the Outlook Blog

Just finished the latest issue (September, 2009) of "The Layman" - an exhausting read for me, and clearly unpleasant, as they dislike the path I'm on even as they walk in a very different direction.

Oh well ... they're convinced and so am I. Wonder how that happens, but it does, with everyone striving to claim the high moral ground of Scripture, theology, creed and tradition.

It's always painful, for everyone - those who leave and those who don't.

I think many, on both sides of the equation, believe that we've done just about all the talking we can do. 

Or have we?

Is there anything more to be said, or like a tough divorce, should we just get on with and go our separate ways in the hopes of finding ourselves again?

From the tone of "The Layman" and the recent action of the Beaver Butler Presbytery to serve notice on the PCUSA, it seems like some folks have drawn a pretty clear line in the sand. 

I suppose I have, too.

Like a broken marriage, we've slept in separate bedrooms for a long time, we've gone on vacation with our theological peers, and when we talk, it's mostly acrimony and accusation.

Would counseling help?

Or is exit counseling the best course of action - to minimize the damage, to bless one another on our respective journeys and to get on our with life, a little bruised and slightly damaged, but still capable of a good life, free of having to look at each across the breakfast table?

Just some very random thoughts ...

Writing of the Anabaptists (4.1.13), Calvin notes their sinfulness - yup, that's what he calls it, driven, as it is, by "ill-advised zeal for righteousness."

 A few lines later, Calvin writes: they ... sin in that they do not know how to restrain their disfavor. For where the Lord requires kindness, they neglect it and give themselves over completely to immoderate severity. Indeed, because they think no church exists where there are not perfect purity and integrity of life, they depart out of hatred of wickedness from the lawful church, while they fancy themselves turning aside from the faction of the wicked.

 I think everyone of us has done this because it feels so good.

But the sin of ill-advised zeal is still sin, and it results in the same thing as any plain old sin might do - things are broken, and the heart is steeled against the impulse of the Spirit. Pride begets pride, and then the anger, and then further acrimony, and more pride and more fighting and more sadness.

I find it of interest that Calvin writes in this way of the Anabaptists - like the early Donatists, I suppose, the impulse to get it right, and the need to lambast those whom they see as getting it less than right.

We've all done it; there's a little Donatist, or an Anabaptist in nosing around in every heart - that secrete place of pride and power wherein we adjudge ourselves pure and righteous, and the others? Oh well, see ya' in hell!

 I'm entertained with Calvin at this point: he was a man who could dish it out, and now, on the receiving end of it from the Anabaptist, raises the question of "ill-advised zeal."

How fine is the line between "Ill-advised zeal" and "the zeal of the Lord"? 

Perhaps the Book of Proverbs might help us ... or the Beatitutdes ... or the simple washing of feet - for who doesn't need cleansing, who doesn't need grace, who isn't saved by grace morning, noon and night?

Ill-advised zeal - a dangerous business!

"The Family: the Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power," by Jeff Sharlet, is an eye-popping, gut-wrenching, read, as he details the rise of "elite fundamentalism" in America, a bizarre blend of Christianity and capitalism, union-busting and anti-government ideology, militarism and market globalization, to generate wealth for the wealthy and power for the powerful, most of it under the table, even as it eschews the "populist fundamentalism" of a Billy Graham.

With a city like Colorado Springs being a refuge for thousands fleeing the evils of urban America and a source of ideas and energy to reclaim America's urban centers for Christ.

With Ted Haggard as one of the leading lights of the movement, that is, until Ted's fall from grace, so to speak.

Though spin puts a happy face on it - Ted was so powerful for the Lord, it would seem, that Satan had to unleash a full-frontal attack on the man, causing him to sin. 

Fundamentalism, with its focus on personal conversion and inward piety, combined with a sense of retreat from the evil world even as one acquires its wealth (God's blessing) and the accouterments of worldly pleasure - homes, big SUVs, and fine clothing - is a perfect tool for the unregulated capitalism that has driven this nation to its knees and brought about a near-collapse of the global economy.

Sharlet's book is a perfect sequel to Chris Hedges' fine book, "American Fascists: the Christian Right and the War on America" - a carefully written book examining the classic examples of fascism and how the Christian right has flirted with fascism, if not, in fact, been seduced by it.

As I think and pray about such things, I am continually reminded of such things, since September 1 was the 70th anniversary of German tanks crossing the Polish frontier to begin 6 bloody years of world war, at the end of which 45 million were dead, and we must never forget how adroitly the Nazi propagandists used religion to further their own interests and keep the concentration-camp fires burning.

In the midst of that horror, an even greater question: Why did so many millions of German Christians buy into the rhetoric of a Himmler and a Hitler? Why the hatred of the Jews and Gypsies and all the rest deemed unworthy of the name "German"?

Yes, there was the Confessing Church, God be praised - and the Old Testament scholar, Von Rad, who refused to knuckle under and raised a protest, for which many of them paid the ultimate price.

But the question remains and must be asked countless times: Why did so many bishops and pastors, Protestant and Catholic, and millions more who heard their preaching and received the sacraments from their hand, buy the mythology of Aryan purity and power?

In 4.1.7, Calvin writes of the Lord's Supper, and of our participation in it: an attestation of our "unity in true doctrine and love."

Had Calvin put a period after doctrine, we'd be left with an impossible dream, for Christians will never find unity on the basis of "true doctrine," at least in the long run. Perhaps in the short run, in the thrill of new friends and new-found associations. But in time, friendships wear and the new becomes just as tired and wearying as was the old.

Doctrine is a good thing, but only as a servant of love.

In those instances where doctrine has been given too much weight, the results are always the same: bickering, dissension and divorce. 

And those newly married on the basis of doctrine will soon find other issues to debate, things endlessly in need of fine-turning, sub-point and codicil ... with mountains of paper, books and counter-books, claims and counter-claims, and with each round, a little more bitterness, a little more anger, a little more this and a little more that, until all those little things become big things, and the indifferent makes all the difference. 

I know doctrine, but do I know love?

I spent a good many years, early on, in the land of doctrine; it was fun and rewarding, but wearing, too, as ideas wear upon one another like engine parts shy of adequate lubrication, until the whole thing ceases up and comes to a grinding halt.

I think it was Rob Bell who said, "Doctrine makes a good servant but a horrible tyrant." He would know, living and working as he does in Grand Rapids, sort of the Holy City in the Land of Doctrine.

But it's love with which Calvin ends the sentence.

That's always the good end, the only end required of us. 

While I'm quite sure what doctrine looks like and a community of faith utterly shaped by it, I have difficulty imagining a community of faith driven by love.

Yet some things seem obvious: like putting up with one another and our respective views, without calling down the wrath of heaven or summoning up the fires of hell.

Making room for one another, and perhaps, then, we can finally address what has been our fatal flaw from the get-to: too much reliance on doctrine and not enough push on love - biblical love - highly ethical and pulsing with loyalty to one another because of Christ's loyalty to us!

Of the former issues of race and gender, those who favored the status quo were able to marshal tons of Scripture and tons more of doctrine. The weight of history, in the main, is always on the side of the conservative [note the Sadducees].

But there are other stories to be told, and someone like Diana Butler Bass ["A Peoples' History of Christianity"] helps us do just that, and with these smaller stories, reminds us of the ways of love, the courage of love, and the humility of love.

Calvin himself relied too much on doctrine [a man of his time, to be sure], but he could never forget the Holy Spirit, the mystery of God, and the power of love.

Doctrine is neat and clean, especially when we walk away from those who might offer another take on things. That's one way of keeping the house clean.

Love, however, requires of us something rather different, or so I think.

The next time I'm at the Lord's Table, which will be this coming Sunday, I'll think about these things ... to be united in true doctrine and love.

Who will be the first "evangelical" pastor in our ranks to leave the pack and set the pace for a new day with regard to the marriage and ordination of GLBT persons?

The Biblical work has been done.

As with regard to the historical processes relating to race and to women, various conservative groups solemnly sited Scripture and wrote ponderous tomes in support of the status quo, claiming the weight of history, the wrath of God and the righteous certitude of their cause as legitimation of their view.

I know there are evangelical pastors in our ranks who are uncomfortable with the evangelical freight train hurtling toward withdrawal from the PCUSA, a freight train largely out of control now, as various folks made decisions that now have a life of their own. 

Always interesting, albeit sad, to watch how, in any of our lives, decisions made  take on a life of their own as time unfolds, compelling us to make further decisions never intended or envisioned at the front.

Many of my evangelical colleagues are women and men of prayer and thought, and I know their level of discomfort with the more vociferous voices in their ranks.

Sooner or later, one of them, perhaps at the cost of a job in a deep-pocket congregation, will break ranks and lead the way ... as did some friends, way back when, who took to the pulpit one Sunday and made it clear that segregation was a sin. And those congregations rose up in whiteous (yes, that's what intended to write) indignation and showed their uppity preacher the door. 

Truth can be costly, as we all regularly preach, but rarely want to experience.

But a price is paid both ways. Silence and acquiescence take their toll, too, depleting the soul of its integrity, compelling the pastor to nod her head and voice his agreement when, in fact, the heart, if not crying out, trembles a bit at the ease with which conscience is sacrificed on the altar of job security and sublimation - and by sublimation, I mean: substituting a thousand good things for the one thing that counts.

Anyway ... enough for now.

I wonder: Who will it be?

To step into the pulpit one Sunday and say, "Discrimination against GLBT persons and our work to bar them from ordination and marriage is wrong, just plain wrong, and any or all thoughts of pulling up stakes and going our own way, or aligning with another denomination is just plain nonsense, and it's time for us to get back to the real business of the Gospel."

Which evangelical pastor, in what congregation, will break from the pack and set the pace.

Who will it be?

WHO will it be?

Been kicking around the church for 39 years worth of ordination; some might say, "Ya' know a few things."

 Sure, but others might say, "Who do ya' think ya' are?"

 Both are right.

But I can only go with what I know, or who I know.

Are Presbyterian Pastors capable pastors?

Yes! a resounding yes.

Though I've offered my share of criticism over the years, and thought I could re-invent the Presbyterian Church, if only folks would listen to me, I've stood firm on simple fact: 

 I HAVE KNOWN AND MET A LOT OF GREAT PASTORS -WOMEN AND MEN WELL-TRAINED, DEVOTED TO THE LORD, SEEKING ONLY THE BEST FOR THEIR CHURCHES, TRYING WITH ALL THEIR MIGHT TO NEGOTIATE THE DIFFICULT PATHWAYS OF MINISTRY, PUTTING UP WITH THE CRUELEST OF CRITICISMS, LIVING ON TIGHT BUDGETS, READING WIDELY AND DARING TO CONSIDER HARD QUESTIONS AND PROFOUND CHALLENGES - OFFERING THE GOSPEL AND NOT SOME WATERED-DOWN VERSION.

Sure, every pastor I've know is a human being, including me (imagine that!). And that means we're sinners (always mostly the other guy or gal, right?) saved by grace ... and grace doesn't make anything really go away. All the faults and foibles of our humanity are carried around in suit cases, and from time-to-time, we open 'em up, rummage around, and put on a crummy pair of shoes or a tattered shirt, because we want to be angry or selfish or arrogant or too-smart-for-our-own-britches or just plain dumb or full of crap!

Our current debates, and the fact that some have taken leave of the church to find a "better one," only to find "better" to be an illusion, would be resolved with a dose of humility, the kind generated by an honest appraisal of ourselves, the wonder and glory of grace and a genuine appreciation for the gifts and capabilities of our fellow-pastors, who may be liberal or conservative or bright or dull or tedious or exciting or an expert on the 16th Century or skilled in the art of making a killer cream sauce for chicken - or somewhere in between and who knows what - but a willingness to link arms and hold hands, or at least sit in the same damn room and never walk away, because walking away diminishes the walker, even as it diminishes those who remain.

We need one another, don't we?

The arm, the leg, the foot, the eye, the hand ... hmmm ... didn't Paul write about that?

But, then, who's Paul and what does he know!

 I rejoice in my colleagues.

I'm apologize to them and to the church and to Jesus for my own harsh criticism - some of which was motivated by passion for the church, and some of it, I think most it, by arrogance - I thought I simply knew better. 

Now I know I didn't. I've learned in recent years one of the greatest lessons: no one has to be wrong for me to be right. And let's quit crusading. Let's enjoy where we are, and remember, that if we're on top of our game and things are going well, it's God! Pure! Plain and Simple! Never forget how "lucky" you are! And don't believe the PR.

And if we're in a tough place, and things are hard, never look with envy anywhere else, but remember, it's still God. Pure! Plain and Simple! Put up with it, and plan on leaving a little sooner than you planned.

We all plough our own field, be it large or small, emerging or dying, sububan or inner-city, with organ or praise bands - and with grace, to appreciate and celebrate and encourage everyone else in the fields God has given to them. No one has the better idea - all we have is Christ! and him crucified.

Almost sounds biblical, doesn't it?

May it be so.

I had a good chuckle this Sunday.

A vistor from a PCA congregation in Floriday commented after the service, "Your sermon was very good, but you're congregation is more conservative then we are."

As she explained: her PCA congregation uses a praise band and a worship leader (her son) in a rather typical format: 20 minutes of music, a 10 minute skit, 5 minutes for announcements, and and another 20/30/40 minutes for the sermon.

Our service is traditional, that's for sure. Though we have a praise band once a month - but the congregation here does all of this rather well, and now that I'm meeting people in their thirties who've grown up in the "praise" model of worship, I'm beginning to see just how thin their experience has been. Sure, we can't claim any records either, but I'm beginning to see that a traditional liturgy and the use of a hymbook offer a greater grounding in the faith. 

But all that aside, her comment gave me a good chuckle.

Conservative after all.

Yikes!

Hat's off to the Lutherans ... a whole lot more light for them ... for us, too?

Click HERE to read Minnesapolis Star article.

 The Biblical work has been done ... now, it's just a matter of searching our soul and figuring out just how large and gracious shall we allow the love of God to be ... and perhaps, like Solomon, realize that no temple can hold all the glory of God (1 Kings 8).

Our theological constructs, our creeds, our beliefs, our experiences, our conversions and the stories we tell to one another - yes, all of them good, all them true, but not a one of them complete.

For me, it's fun being on the progressive side of things, because I believe the Holy Spirit is inexorably leading us through and out of the morass of the last 30 years, and we're being led, not only by our sisters and brothers in the Episcopal and Lutheran Churches, but by the secular world as well (because God is at work there, too). 

But I know, too, the pain of seeing one's world crumble, not merely by the onslaught of others, but simply because of its own cumbersom weight - I've believed over the years untenable things, as we all have; I've believed them with heart and soul and would have gone the limit with them, but things change, don't they?

Time works its own wonders, and like the series that ran in the "Christian Century" years ago, "How My Mind Has Changed," we all change our minds, hearts, too, and attitudes and theology. Our hope, if we have one, is not in our stuff, but in the changeless love of God for us - no shadow of turning there, but only encouragement to do our best and keep on following our Lord Jesus.

I see that our friends at the Layman are opposed to hate crimes legislation.

Imagine that ...

Nothing more delicious than "righteous hatred" of which there is no short supply.

Having just put down the latest issue, I remain stunned by it virulence ...