In an e-mail yesterday I commented on the issue of whether or not we should endorse the Beaver-Butler statement, and said we needed to develop our own statement calling for sweeping reform in the PCUSA. As I did, I employed a phrase that I've recently become enamored with. But not giving the phrase any context, some took offense, for which I accept responsibility. I'm sorry. I picked up the phrase "tolerable stupidities" from a respondent to one of Mark Roberts' recent blogs, and then chased it down to a source.
In his Dynamics of Spiritual Life (294-295), Richard Lovelace writes:
"Faced with a Lutheran constituency which behaved more like a pre-Christian "people movement" than I Reformed Church, Luther chose the difficult path of renewing the existing church structure rather than the strategy of starting a fresh adopted by the separatists of the Radical Reformation. When the early or English Puritans sought for counsel on how to complete the partial Reformation in the English church, Calvin and Bucer advise moderation, patience and tolerance toward the "many tolerable stupidities" in the church left over from Romanism. (Lovelace cites John T. McNeill, Unitive Protestantism.) It is clear that these men viewed their constituencies as partially Christianize bodies to be reached, renewed and shaped into the church of their ideal vision, and not as perfect Christian communities from which to measure decline in future centuries."
As I seized upon this term, I look back on the many compromises evangelicals have accepted going back at least as far as the fragile unity Presbyterians chose to close the stormiest years of the fundamental liberal controversy earlier in the 20th century. For example, we effectively chose in the 1930s to "agree to disagree" on doctrines like the virgin birth or the inerrancy of Scripture. In the 1950s people of the old UPNA chose to risk losing some of their essentials as they united with the old PCUSA. (Some of my elderly remember the warnings of their elders and regret that union.) In 1967 conservatives swallowed hard over the Confession of 1967. Then came the abortion debate. Then homosexuality. And along the way other sexuality arguments, Christology arguments, the Trinity statement, and I'm sure I've forgotten a few. These are the "tolerable stupidities." Evangelicals have had the strongest feelings over these kinds of issues, and have yet put up with while hoping to renew the church.
The question is whether or not we are reaching the place that "tolerable stupidities" are no longer tolerable. The 50(?) churches that have left the PCUSA, or the 3-5 Presbytery of SJ churches that we hear are considering departure obviously believe we are. Are they giving in to a perfectionist hysteria? Have we reached a point of crisis? One pastor at the Hanford meeting declared that he was not particularly bothered by the decisions of GA. Fine. But if 3-5 churches leave, the financial impact on the Presbytery will not be inconsequential. The prospect of uniting with the Stockton Presbytery could be a good thing. Again, have we reached a point of crisis?
I believe we have. But even if we have not, I strongly suspect it is coming. One of my elders offers a useful argument. He points out that all of us have a mental picture of where we draw the "line in the sand," and all of us set the line in a somewhat different place. Sanger set at one place, Millbrook another. 1st Fresno yet another place. For others it is the day our freedom to minister is taken away. Yet the trajectory of the PCUSA suggests the real possibility that wherever the "line in the sand" is drawn, it will be crossed. Do we wait until it has been crossed?
If we agree there's a crisis, we have the hard work of determining a course of action. A significant majority has agreed there were real problems with the decisions of the 218th GA. But we have to make a decision concerning the gravity of the present situation, and whether or not strong action is called for, and what that strong action should be.
Chris Erdman calls for prayer as our response, modeled ultimately I think, on Jeremiah's letters to the Jewish exiles in Babylon. The exilic image is popular and apt for creating missional strategy in a post Christendom world. But what if the situation we face in the PCUSA is better understood in the age of a much younger Jeremiah when that prophet was still daring to call for repentance in Judea?
But back to my point. The Presbytery of San Joaquin must decide whether we have reached the place where the compromises of our denomination have become intolerable. We must decide whether there is no crisis at all and none on the horizon; whether crisis is bearing hard down us; or whether it is burning now in our laps.
Ron is as always, eloquent and gracious. Thank you, Ron. I will admit that I am the one cited as having taken offense, but that is not exactly accurate. My comment was that it is difficult to have meaninful dialogue with someone who tolerates (or not) your stupidities. I think that the last 30 years in the Presbyterian Church are evidence for what I am saying. We have two sides, each of which I have heard calling the other "stupid" at one time or another. We have had no meaningful dialogue on the subject of acceptance of gay and lesbian persons. We have tolerated each other's stupidities, but that is the best we could do.
When we say that someone else is wrong, then we can talk about what is wrong and right. Tolerating a stupidity is different. The tolerant will never expect to actually learn something from the other. The one tolerant of stupidities has made up his or her mind, labeled those of different mind stupid, and goes about his or her business prayerfully tolerating stupid people. Why would anyone, including me, care to talk with a stupid person except in a patronizing way? Listening to a stupid person is silly, and we are not silly.
We might be able to tolerate a certain breadth of opinion on some matters, however. Smart people can differ, I think. Well, maybe not. After all, I am smart, so everyone else who thinks differently must be stupid. Actually, that makes sense.
Wait! perhaps Calvin and Bucer were right, and perhaps all this is at least partly subjective. Perhaps they are refering to "tolerable stupidities" in a way that would, with good humor, encourage those to whom they were writing to stick with the church rather than follow the path of radical reform. Isn't that the suggestion of the Lovelace quote?
Are the actions of G.A. 218 intolerable? Evidently, for some. I grieve that this is happening, but we are too smart, all of us on both sides, to call each other stupid and continue to patronize one another just for the privilege of meeting together at a Presbytery meeting and engaging in mission.
Most of the "dialogue" that I have had with others of differing views has been empty of substance. It has been full of patronizing posturing and even a little name calling. This was true at our meeting on Sept. 4.
I don't want to do this anymore. I want to be about my business as a pastor, leader and lover of God's people put in my charge, and witness to Jesus Christ. I suspect that many of you feel the same way, even though you may disagree with me on some issues. Can we get back to work while still in the same church? God has not seen fit to show me the answer to that question just yet. keep praying.
Lou Paradise has suggested declaring most all of our members as inactive in order to get the attention of the national leadership of the church.
Here are the definitions of active and inactive membership from the constitution that we have all sworn to uphold.
G-5.0202 Active Member An active member of a particular church is a person who has made a profession of faith in Christ, has been baptized, has been received into membership of the church, has voluntarily submitted to the government of this church, and participates in the church’s work and worship. An active member is entitled to all the rights and privileges of the church, including the right to participate in the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, to present children for baptism, to take part in meetings of the congregation, and to vote and hold office. Other conditions of active membership that meet the needs of the particular church and are consistent with the order and confessions of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) may be adopted by the session after careful study and discussion with the congregation.
G-5.0203 Inactive Member An inactive member of a particular church is one who does not participate in the church’s work and worship. An inactive member is entitled to all the rights and privileges of an active member except the right to speak in the meetings of the congregation and to vote and hold office.
I would like supporters of the proposal to explain how we can declare our active members inactive without lying. Surely no one is suggesting that we should engage in deceit in order to further our argument against those who we believe have acted in ways inconsistent with the testimony of Scripture concerning human sexuality. I don't think we can fight sin by sinning.
In the context of exploring Lou Paradise' "95 Thesis Proposal" you raise the question about declaring active members in active, and you ask I would like supporters of the proposal to explain how we can declare our active members inactive without lying. On the floor of Presbytery I quoted one of our own Easton elders as saying he loved the idea but hated the details. This was one of the details we did not like. So I am in agreement with your concern. But when I say that we love the idea, what I mean is that I believe it is time to call for Reformation in the denomination. And I believe we need to do so in a way that reflects our willingness to take a stand by our convictions. When it comes to the particular strategies, I don't think anyone has any clue what will finally carry the day. For now, since the actions of the 218th GA has people's attention to an even greater degree than the actions of the 217th, it is time to rally as many evangelicals in as many presbyteries as possible to call for serious change. That's why I like Lou's basic idea. We need more than focused condemnations of three grievous kinds of decisions. How to put "teeth" in our actions is more difficult. Yet it seems to me that when Luther nailed his 95 theses to the Wittenberg door, he actually thought he was going debate somebody. I don't think he had a plan behind beyond that. In a sense, he muddled his way into the Reformation. So I am not overly concerned about the details. But I am concerned that we pray AND act. As for Lou's details, I don't completely understand the rationale of shifting people to an active role. I am probably naïve to think it might be a sufficient protest if "all" the churches PSJ were to withhold GA per capita. (I have no idea how many may already be doing that. And I'm also aware that if you churches prefer no action at all.) But in addition, I believe we must begin conversations in regard to a collective action for when the presbyteries reject the G-6 amendment, and the 219th GA does not reverse their actions on the AIs. AT VERY LEAST I believe we must begin conversations about whether as a Presbytery we support a two synod realignment of the PCUSA. Personally, I doubt that the two synod concept meets the concerns of some churches who believe we have come to a theological impasse. The main value of the two synod concept seems two fold. On one hand it at least takes seriously Mr. Barrett's impassioned speech last week for unity, and that sometimes unity must trump purity. (I don't agree with him. But it was a great speech!) The other value of the concept is that it would in theory buy time to sort out the division of PCUSA assets. But even though I doubt the two synod concept, and would prefer to prepare for a true split into a new Presbyterian entity, I suspect a true split might be much harder to reach. In a sense Greg Horn is correct that we should let our system work. But as I've already said, when it does work I believe we will still have the new AI's, and with them a deepening an internal disunity. I do not believe the "other side" is meaningfully interested in seeking unity. I think it a reasonable scenario, that after 50 more evangelical churches depart during the next two years, and after the 219th stands by the AI's (or rewrites them to get around GAPJC decisions), the 219th will pass a gay marriage provision, and send another G-6 amendment to further trouble the presbyteries. I know Greg may argue that for 30 years we conservatives think we have one battle after battle. Nonetheless I fear we are losing the war. Too many in the middle are switching sides. Why spend the energy calling the PCUSA to reform? It's the right thing to do. I am running out of hope that the PCUSA can change and become biblically faithful again. But I'd love to be proved wrong. At Chris's encouragement I've been spending time in the book of Jeremiah. I'm struck that while from the day of his call Jeremiah understands judgment is coming, he still calls for repentance in the nation. Yes, the calls for repentance were issued in his earliest years, and these give way later to calls of judgment, and appeals to not resist the Babylonians. Yet even in the face of an inevitable outcome, he calls people to turn to God. He calls them effectively to uphold their end of the covenant. (The do-nothing, everything-will-be-okay false prophets had forgotten there were covenant stipulations to be upheld, and promised well-being without any expectation of personal holiness from the people or from themselves.) So I think we owe it to God, to our people and to our friends and colleagues in the PCUSA, to speak as persuasively as we can a truthful call for change. Sure PFR and others have done this for years. But I believe at this juncture we must. PFR is a valuable resource, but we are the Presbytery of San Joaquin. Together with friends in like-minded presbyteries, and in evangelical churches across the denomination, we are not an interest group. We are not a lobby. We are the PCUSA. We are praying. And we must speak. And we must pray continuously while preparing for where God will yet take us.
I appreciate your comments. I agree that we must pray and act. I also agree with Lou Paradise that we must get the attention of the national leadership of the church.
One of the reasons I mourn the loss of those churches that have chosen to disassociate themselves from our fellowship is that with each evangelical congregation that leaves, our collective voice for change is diminished.
I believe that as we carry out our strategies for change, We should be Biblical in our methodology as well as in our message. We must act, but we should act with integrity in all we do.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. taught us that we cannot effectively battle evil by becoming evil ourselves. I believe that we must also be patient and tenacious in the battle for truth. Frustration must not keep us from keeping on.
I believe truth will be victorious over falsehood if those who stand for truth don't cut and run.
5 comments:
"Tolerable Stupidities"
In an e-mail yesterday I commented on the issue of whether or not we should endorse the Beaver-Butler statement, and said we needed to develop our own statement calling for sweeping reform in the PCUSA. As I did, I employed a phrase that I've recently become enamored with. But not giving the phrase any context, some took offense, for which I accept responsibility. I'm sorry. I picked up the phrase "tolerable stupidities" from a respondent to one of Mark Roberts' recent blogs, and then chased it down to a source.
In his Dynamics of Spiritual Life (294-295), Richard Lovelace writes:
"Faced with a Lutheran constituency which behaved more like a pre-Christian "people movement" than I Reformed Church, Luther chose the difficult path of renewing the existing church structure rather than the strategy of starting a fresh adopted by the separatists of the Radical Reformation. When the early or English Puritans sought for counsel on how to complete the partial Reformation in the English church, Calvin and Bucer advise moderation, patience and tolerance toward the "many tolerable stupidities" in the church left over from Romanism. (Lovelace cites John T. McNeill, Unitive Protestantism.) It is clear that these men viewed their constituencies as partially Christianize bodies to be reached, renewed and shaped into the church of their ideal vision, and not as perfect Christian communities from which to measure decline in future centuries."
As I seized upon this term, I look back on the many compromises evangelicals have accepted going back at least as far as the fragile unity Presbyterians chose to close the stormiest years of the fundamental liberal controversy earlier in the 20th century. For example, we effectively chose in the 1930s to "agree to disagree" on doctrines like the virgin birth or the inerrancy of Scripture. In the 1950s people of the old UPNA chose to risk losing some of their essentials as they united with the old PCUSA. (Some of my elderly remember the warnings of their elders and regret that union.) In 1967 conservatives swallowed hard over the Confession of 1967. Then came the abortion debate. Then homosexuality. And along the way other sexuality arguments, Christology arguments, the Trinity statement, and I'm sure I've forgotten a few. These are the "tolerable stupidities." Evangelicals have had the strongest feelings over these kinds of issues, and have yet put up with while hoping to renew the church.
The question is whether or not we are reaching the place that "tolerable stupidities" are no longer tolerable. The 50(?) churches that have left the PCUSA, or the 3-5 Presbytery of SJ churches that we hear are considering departure obviously believe we are. Are they giving in to a perfectionist hysteria? Have we reached a point of crisis? One pastor at the Hanford meeting declared that he was not particularly bothered by the decisions of GA. Fine. But if 3-5 churches leave, the financial impact on the Presbytery will not be inconsequential. The prospect of uniting with the Stockton Presbytery could be a good thing. Again, have we reached a point of crisis?
I believe we have. But even if we have not, I strongly suspect it is coming. One of my elders offers a useful argument. He points out that all of us have a mental picture of where we draw the "line in the sand," and all of us set the line in a somewhat different place. Sanger set at one place, Millbrook another. 1st Fresno yet another place. For others it is the day our freedom to minister is taken away. Yet the trajectory of the PCUSA suggests the real possibility that wherever the "line in the sand" is drawn, it will be crossed. Do we wait until it has been crossed?
If we agree there's a crisis, we have the hard work of determining a course of action. A significant majority has agreed there were real problems with the decisions of the 218th GA. But we have to make a decision concerning the gravity of the present situation, and whether or not strong action is called for, and what that strong action should be.
Chris Erdman calls for prayer as our response, modeled ultimately I think, on Jeremiah's letters to the Jewish exiles in Babylon. The exilic image is popular and apt for creating missional strategy in a post Christendom world. But what if the situation we face in the PCUSA is better understood in the age of a much younger Jeremiah when that prophet was still daring to call for repentance in Judea?
But back to my point. The Presbytery of San Joaquin must decide whether we have reached the place where the compromises of our denomination have become intolerable. We must decide whether there is no crisis at all and none on the horizon; whether crisis is bearing hard down us; or whether it is burning now in our laps.
Ron is as always, eloquent and gracious. Thank you, Ron. I will admit that I am the one cited as having taken offense, but that is not exactly accurate. My comment was that it is difficult to have meaninful dialogue with someone who tolerates (or not) your stupidities. I think that the last 30 years in the Presbyterian Church are evidence for what I am saying. We have two sides, each of which I have heard calling the other "stupid" at one time or another. We have had no meaningful dialogue on the subject of acceptance of gay and lesbian persons. We have tolerated each other's stupidities, but that is the best we could do.
When we say that someone else is wrong, then we can talk about what is wrong and right. Tolerating a stupidity is different. The tolerant will never expect to actually learn something from the other. The one tolerant of stupidities has made up his or her mind, labeled those of different mind stupid, and goes about his or her business prayerfully tolerating stupid people. Why would anyone, including me, care to talk with a stupid person except in a patronizing way? Listening to a stupid person is silly, and we are not silly.
We might be able to tolerate a certain breadth of opinion on some matters, however. Smart people can differ, I think. Well, maybe not. After all, I am smart, so everyone else who thinks differently must be stupid. Actually, that makes sense.
Wait! perhaps Calvin and Bucer were right, and perhaps all this is at least partly subjective. Perhaps they are refering to "tolerable stupidities" in a way that would, with good humor, encourage those to whom they were writing to stick with the church rather than follow the path of radical reform. Isn't that the suggestion of the Lovelace quote?
Are the actions of G.A. 218 intolerable? Evidently, for some. I grieve that this is happening, but we are too smart, all of us on both sides, to call each other stupid and continue to patronize one another just for the privilege of meeting together at a Presbytery meeting and engaging in mission.
Most of the "dialogue" that I have had with others of differing views has been empty of substance. It has been full of patronizing posturing and even a little name calling. This was true at our meeting on Sept. 4.
I don't want to do this anymore. I want to be about my business as a pastor, leader and lover of God's people put in my charge, and witness to Jesus Christ. I suspect that many of you feel the same way, even though you may disagree with me on some issues. Can we get back to work while still in the same church? God has not seen fit to show me the answer to that question just yet. keep praying.
Sandy Brown, Lemoore
"Declaring our Members Inactive"
Lou Paradise has suggested declaring most all of our members as inactive in order to get the attention of the national leadership of the church.
Here are the definitions of active and inactive membership from the constitution that we have all sworn to uphold.
G-5.0202
Active Member
An active member of a particular church is a person who has
made a profession of faith in Christ, has been baptized, has been
received into membership of the church, has voluntarily submitted
to the government of this church, and participates in the church’s
work and worship. An active member is entitled to all the rights and
privileges of the church, including the right to participate
in the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, to present children for
baptism, to take part in meetings of the congregation, and to vote
and hold office. Other conditions of active membership that meet
the needs of the particular church and are consistent with the order
and confessions of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) may be
adopted by the session after careful study and discussion with the
congregation.
G-5.0203
Inactive Member
An inactive member of a particular church is one who does not
participate in the church’s work and worship. An inactive member
is entitled to all the rights and privileges of an active member
except the right to speak in the meetings of the congregation and to
vote and hold office.
I would like supporters of the proposal to explain how we can declare our active members inactive without lying. Surely no one is suggesting that we should engage in deceit in order to further our argument against those who we believe have acted in ways inconsistent with the testimony of Scripture concerning human sexuality. I don't think we can fight sin by sinning.
Bill:
In the context of exploring Lou Paradise' "95 Thesis Proposal" you raise the question about declaring active members in active, and you ask
I would like supporters of the proposal to explain how we can declare our active members inactive without lying.
On the floor of Presbytery I quoted one of our own Easton elders as saying he loved the idea but hated the details. This was one of the details we did not like. So I am in agreement with your concern.
But when I say that we love the idea, what I mean is that I believe it is time to call for Reformation in the denomination. And I believe we need to do so in a way that reflects our willingness to take a stand by our convictions.
When it comes to the particular strategies, I don't think anyone has any clue what will finally carry the day. For now, since the actions of the 218th GA has people's attention to an even greater degree than the actions of the 217th, it is time to rally as many evangelicals in as many presbyteries as possible to call for serious change. That's why I like Lou's basic idea. We need more than focused condemnations of three grievous kinds of decisions. How to put "teeth" in our actions is more difficult. Yet it seems to me that when Luther nailed his 95 theses to the Wittenberg door, he actually thought he was going debate somebody. I don't think he had a plan behind beyond that. In a sense, he muddled his way into the Reformation. So I am not overly concerned about the details. But I am concerned that we pray AND act.
As for Lou's details, I don't completely understand the rationale of shifting people to an active role. I am probably naïve to think it might be a sufficient protest if "all" the churches PSJ were to withhold GA per capita. (I have no idea how many may already be doing that. And I'm also aware that if you churches prefer no action at all.) But in addition, I believe we must begin conversations in regard to a collective action for when the presbyteries reject the G-6 amendment, and the 219th GA does not reverse their actions on the AIs. AT VERY LEAST I believe we must begin conversations about whether as a Presbytery we support a two synod realignment of the PCUSA.
Personally, I doubt that the two synod concept meets the concerns of some churches who believe we have come to a theological impasse. The main value of the two synod concept seems two fold. On one hand it at least takes seriously Mr. Barrett's impassioned speech last week for unity, and that sometimes unity must trump purity. (I don't agree with him. But it was a great speech!) The other value of the concept is that it would in theory buy time to sort out the division of PCUSA assets. But even though I doubt the two synod concept, and would prefer to prepare for a true split into a new Presbyterian entity, I suspect a true split might be much harder to reach.
In a sense Greg Horn is correct that we should let our system work. But as I've already said, when it does work I believe we will still have the new AI's, and with them a deepening an internal disunity. I do not believe the "other side" is meaningfully interested in seeking unity. I think it a reasonable scenario, that after 50 more evangelical churches depart during the next two years, and after the 219th stands by the AI's (or rewrites them to get around GAPJC decisions), the 219th will pass a gay marriage provision, and send another G-6 amendment to further trouble the presbyteries. I know Greg may argue that for 30 years we conservatives think we have one battle after battle. Nonetheless I fear we are losing the war. Too many in the middle are switching sides.
Why spend the energy calling the PCUSA to reform? It's the right thing to do. I am running out of hope that the PCUSA can change and become biblically faithful again. But I'd love to be proved wrong.
At Chris's encouragement I've been spending time in the book of Jeremiah. I'm struck that while from the day of his call Jeremiah understands judgment is coming, he still calls for repentance in the nation. Yes, the calls for repentance were issued in his earliest years, and these give way later to calls of judgment, and appeals to not resist the Babylonians. Yet even in the face of an inevitable outcome, he calls people to turn to God. He calls them effectively to uphold their end of the covenant. (The do-nothing, everything-will-be-okay false prophets had forgotten there were covenant stipulations to be upheld, and promised well-being without any expectation of personal holiness from the people or from themselves.)
So I think we owe it to God, to our people and to our friends and colleagues in the PCUSA, to speak as persuasively as we can a truthful call for change. Sure PFR and others have done this for years. But I believe at this juncture we must. PFR is a valuable resource, but we are the Presbytery of San Joaquin. Together with friends in like-minded presbyteries, and in evangelical churches across the denomination, we are not an interest group. We are not a lobby. We are the PCUSA. We are praying. And we must speak. And we must pray continuously while preparing for where God will yet take us.
Ron Owens
Ron:
I appreciate your comments. I agree that we must pray and act. I also agree with Lou Paradise that we must get the attention of the national leadership of the church.
One of the reasons I mourn the loss of those churches that have chosen to disassociate themselves from our fellowship is that with each evangelical congregation that leaves, our collective voice for change is diminished.
I believe that as we carry out our strategies for change, We should be Biblical in our methodology as well as in our message. We must act, but we should act with integrity in all we do.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. taught us that we cannot effectively battle evil by becoming evil ourselves. I believe that we must also be patient and tenacious in the battle for truth. Frustration must not keep us from keeping on.
I believe truth will be victorious over falsehood if those who stand for truth don't cut and run.
Post a Comment