blog and decided I'd better get about the task of finding a politicized church where creativity was an essential (rather than all those essentials of the Christian faith he has trouble accepting or understanding, like the full deity of Christ and his second advent, the inspiration of the Scriptures, and the Triune personhood of God).

I think I finally found one. It essentializes creativity, looks for logical / scientific / evolutionary answers to the world's problems, holds that Christian history is full of human horrors caused by supernaturalistic dogma, forbids thought of an afterlife, thinks that religion is best occupied by political action rather than doctrinal issues, and is all about taking care of the environment. They even emphasize women clergy! (That's one better than those NWACko winos!)

Presbyteries Employing the Tarkin Doctrine

What's the Tarkin Doctrine? Unless you're a Star Wars geek, you probably don't catch the overtures. But you can make sense of it in contrast to Princess Leia's rebuff of a power-mad Imperial governor: "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

Certain presbyteries think that they can do whatever they want in terms of perverting the gospel (and ordaining perverts to the gospel ministry), and the Christian churches that are affiliated with them are just supposed to sit there and take it because of a spurious and pernicious property trust clause. (Apparently, it's the only enforceable section of the constitution...someone should tell the higher-ups at 100 Witherspoon that there's a whole Form of Gov't there, starting with G-6.0106b.)


What these presbyteries are going to learn is this: there are many Christians out there who cannot be bought. You can bully them all you want, and take the property they and their forebears bought with the flick of a rapacious pen. But the God and Father we serve owns the cattle on a thousand hills and has promised that when we are scorned for the sake of his Son, we're blessed.

The more you tighten...

Panzers...not pansies

The Layman reports that Bel Air Presbyterian Church failed in attaining a stay for a same-sex blessing that will occur this Sunday at neighboring Brentwood Presbyterian Church (according to the LA Times). Frankly, while I'm against the service because of how it perverts marriage (a covenant instituted by God himself), I would not have wasted my breath on asking the presbytery to interfere with the "blessing."

Instead, since an ordained Presbyterian Lesbyterian minister (Ms. Bove) is one half of the couple being blessed & recognized for her 10-year same-sex relationship, why not go ahead and ask for an enforcement of the constitutional standard in G-6.0106b? She works as a chaplain at a children's hospital, and it wouldn't be difficult for her to gain "ordination" by any number of false ecclesiastical structures - so it wouldn't even threaten her livelihood. (Compare that to the action against Kirk Johnston.) But it would do something that most folks enmeshed in the system are incapable of doing: show some backbone.

I've said it before and I'll keep saying it till someone listens: the Presbyterian Church USA is falling apart because there is no resolve to discipline her ministers. The recent lawsuits over property show that the Constitution's Form of Government only serves as a punitive instrument to enforce specious claims of provenance. The Book of Confessions and the Book of Order are flaunted on a regular basis, but don't even think of trying to snub the Board of Pensions! Every once in a while, we'll nod to our sexual standards - but even that is rare. (We seem to prefer to go after the ministers who do the service, rather than attempt to lovingly discipline and restore the unrepentant homosexual.)

What we THEY need are some pastors who can be Panzers...instead of pansies.* Unfortunately, they like to throw out the ones they can't tame or buy out.

*No insult offered to either the genus viola or the genius, Viola, who shows more resolve than most men in confronting the errors of the PCUSA.

Thoughts on my future in the PCUSA

I posted this on livejournal privately about 16 months ago. It was right before I started blogging - right before the committee that oversees my work in the PCUSA (the CPM) passed me through to candidacy. I've sat on it for a long time because the CPM did forward me through the process, and I was overcome with a sense of hopeful expectation. I'm finding that 16 months later, that hope was misplaced. I've been doing a lot of soul-searching and trying to listen for what God is telling me to do with the call to preach that he gave. It's hard because I've had to face so many of my own idols (especially idols of professionalism, entrance to the middle class, intellectualism, etc.). But in the end, I know that Christ will have a more useful instrument in his hands.

To that end, I'm posting some of my reflections. Many of these have been written over the past two years, but were held back because I didn't want to seem pessimistic (especially when there were these glimpses of hope). However, the situation has really become intolerable for me. I'm having to take my own advice. For years, I've told LGBT friends (yes...I have them) to seek a denomination where they can be faithful to what they believe they're called to do. I told them that if we stayed in the same denomination, we'd fight until there was no time left for faithfulness - and would destroy all the bonds of love that should still tether disagreeing Christians. The time has come for me to do the same thing: It's time I chose whether I wanted to spend the next thirty years fighting OR do I lay that down and go where I can minister without feeling that I'm compromised? (Quietude in the face of what's happening in the mainline simply isn't an option for my personality, and I'm not even sure it's biblically possible.)

Here's the first post, written when I was but an inquirer....

It's finally beginning to dawn on me.

I've been quite rigorous in my preparation for ordination as a Minister of Word and Sacrament (mowas) in the PC(USA). I've done reasonably well in an antagonistic seminary where I was opposed and maligned (while making no small stink of my own), I've managed superior marks on our mandated ordination exams, gone through several psychological evaluations, and passed field education requirements with lauds from both supervisors and congregants.

Nevertheless, I find my efforts at advancing to candidacy stonewalled by the committee that oversees that preparation. Musing tonight on what I might say should they again deny my request for candidacy, it finally dawned on me:

The PC(USA) has spent forty years eroding the doctrinal core (the Westminster Standards) of our unity, and dilapidating our constitutional integrity, that the only thing left to hold us together (besides the Board of Pensions) is a certain attitude or posture.

I wish that I could describe that attitude, but I do not understand it well enough to display it to my committee - much less provide an analysis of it here. There are some elements I believe I have singled out, but they are not kind and I do not think I would do well in displaying my own biases here as they touch so personally upon my own sense of call.

But one thing is certain: in the opinion of the CPM of my home presbytery, I do not have it. And no matter how sane and well-meaning I am, no matter how professionally competent I am, no matter how ardent I am in my love of Jesus Christ and the salvation he has secured for me and for all of his flock, I am not yet able to live out my call within the bounds of the PC(USA).

If any good has come out of this at all, it would be that I have greater sympathy for those who feel as though they are unfairly denied a place in the leadership of the church (esp. women in the Roman Catholic setting and LGBT persons in the protestant world). I haven't changed my mind on what the requirements of ordained ministry are...but I think I can trust their hurt a little more. Further, I think I can see how easily this hurt can overwhelm our best reflection on our particular place in the process.

I have affirmed again and again that I trust the CPM to make the right decision. It will break my heart if they believe that the best decision to be made - for the sake of the church - is to restrict my ministry within the PC(USA). They have every right to do it - and I would even maintain that they have every responsibility to do it. And it takes every ounce of Christian maturity to say that, because I fear that the answer will be "no" when I go before them this fall.

CPE - An Essential of the Faith

Back in November, I received a letter from the Presbytery Committee that oversees my candidacy for ordination: Complete a unit of CPE (and magically pay to feed, house, and insure your family while you're doing that instead of working) or be removed from the process.

Apparently, in Holston Presbytery, the essence of Reformed ministry is CPE and stuff like resurrection, or inspiration and authority of the Scriptures, or the Trinity are just, well, adiaphora.

God, where are You calling me to go? I'll follow...if You'll give me bread for the journey.

“If we stand up for what is right” by John Calvin

“If we stand up for what is right, we are bound to arouse the fury of many people. Many more will follow in their wake. The more we make peace, the readier the world will be to revile us. Our name will be bandied around every table and every street in town. Scurrilous things will be said about us. But there is more. St. Paul tells us that anyone desiring to live a holy life in Jesus Christ must expect persecution.

“God, it is true, will certainly give us respite from time to time, but we cannot avoid making many enemies. Satan has many allies in this world: possessed by his spirit, they cannot endure the light of the gospel or allow God to rule over them as one might rule over children. We must therefore defend the cause of the gospel and bear witness to the truth of our Lord Jesus Christ, ever if it means unremitting struggle with a large number of people, including those who pretend to be believers and who claim to be of the same religion.

“We are engaged, I repeat, in a mortal struggle with them, and even more with those who openly defy God and who would love to see the gospel vanish from the world.”

–John Calvin, Sermons on the Beatitudes, trans. by Robert White (Carlisle, PA.: Banner of Truth, 1562/2006), pp. 58-59.

Merry Shucksmas

Apparently John Shuck has his panties in a wad over the House of Representatives voting to give a hat-tip to Christmas. He invokes the almighty wall of separation between church and state. Funny...from this blogpost, you'd think he didn't like walls that kept blood-thirsty religious nuts from damaging otherwise democratically run institutions.

What really gets my goat, however, is that he pretends to be taking the high-road of neutrality in church-state relations. I might be able to swallow that if he'd posted something similar when the House passed an identically worded resolution honoring Ramadan. But let's face the facts: the guy hates Christmas almost as much as he hates the virgin-born Lord of the Church.

update: I almost forgot to mention this. I admit that, as a Reformation junkie, I don't get as worked up about Christmas as I do about Easter or even every single Lord's Day. Moreover, the whole "war on Christmas" bit is overplayed by folks in my camp. Nevertheless, I find this anecdote illustrative.

I was examined for candidacy at First Elizabethton, where John serves as guru. The presbytery meeting was held in December, so the nice elder that was hosting us wished us "Happy Holidays." A moment of silence passed, after which an astute elder seated behind me shouted "And a MERRY CHRISTMAS as well!"

First Liz regularly hosts awareness events for other religious celebrations. However, I'm afraid they've forgotten (more likely forsaken) their own....

Why Not the Persecuted Church

It seems that we PC(USA) Presbyterians can set apart a Sunday to focus on just about anything but the persecuted church. (Please remember Nov. 11 as International Day of Prayer for the Persecuted Church.) I wonder if it could be because they are ashamed at the persecution of churches that they are bringing about right now?

This Sunday, they've chosen Stewardship Committment as the focus. I'm hearing a lot about stewardship these days from our denominational officials. We're asked to give, and told to leave something for them in our wills. All of that is fine and dandy (yes...I have a Christian organization in my meager will). But let's make sure we understand what they mean by stewardship...particularly as it relates to the property trust clause and congregations that wish to cease affiliation with the PCUSA. Let's not kid ourselves...they are so concerned with enforcing the property trust clause that they file amicus briefs on behalf of other denominations (and other religions, in the case of "Christian Scientists") when their property trust is challenged. It's all about precedent.

May God bless those who struggle for the persecuted church. May he bless those presbyteries that reject the power-politics of the "Louisville Papers."

(My spoof on the trust clause is hosted initially at the Pres-Outlook. I reproduce it here for "posterity":)

Per Capita (with apologies to Isaac Watts)
(ELLACOMBE CMD "I Sing the Mighty Power of God," PH# 288)

I sing the property trust clause
That keeps our folks in line!
Per capita and scoff'd at laws,
Yet we say "That's just fine!"
While Gospel preaching dies away,
We endorse ab'rrant views,
Headquarters gets dressed in feng shui
And empties out our pews!

The Scriptures are ignored by most,
and twisted by the rest.
The unconverted serve as hosts
and we act undistressed.
While many choose to stand and fight,
some throw their towel in.
We've chosen this unenvied plight
for lack of discipline.

Tune: Gesangbuch der H. W. k. Hofkapelle, Wurtemberg, Germany, 1784

Hat tip to JP over at Reformedville.

My New Theme Song

I've had Chris Tomlin working on a theme song for me to use like a busker while I'm out trying to get a job. Tell me what you think:

[To the tune of Indescribable ]

Coming up from the mountains of East Tennessee.
A troublemaker from Holst'n Presbytery
Pro-life fundamentalism, vigor and spite
Rebutting the liberals with all of his might.
He's worth shunning

Thumps his Bible, he's unordainable,
What's with this guy? He puts St. Athanasius to shame!
Calling their Marxism fraud!
Confessional, pharisaical,
Falwell could take a few pointers on how to disclaim,
From this irascible clod!

Ever haughty, he tells his teachers where to go.
Disregarding their syllabus, looking for quotes.
Taking classes from Baptist gives the deans a fright.
So they tell him in meetings: "Chris, that just aint right!
They're the bad ones!"

Thumps his Bible, he's unordainable,
What's with this guy? He puts St. Athanasius to shame!
This seminarian's odd!
Pugnacious and untrainable,
Group therapy might not fix him or make him obey.
He presumes to hear from God....

This explains my difficulties with getting the union card...

The 96% comes from not affirming apostolic succession through the laying on of hands. (I believe that it is doctrinal, through continuing in their teaching, since the Twelve aren't recorded as having established officers at all of the churches of the NT letters!)

Your Score: Orthodox.

You are 96% Orthodox.

Congratulations, you know Christianity, but perhaps need to brush up on a couple of points about it.

Link: The Christian Orthodoxy Test written by kingariston

This at least explains why some folks think I have a personality defect of seeking "easy answers." (Which completely ignores my personal history of wrestling with each point of orthodoxy tested herein.)

God's Warriors

[sarcasm]
My favorite "sinister minister" recently drew his reader's attention to the insanity of the Christofascist theocrats behind BattleCry. I sniffed a little bias, so I took a look at Amanpour's CNN docuganda called God's Warriors and I have to admit, I can think of nothing more vital than pointing out the dangers of those Christian wack-job evangelicals.

I mean...those crazy theocrats at BattleCry are pointing people to Jesus' command to love your enemies (and they even reference John Calvin!). Along with my colleague, I think all Christian leaders should be pointing out this thuggish behavior of "speaking out" and "praying" and "voting" so that we don't become a DEMONocracy under their oppressive strain.

And can you believe the nerve of that Amanpour woman...She actually wastes our time referencing murders by Jews in Hebron and throat-slitting Muslims in the Netherlands, but not doing the hard work of turning up a single Evangelical act of violence? I mean...Christofascism is the greatest threat to humanity. Surely there's got to be more than trying to keep kids out of drugs, pornography, and pre-marital sex. After all...the show is promoted as an examination of how religious fundamentalists are the cause of violence in our political and cultural systems.

I demand of CNN a recount. They need to retract any negative portrayals of Judaism and Islam and focus solely on the dangers of those Christians who are hell-bent on equipping their children to articulate a Biblicist worldview (which we all know is just a pretext to further violence).

[/sarcasm]
Talk about biased reporting!

Why We Fight

This is a response to a fellow candidate (who is also having trouble getting certified ready-to-call):

Heather,
...

What I really want to focus on is your last paragraph. I think that as a denomination, we've already bulldozed the road to being a practices-only institution. This demonic trend began when we refused to do the hard work of discipline in the 1920s. We also refused to do the hard work of finding a way forward within the boundaries of Westminster-styled orthodoxy.

As you know, both personal and institutional integrity depend on appropriate boundaries. The Presbyterian church always allowed some leeway within Westminster Confessionalism through clear and full declaration of scruples antecedent to licensure. Afterwards, you could always go before the Presbytery to declare or renege any points. There was a sense that it was appropriate to be accountable to the larger church for your doctrine. It also fostered a healthy ecumenism because it recognized the catholicity inherent in our system whereby we delimited the body so that we could pursue ministry with less destructive friction and more constructive friction (still a useful end for denominations, as recent studies show).

Joan Gray held up a tiny book that is on my shelf as well. It was the Book of Order for the PCUS. It was small and simple, and it relied on people trusting others. Contrast that with the other small PCUS book on my shelf, entitled The Confession of Faith. It has the Westminster Confession and Catechisms with full Scriptural annotations printed underneath the text on every page. Because you trusted your neighbor on these eternal truths, the outworking of day-to-day decisions could be trusted as well. It didn't mean we agreed on every decision, but that there was a strong layer of cohesion (social, intellectual, theological, and ecclesial) that provided the necessary elasticity to deal with contentious issues. As a minister in my presbytery has repeatedly shown, doctrinal integrity carries very little importance in the PC(USA). You have to know it in order to pass the ords, but believing and preaching good doctrine doesn't really matter.

No wonder we're left with nothing to fight about except bedroom matters and money!

Correspondence on discipline and doctrine

Here's my initial email.

Rich,

I'm heartsick as I write this, but I don't know to whom I should turn.

Is Holston Presbytery aware of the theological positions of John Shuck? He broadcasts them on his blog, casting vitriolic derision on anyone who asks why a Presbyterian minister denounces the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the unique/ontological divinity of Jesus, and the inspiration of the Scriptures. Many (if not most) of his "theological explorations" end up equating God with the universe, or some other panentheistic concept. This is most repugnant because it represents a thorough collapse of Trinitarian Godhead. Given the level of misuse and neglect of the Trinity throughout our denomination (on both "sides"), the last seems especially troubling.

Am I alone in my concern for both him and the sheep entrusted to his care? I've gone to him personally, and communicated privately and semi-publicly. I'm not sure what else I can do

--
Chris

Here's the response I got.
Chris,
Thanks for your email.
You ask, "Is Holston Presbytery aware of the…" I can't speak for all of Holston Presbytery… but I can speak for myself and in regard to the Constitution of the PCUSA. So, let me try to address those concerns from my perspective and the Constitution.
I am aware of John Shuck's blog site. John is free to express his opinions and theological views—although much of what is on his blog are the viewpoints of other scholars and theologians—even if they are different from yours or mine or even mainstream Presbyterianism. John (and any ordained officer or church member, for that matter) is not free to depart from the practice of Presbyterian polity or Scripture.
The examination of officers and candidates for ordination is where an individual's conduct and beliefs are tested and judged by the Constitutional standards and according to the session's or presbytery's sense of orthodoxy. Church discipline in the PCUSA is designed to bring about repentance, reconciliation and restoration for those who have acted contrary to Scripture or the Constitution of the PCUSA.
John has appropriately and Constitutionally been examined by the Committee on Ministry, approved for membership in Holston Presbytery, and John has affirmed the Constitutional Questions required of ordination. I am not aware that John has acted contrary to Scripture or the Constitution of the PCUSA. (Just as I am not aware that you have acted contrary to Scripture or the Constitution of the PCUSA.)
I and the Committee on Ministry are charged with the responsibility of caring for pastors and congregations. Ideally, as the entire body of Christ, we all care for one another. So, my answer to your question, "Am I alone in my concern for [John] and the sheep entrusted to his care?" would be "No, you, Chris, are not alone."
Richard L. Fifield

I've sent comments along to other ministers within our presbytery, asking them to talk with John or the COM or the EP. No response has been given.

I was always proud (in a good way) to be from Holston. Good work is going on there. The gospel is being faithfully proclaimed (in word and in deed) by presbyters, deacons, and "laity." But when it comes to exercising discipline (formal or otherwise) against "troubler(s) of Israel," I'm guessing this is going to go in pretty much one direction.

I imagine that my CPM will see this as further evidence that I'm too adversarial to lead a church. Maybe. I doubt that the "heretics" at the various congregations I've served would say so. I'll talk Spong and Borg with them, and gently express what criticisms (and true statements) I find therein. But they are church members. Sometimes they are officers - but none are ministers.

As I read Paul's instructions to Timothy and Titus, the most pastoral approach to take with people that are unsteady in their doctrine is an educational one backed up by prayer for illumination and kindness. But this is not acceptable with those who would teach and lead. To turn a blind eye or deaf ear is not only unloving to the person who is stumbling in their doctrine, it's downright hateful to those who are under their teaching authority.

When I spoke with a friend in the Renewal network, I was asked if this was a hill I was willing to die on. The answer is "yes." I will risk my future in the PCUSA in order to clarify our denominational position towards those who mock the bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus and decry God's merciful provision of salvation through Christ as mere exclusivist provincialism.

To that end, here are my public questions of complaint.
1. I'm not a polity guy, so there are things that aren't always clear to me. But my reading of the "shall" statements in our Directory for Worship (especially 2.2007, 3.3101(1), and 3.3401d) seem to necessitate that sermons be based upon the Scriptures. Would that mean that sermons based on the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Mary are acts contrary to our Constitution?

2. If doctrine doesn't matter, why would Timothy be instructed to watch both his life and his doctrine , because his (and his hearers') salvation was impacted by it?

3. Is preaching about the rotting body of Jesus an acceptable position within Holston Presbytery?

The problem isn't that Mr. Shuck reads and posts about these things. I'm all for that sort of freedom. The problem is that he believes them - so convinced is he of the truth that the Bible is not inspired (a belief he sees as sentimental at best, spurious, pernicious, and moot at worst), Jesus' body is still in the grave, and that there is no afterlife that he PREACHES these doctrines from a pulpit of Holston Presbytery. He veers dangerously close to (if not into) gnosticism, docetism, and unitarianism. If these doctrines - which are condemned by the Church catholic - are acceptable in a Minister of the Word and Sacrament in our denomination, then I need to know now before vows bind me any further.

As for me, there seems to be a veiled implication of my activity that is contrary to Scripture or our Constitution. I must admit that I have acted contrary to both. When I see the standards of righteousness and justice set before me in the pages of Holy Writ, I know that I not only fail to meet them but in many cases I willfully transgress. When I led a catechism class through the Westminster commentary on the Decalogue, I caught a renewed sense of my error (both in omission and commission). I was also driven even more forcefully to Christ as my only righteousness before the Godhead (and a foreign righteousness, at that).

That's why resurrection is such a big deal to me. I sin in my body and in my mind. And Paul declares that Jesus was raised for my justification ( Rom. 4:25). If Jesus is just a man, then he died for his own sins and not for mine - and that leaves me with a vain faith and no hope.

I have spoken with Mr. Shuck personally. I have communicated with him electronically. A number of ministers and elders from around the country have communicated with him and he still does not recant. I have no other option but to ask the church to intervene - for his sake and for the sake of his hearers. And if this action is considered unloving, mean-spirited, or arrogant then I need to go somewhere else, because I can almost guarantee that at some point in the future, I'll need a loving rebuke too.Hier stehe ich; ich kann nicht anders. Gott helfe mir! Amen.

Candidacy at last

Yesterday, I was examined as to my Christian experience and sense of call. The presbytery voted to affirm the recommendation of the Committee on Preparation for Ministry. After a brief charge, I was enrolled on the Roll of Candidates for Ministry of Word and Sacrament under the care of Holston Presbytery.

Soli Deo Gloria et gratia eo ago!