In regard to the question of prayer versus action, when I suggest you may have confused is more than you realize, I simply meant this:
Until your reply to my Friday e-mail, you've spoken clearly and eloquently about our need to pray. But you had said precious little about action. In your e-mail, you do make yourself more clear. Thank you. Nonetheless, I wonder if I can take you seriously.
You correctly insist prayer is battlefield action. You say we must go deeper in order to be sure of right action. But I hear you say these things in the context of the "400 year" statement,(which apparently you regularly say.) And then our context is further complicated by Ruth Musson's "what's 30 years?" comment. (I do not attribute her comments to you, but simply say that as a part of the University circle she becomes part of the context in which you are heard.)
So how long do we pray, doing nothing else? 10 years? Israel was in the wilderness for 40. 70 years? After all, Babylon did teach the Jews a new way of being.
Chris, I suspect you have made your point already as well as you are going to. I hope I have clarified how I am hearing you.
And in fairness to you, praying for 400 years will most certainly not be your only action. You will continue to lead UPC in the effective missional engagement of your community as you have been.
1. Do I equate "ecclesiastical terrorists" with the theological and social Left? No. In context (I've attached a copy of my address, and I only departed from it once, and when referring to my pension) I'm arguing that the current trouble is not something to be feared. In fact, it can be welcomed. In my mind are the many discussions I've had with my friend and brother, Jamie Evans, about the future of the PCUSA. Also in my mind are the many conversations I've had with younger leaders and emerging leaders in our church, most of whom find our structure and organization essentially a dinosaur. I am not threatened by churches wanting to leave. And I'm arguing that they (those essentially on the Right) may well be in line with the Reformers. It also follows that those on the Left may be too. This is all beyond and above us. God is orchestrating things beyond our control. I've used the language of "ecclesiastical terrorists" to make this point (much to Dr. Horn's chagrin). Look, this isn't the first time, daring souls have be willing to blow the thing up for the sake of the Kingdom, or to start all over from the ground up. Not only does our theology assure us that Jesus Christ is Lord of his church and will guide his church, but chaos theory, Quantum physics, now concur that out of chaos comes a new order. Things long held sacred must often be assaulted in order for us to relinquish our idolatrous grip on them. Such was true with the Temple and its religious system at the time of our Lord. It was true also at the Reformation. It's equally true today, and we can take our stand on the promise that God will bring something new if we're daring enough to wait upon it. Please don't hear me as a champion of the Left. But do not equate me with the Right either. That may frustrate many of you who'd like to pin me down and label me. But I'll wiggle free from any label. I will not pull the wagon of any party. I'll take my stand at the center of things. My use of language is intended to frustrate and provoke both the Left and the Right in an effort to pull us from our easy moorings in either place and toward Christ who is above each side, and perhaps, astonishingly, in each side. If you have ears to hear, you on the Right (most of you) may find my description of the Reformers as "ecclesiastical terrorists" (a term intended to awaken us to the work before us) an encouragement to seek a bold new way of being Presbyterian/Reformed in the future. That is my prayer.
2. By my call to prayer and the interior life and I promoting inaction at a time we need bold action? Ron, your second question rightly is concerned with my summons to prayer, purity of heart, a serious relinquishment of all save God alone, and the way that sounds terribly individualistic and prone toward inaction. Believe me, I'm not arguing for an escapist pietism. I've not intended in any way to suggest that we choose between prayer and inaction (my verbal limitations may contribute to confusion here). Rather, I'm after the priority of prayer that births the right kind of action. And I'm concerned that we learn to pray not just for things, but to pray in such a way that we are united with Jesus Christ in the depth of our beings (Eph 3.19ff). You rightly discern that there is a contemplative stream here and that sounds pretty passive. The mistake we make with our caricatures of monasticism and the contemplative life is that monks have simply escaped the world for the quiet life. No, the Bible and tradition teach that prayer, real prayer, is a battlefield. The most taxing form of action. There are of course great benefits of inner peace and tranquility, but the saints testify that much of this "quiet life" is spent battling demons and purifying the heart. And quite often these transformed lives are later sent missionally back into the world for dynamic ministry. Jesus took the disciples away for awhile, then sent them out. It was a rhythm, never an either/or. It is God who, who through our union with him, then disposes us in mission and ministry as he pleases. In my mind is the warning Jeremiah offers: "I did not send the prophets, yet they ran; I did not speak to them, yet they prophesied. But if they had stood in my council, then they would have proclaimed my words to my people, and they would have turned them from their evil way, and from the evil of their doings" (Jeremiah 23.21-22). Last night we again got caught up in motions and emotions and the lure of action. Maybe it's a quaint ideal, but I'd like to see the Spirit fall on us all, after we've humbled ourselves for a season, and we have a clear sense that comes more from our hearts than our heads about what we are to do. When we are antsy in our prayers, wanting to move on to important things, that's often a sign that we must stay put and press pass our addiction to doing, until the Lord, presses us out in daring action (this is what happened in Acts 1-2). Of course, that's not always possible and we trust God is with as as we're active, praying as we go. And God works there too. But a steady practice of this, praying-as-we-go or 15 minutes here and there, is probably dangerous. So, please don't misunderstand my call here. The way into the future is through God alone. That sounds awfully squishing, soft, and subjective to folks who want concrete action. Peter was rebuked by our Lord for just this kind of impulsive action on the Mount of Transfiguration: "This is my Son.," God said, "[Don't build anything, you fool!] Listen to him." I wonder if the early church cherished this story because it new it needed an occasional rebuke in order to tease its people free from action untethered from the power of the Holy Spirit.
That's surely more than you asked for, but I hope it clarifies. Now back to the sermon.
I commend you for your excellent words yesterday evening. I agree with many of your points. I do however disagree with some of your assumptions and conclusions. But I want to take more time in prayer digesting before dialoguing. I do have a question however.
At one point you left your text, so I'm not sure whether I heard you correctly. After identifying some of the great Protestant reformers as "ecclesiatical terrorists," you use the term again and I believe you applied it to those on the (please forgive the labeling shorthand) left-hand of the theological spectrum who press us to accept gay ordination. Is that in fact what you said, and is that what you intended to say?
For I like the label "ecclesiatical terrorist." I would hate to withdraw to my prayer closet, while capitulating that role to extremists on the left. I believe "ecclesiatical terrorist" is an apt description for the calling we must accept. I am convinced that the PCUSA has been captured by our culture and is too freely taking its orders from the prevailing drift of post-modernity. And I believe we must strap some truth to our chests and do what a "ecclesiatical terrorist" does. And of course we do it prayerfully. Who was it that said "I have so much to do today I must spend three hours in prayer"? So Chris, why do you leave the impression that prayer (and other elements of inward oriented spiritual disciplines) are to be our only course of action? Why do you seem to make prayer and action an either/or? While you appear to admire the terrorist activism of Calvin and Knox, you call us effectively to return to the monestary and pray the hours.
Listening to IanTorrance, the new President at Princeton Seminary, commenting on how the church will function in a postmodern philosophical environment, he made the comment that our attitude must be less about "being right" and more about "moving forward." I think this describes in a nutshell the nature of Progressive thought. The underlying assumptions (read Richard Rorty for more) are several:
1. Convictional knowledge is always suspect. "Being right"--or even wanting to be right--is seen as a touchstone of inflexibility, narrowmindedness, and an inability to sympathize with other points of view. To have a conviction is to be unable to objectify your own belief system. Better (so the assumption would play out) to reside in that objectifying state, never standing "in" your beliefs so much as "alongside" of them. This is antithetical to confessional language, confessional faith, and our Confessions per se.
2. Progress (q. v.) is correct. It is okay to keep moving forward on the path we are on simply because we are on it and traveling. This means that change is self-authorizing and self-legitimizing--these too are touchstones of Progressivism. All judgment is suspended because suspending judgment per se seems like a good thing to do. This is a particularly bad idea if you happen to be on the Highway to Hell.
3. Who says that "forward" is in fact "forward," or "back" back for that matter. Isn’t this just another way of being right?
4. Whatever the options, apparently doing nothing is superior to doing whatever is the “right” in “being right.” This is a presumption.
5. Indecision and the “paralysis of analysis” is held up as a better position than one of direct, decisive action. Whenever “we do not know” is followed as if it were “we can not know,” then we have surrendered our moral agency, and replaced the Reformation Faith (Luther’s “love and do what you will” ) with functional agnosticism--even functional atheism.
Is it time to pray more or time to act?
Shall we pray more? Yes, right, well and good--as long as its not a time-out or delay-of-game. Neither should it be a cozy anodyne for indecision.
If two parents watch their child go running toward the street, and one says to the other "What shall we do?" the answer had better not be "let's take some more time to pray about it and see what conclusion the Spirit leads us toward." Pray yes, but do so as you run to stop that child.
The question is whether or not we are at a real point of crisis and whether the situation does in fact demand immediate action--and decisive action at that.
"The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crises maintain their neutrality" --Dante Aligheri
'The worst evils in the -world are not done by evil people, but by good people who do not know they -are not doing good' - Reinhold Niebuhr
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke (17291797), Irish philosopher, statesman. September 9, 2008 11:26 AM
Ron, if prayer is right, action will be right. If prayer is anemic or false, so action shall be as well. Prayer is union with God through Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit. It is no triffle. It is the center of all human life.
It is impossible for me to imagine some dualism between prayer and action. Prayer is the most fundamental form of action. "The weapons of our warfare are not worldly, but might from God." They pull down strongholds (2 Cor. 10). And from the supreme from of action, prayer, will spring the other forms of action you want.
I sense many think this appeal to prayer is a smokescreen for inaction, a delay tactic. No! There's nothing behind my appeal but the conviction that God alone gives answer to our desperate times. My critics, some of whom treat me as an enemy try to discredit my appeal to this most fundamental discipline of Christian existence.
How long to we pray? Forever. Our prayer must be continuous. Prayer is not as Noel suggests, "good men doing nothing." I
sn't it Jesus Christ that we most long for? Isn't it Jesus Christ who will lead his church? Isn't it Jesus Christ who will judge our every action? Isn't it Jesis Christ who sends us in mission? How then can we dismiss prayer itself and choose action instead. There is no opposition between prayer and cation. We ought to dwell much longer and more self-critically in Jeremiah 23 if we wish to be reminded of the need for us to "stand in God's counsel" and not run off half-cocked like the false prophets. Prayer will spring forth in the only kind of action that matters.
(I tried this once and it didn't post so I am trying again.)
I think I agree with Noel but from a different point of view. I don’t think anyone in this presbytery is asking for indecision or inaction. The question is what is our action and what decision is our action based on. I don’t think any of us want to move simply for the sake of moving, as if moving is the goal (the assumption I think you are making about progressives). We all want to move forward based on the right reasons for that action. I don’t think the direction of forward or backward is an issue for us. Whether we base our movement on past action or future hopes we are all basing it on our understanding of biblical authority and theological integrity, as Ron suggested the other night at presbytery.
Ron summarized the present dilemma the church faces by suggesting three areas of concern, biblical authority, theological integrity, and ecclesiastical fairness. I want to reflect on some of Ron’s concerns but not with exactly the same outline, and other comments that were made that night by Chris and Jayme. I would like to enter the discussion about cultural influence, about the presumption of (absolute?) correctness of one’s understanding of what the text says and means (does this mean I am a progressive? Maybe), and about the use of the threat of leaving to get our way, not just someone’s attention. Let me address these in order.
It seems to me (is that a wishy washy statement) that the cultural trend that has dominated our politics and public life as a nation in recent years is the move toward conservatism. From the time of Barry Goldwater (for those of you who remember him), to Reagan, and both Bushes conservatism has made an increasing influence. To this litany of people could be added Newt Gingrich’s movement, and the conservative (or fundamentalistic) religious political movements lead, for instance, by Jerry Fallwell and James Dobson. This cultural conservative influence has been significantly felt in the church. One sees this in the students coming into seminaries as well as in the issues the church confronts, no longer a ‘clear’ distinction between social action on the one side, held by liberals, and evangelism on the other side, held by conservatives. Although there were debates on how one should properly live out one’s faith, in action or evangelism, the questioning of the denomination’s commitment to Christ was not as front and center as today’s debates have placed it. The questioning of one’s commitment to Christ in our denomination seems to me to be similar to the questioning of one’s patriotism, especially in election year politics, and I think this theological questioning has come in recent years from the conservative right not the liberal left. The cultural influence of conservatism into the church brings this questioning spirit (in culture of patriotism, in the church of other peoples’ commitment to Christ) into our denomination. People who think about and interpret the Bible and theology differently than ‘we’ do are often suspect and their faith questioned.
This questioning spirit can be seen in some responses to GA’s statement concerning Christians interactions with Jews and Muslims. The GA’s statement encouraging the religious traditions worshiping the God of Abraham has been criticized for being theologically imprecise. I wonder if this criticism is like criticizing the parable of the prodigal son because it does not speak of the cross (even though Ken Bailey has made a case for the cross in the parable)? Is the parable meant to say everything, or based on other texts in Luke do we understand the significance of the parable in light of the cross? Our GA’s statement on Abrahamic faiths getting together for special events does not say everything about Christology, or maybe anything, but should we really isolate this statement from our denominations confessions and commitment to the Bible’s authority in faith and practice? Is the GA’s statement meant to say everything? Does it have to? Is what it suggests important in today’s volatile world? I think so. Was this statement by GA any more agenda driven than many other statements by GA on both sides of critical issues?
With regard to absolutism in one’s interpretation I would say that it is not that people have not held strong opinions and interpretations and convictions before, but the spirit today is one of either/or rather than both/and, or even the less divisive stance, I think you are wrong but you are still my brother or sister in Christ. Today also differences come with threats of leaving, beginning something new, withholding funds, etc. I am not suggesting that biblical relativism should be adopted. I don’t think the bible gives us that option. But I do think there are differences even within scripture that have to be acknowledged and accepted, which the early church did accept by including these contradictions or differences into its and our canon. A study of the differences between the Synoptics and John will point up several significant differences in the length and location of Jesus’ ministry, the vocabulary and emphasis of Jesus’ teaching, and even the date of the death of Jesus. Some of these differences cannot be historically literally resolved, yet from a literary and theological perspective there are valid and necessary ways to embrace the differences, but not historically. Beyond the Synoptic/John differences there are verses carrying important theological weight that give different views of such critical issues as Christology, salvation, and eschatology. We all have to live with these differences in scripture concerning biblical and theological issues.
My final comment concerns the posturing or threatening attitude we seem to be developing. Threat might work to get people to agree with us, but I don’t think it is a Christian or a biblical method of behavior. I think I am changing my mind about those who are threatening to leave. If people feel the church has gone apostate, and they can no longer affiliate with it, then if they feel they must, they should leave. It would be with great sadness that we would see them go. But if they go let them do so with integrity. I am speaking now about church property. I don’t think the reformers fought for the right to property from the church. Nor do I think the confessing church in Germany wanted to leave (although I don’t think they were trying to leave) only if they could take their church property. Nor do I think people who feel they must leave our denomination should argue for taking church property with them. They made vows in ordination to be part of a church leadership that supports and loves and strengthens each other. If someone must leave then let them leave with the courage and integrity. The property isn’t theirs. It belongs to all of us. The protestant church thrived without taking church property during the Reformation. Maybe those who leave will also. But so did the Catholic church not only survive but eventually thrive, although reform was necessary it got back to its purposes and became stronger in the long run. If people must leave then that is between them and God, but please do so with integrity and don’t take what belongs to the rest of us also with you. For those of us who stay and fight for the soul of the church, praise God, even if we are not in total agreement on how that soul should look. We stand together under the word of God and struggle together for the correct understanding of the heart of the gospel. This struggle for the right understanding of the gospel is worth our best thinking and action. Like the Jerusalem council, spoken of in Acts 15, however, let us hold on to the center and let some differences of interpretation (in their case regarding the place of the law in the life of the Christian) exist, for the sake of the gospel.
I'm beginning to feel as old as dirt. Well, That notion actually pops up on a rather frequent basis of late. The present causal nexus for this feeling is what I see as an ironic discussion here on the place and time of prayer.
When I was a young turk of a Christian back in the late 60's, those of us who were seen as the evangelicals and fundamentalists were known to call for prayer in the face of needs that others perceived as requiring action, not prayer.
The activist Christians of the left thought that those of us who were calling for prayer were delaying the critical actions needed in our society.
In the San Joaquin Presbytery, I find myself in the funny position of standing once again with those who are calling for more and deeper lives of prayer. Once again we are being criticized for slowing down an urgent need for action, but today we am being criticized from the right.
I would answer critics from both sides that prayer IS action, unless, of course, one believes that God has no power to intervene in our lives and in the life of our church and world.
Do we need to act in addition to praying? Absolutely, but not before we have prayed sufficiently to be convicted that we know what we are doing when we act.
Rick Irish has been prophetic in calling us to bathe the life of our presbytery in repentance, prayer, and listening for God's voice as we seek to discover how and when to act. We so need the idea of the sacred assembly, each of us coming before our Creator and Redeemer on our knees.
It was in the late 1970s that I read an article in the American Humanist that pointed out how secular humanist thinking affected evangelicalism of that day. If I recall correctly the article pointed to communication methodologies employed by a variety of televangelists. A few years later I became aware of the footnote in Bellah's Habits of the Heart, which cited research by James Davison Hunter. Hunter noted a growing phenomenon he called "psychological Christocentrism," which since the early 60s spelled a shift in mainstream American evangelicalism from its embrace of a traditional ascetic piety toward a gospel that says "Jesus meant for the Christian life to be an exciting, abundant adventure." Suffering and sacrifice are now downplayed and happiness and fulfillment are in. So I've paid attention with some interest for years to the tendency of Christians to allow the dominant culture subtly to influence our thinking.
So it was with interest that I read Tom Elson's comments last week suggesting that the growth of conservative political philosophy has contributed to the "questioning spirit" seen in some responses to GA's interfaith statement or responses to people who think about and interpret the Bible and theology differently. Fascinating. (Though I'm just as fascinated by the memory that it was a liberal politician and his Sunday school teaching that played a big role in the American evangelical movement becoming a part of mainstream America.)
But even though I am uncomfortable with how conservative Christians have at times become uncritical in regard to right wing allegiances, I think it's a matter of history that evangelicals in America tended to be politically conservative long before the Reagan Revolution. So I would be very cautious suggesting that a conservative "questioning spirit" is driven by political philosophy. Frankly, I would have raised the same concerns about the wording of the interfaith statement even in the days that I voted for George McGovern and Jimmy Carter. Fuzzy thinking and shoddy argument know no political bounds.
As for Tom's question of whether GA's statement meant to say everything and whether it is clear to isolate it from other existing confessional statements of the denomination, it is all about context. I did exercise restraint when I drafted for Presbytery the response statement. Much worse has been said about the statement than that it is theologically imprecise. Some of what has been said borders on hysteria, since the statement is not as bad as I could have been. But even the hysteria is understandable. For the statement comes to us in a context. Included in that context is a new freedom in the PCUSA to scruple what many still believe are essential teachings. In such a context Scriptural authority is up for grabs and with that authority, the confessions. In this context it is inevitable that imprecision sets off alarm bells. It is indeed tragic that in the ruckus over the statement's wording the importance of supporting interfaith dialogue gets lost. But that's the price of poor communication.
Not incidentally, I wonder if the growth of "psychological Christocentrism" has contributed to the way that some evangelicals have given ground in the movement to become more inclusive of gays?
Thank you for your thoughtful and articulate response to my comments. My response will hopefully be brief.
My only point in the cultural influence discussion is that I believe cultural influence has come from both directions, i.e., from the left and from the right. I believe I mentioned that conservatives have been around as long as liberals (if those labels mean anything). My litany of political influences from Reagan on merely meant to suggest that what has pushed forward the cultural and political conservative agenda, has also made its influence within the church. Cultural influence on the church comes from both directions. And, it seems to me, the spirit of many in the neo-fundamentalistic influence in the church is much more judgmental in tone than the pre-Reagan conservatism. I grew up in a very conservative Christian sub-culture and my first steps into political discussions were as a Goldwater Republican. It is partly because of the spirit of judgmental exclusivity of the neo-fundamentalists that I am no longer there. (By the way, I do not believe all conservatives demonstrate this spirit.) The deeper reason I not longer fit there is that I think scripture can and should be read differently than I was taught in that context. What I have seen growing in our church is a neo-fundamentalism that carries that same judgmental tone one often sees in our culture, that is so antithetical to the gospel.
With regard to GA’s theological fuzziness, I wonder if our statement in Response doesn’t do the same thing. That is, if the context is really the issue then our statement should be addressed to the context of the statement and not to the statement itself. If the statement of GA would be fine if the context was different, then we have fuzzied up our own statement by criticizing the wrong thing. Maybe we should leave the statement alone and criticize the context. A discussion about the theological drift of our denomination, which I believe is the context that concerns you, might well be more to the point, but that is a different discussion than the discussion about the actual statement GA made. Have we aimed our Response at the wrong target?
I have one follow up comment. I am beginning to think our discussion about cultural influence is a distraction. The issue for all of us is whether we will place ourselves under the Word of God. I would say even our interpretations need to come under the scrutiny of the Word. The question is not so much are we letting the culture influence the church, but are we letting the gospel challenge or confirm our ways of thinking and understanding. Have we become so certain of our views that we think the Word of God has nothing new to show us or challenge us with, even on this issue?
I am probably being optimistic when I assume this blog site will be read by anyone other than a small number of us pastors. Yet I do hope we pastors make our church leaders aware at least of this blog’s existence. But now that our story has received newspaper attention, I am also aware of the possibility that our friends at the Fresno Bee may discover this site. With that in mind I'm concerned about some of my own “over the top” that is posted here where I raised the issue with Chris Erdmann about being "ecclesiastical terrorists."
These words were originally a part of widely broadcast e-mail exchanges day after the September for Presbytery meeting, which were then introduced into this blog. In the context of the original e-mail exchanges the Rev. Dr. Greg Horn called us to task for this "extremely pejorative and inflammatory terminology."
Greg is wise, his words are being heeded, and I thought it good that they should be added to the record of this conversation.
I apologize for not attending the special meeting last night.
However, I must ask, are we really using the term “terrorist?”
If so, I am thankful I was not present for that meeting. I would not have remained silent. The good news is that at least I can respond more thoughtfully and temperately in this format.
Are we really willing to illustrate our commitment to our EVANGELICAL (= good new) values and truths by (per below)…
“we must strap some truth to our chests and do what a "ecclesiastical terrorist" does”
Please do not ask me to assume that methodology. Please do not accord that approach to the impeccable integrity of a Martin Luther, who through prayerful and peaceful persistence procured our protestant reformation by taking a “stand.”
Quite on the other hand, the authors of “911” were ecclesiastical terrorists. They validated their absurd violence upon innocents through their particular and peculiar theological viewpoint. Today “ecclesiastical terrorists” in the Middle East continue to “strap some truth” (explosives) to their chests and demolish their enemy.
Personally I have been in too many hospital rooms in Bethesda and Walter Reed with the remnants of humans who have been the target of those “ecclesiastical terrorists,” to be other than horrified at the thought of applying that terminology to our actions in support of evangelical Biblical truth.
I may be simplistic or confused, but I was of the perception that Christ was more insistent on our winning over our enemy vice his/her annihilation.
Please accept and act quickly on this very respectful suggestion that such extremely pejorative and inflammatory terminology immediately be deleted from any and all of our conversations.
In our discussions in front of our flocks and others in our communities, we need to be seen as wise and considerate counselors.
Then on On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Ron Owens wrote Greg: You rightly chasten us for our use of terrorism language. One of the great needs all of us face as we dialog is to guard our rhetoric. There are truths we will all try to speak, and at points this truth will likely hurt. So I will commit myself to avoid the unnecessary hurt of ill chosen or overstated rhetoric. … Ron Owens
13 comments:
Chris,
In regard to the question of prayer versus action, when I suggest you may have confused is more than you realize, I simply meant this:
Until your reply to my Friday e-mail, you've spoken clearly and eloquently about our need to pray. But you had said precious little about action. In your e-mail, you do make yourself more clear. Thank you. Nonetheless, I wonder if I can take you seriously.
You correctly insist prayer is battlefield action. You say we must go deeper in order to be sure of right action. But I hear you say these things in the context of the "400 year" statement,(which apparently you regularly say.) And then our context is further complicated by Ruth Musson's "what's 30 years?" comment. (I do not attribute her comments to you, but simply say that as a part of the University circle she becomes part of the context in which you are heard.)
So how long do we pray, doing nothing else? 10 years? Israel was in the wilderness for 40. 70 years? After all, Babylon did teach the Jews a new way of being.
Chris, I suspect you have made your point already as well as you are going to. I hope I have clarified how I am hearing you.
And in fairness to you, praying for 400 years will most certainly not be your only action. You will continue to lead UPC in the effective missional engagement of your community as you have been.
Ron Owens
Now to your questions:
1. Do I equate "ecclesiastical terrorists" with the theological and social Left? No. In context (I've attached a copy of my address, and I only departed from it once, and when referring to my pension) I'm arguing that the current trouble is not something to be feared. In fact, it can be welcomed. In my mind are the many discussions I've had with my friend and brother, Jamie Evans, about the future of the PCUSA. Also in my mind are the many conversations I've had with younger leaders and emerging leaders in our church, most of whom find our structure and organization essentially a dinosaur. I am not threatened by churches wanting to leave. And I'm arguing that they (those essentially on the Right) may well be in line with the Reformers. It also follows that those on the Left may be too. This is all beyond and above us. God is orchestrating things beyond our control.
I've used the language of "ecclesiastical terrorists" to make this point (much to Dr. Horn's chagrin). Look, this isn't the first time, daring souls have be willing to blow the thing up for the sake of the Kingdom, or to start all over from the ground up. Not only does our theology assure us that Jesus Christ is Lord of his church and will guide his church, but chaos theory, Quantum physics, now concur that out of chaos comes a new order. Things long held sacred must often be assaulted in order for us to relinquish our idolatrous grip on them. Such was true with the Temple and its religious system at the time of our Lord. It was true also at the Reformation. It's equally true today, and we can take our stand on the promise that God will bring something new if we're daring enough to wait upon it. Please don't hear me as a champion of the Left. But do not equate me with the Right either. That may frustrate many of you who'd like to pin me down and label me. But I'll wiggle free from any label. I will not pull the wagon of any party. I'll take my stand at the center of things. My use of language is intended to frustrate and provoke both the Left and the Right in an effort to pull us from our easy moorings in either place and toward Christ who is above each side, and perhaps, astonishingly, in each side.
If you have ears to hear, you on the Right (most of you) may find my description of the Reformers as "ecclesiastical terrorists" (a term intended to awaken us to the work before us) an encouragement to seek a bold new way of being Presbyterian/Reformed in the future. That is my prayer.
2. By my call to prayer and the interior life and I promoting inaction at a time we need bold action? Ron, your second question rightly is concerned with my summons to prayer, purity of heart, a serious relinquishment of all save God alone, and the way that sounds terribly individualistic and prone toward inaction. Believe me, I'm not arguing for an escapist pietism. I've not intended in any way to suggest that we choose between prayer and inaction (my verbal limitations may contribute to confusion here). Rather, I'm after the priority of prayer that births the right kind of action. And I'm concerned that we learn to pray not just for things, but to pray in such a way that we are united with Jesus Christ in the depth of our beings (Eph 3.19ff). You rightly discern that there is a contemplative stream here and that sounds pretty passive.
The mistake we make with our caricatures of monasticism and the contemplative life is that monks have simply escaped the world for the quiet life. No, the Bible and tradition teach that prayer, real prayer, is a battlefield. The most taxing form of action. There are of course great benefits of inner peace and tranquility, but the saints testify that much of this "quiet life" is spent battling demons and purifying the heart. And quite often these transformed lives are later sent missionally back into the world for dynamic ministry. Jesus took the disciples away for awhile, then sent them out. It was a rhythm, never an either/or. It is God who, who through our union with him, then disposes us in mission and ministry as he pleases.
In my mind is the warning Jeremiah offers: "I did not send the prophets, yet they ran; I did not speak to them, yet they prophesied. But if they had stood in my council, then they would have proclaimed my words to my people, and they would have turned them from their evil way, and from the evil of their doings" (Jeremiah 23.21-22). Last night we again got caught up in motions and emotions and the lure of action. Maybe it's a quaint ideal, but I'd like to see the Spirit fall on us all, after we've humbled ourselves for a season, and we have a clear sense that comes more from our hearts than our heads about what we are to do. When we are antsy in our prayers, wanting to move on to important things, that's often a sign that we must stay put and press pass our addiction to doing, until the Lord, presses us out in daring action (this is what happened in Acts 1-2). Of course, that's not always possible and we trust God is with as as we're active, praying as we go. And God works there too. But a steady practice of this, praying-as-we-go or 15 minutes here and there, is probably dangerous.
So, please don't misunderstand my call here. The way into the future is through God alone. That sounds awfully squishing, soft, and subjective to folks who want concrete action. Peter was rebuked by our Lord for just this kind of impulsive action on the Mount of Transfiguration: "This is my Son.," God said, "[Don't build anything, you fool!] Listen to him." I wonder if the early church cherished this story because it new it needed an occasional rebuke in order to tease its people free from action untethered from the power of the Holy Spirit.
That's surely more than you asked for, but I hope it clarifies. Now back to the sermon.
Warmly,
Chris
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 9:05 AM, Ron Owens wrote:
Chris:
I commend you for your excellent words yesterday evening. I agree with many of your points. I do however disagree with some of your assumptions and conclusions. But I want to take more time in prayer digesting before dialoguing. I do have a question however.
At one point you left your text, so I'm not sure whether I heard you correctly. After identifying some of the great Protestant reformers as "ecclesiatical terrorists," you use the term again and I believe you applied it to those on the (please forgive the labeling shorthand) left-hand of the theological spectrum who press us to accept gay ordination. Is that in fact what you said, and is that what you intended to say?
For I like the label "ecclesiatical terrorist." I would hate to withdraw to my prayer closet, while capitulating that role to extremists on the left. I believe "ecclesiatical terrorist" is an apt description for the calling we must accept. I am convinced that the PCUSA has been captured by our culture and is too freely taking its orders from the prevailing drift of post-modernity. And I believe we must strap some truth to our chests and do what a "ecclesiatical terrorist" does. And of course we do it prayerfully. Who was it that said "I have so much to do today I must spend three hours in prayer"? So Chris, why do you leave the impression that prayer (and other elements of inward oriented spiritual disciplines) are to be our only course of action? Why do you seem to make prayer and action an either/or? While you appear to admire the terrorist activism of Calvin and Knox, you call us effectively to return to the monestary and pray the hours.
Again Chris, have I understood you correctly?
Your brother in Christ,
Ron Owens
Noel said...
Listening to IanTorrance, the new President at Princeton Seminary, commenting on how the church will function in a postmodern philosophical environment, he made the comment that our attitude must be less about "being right" and more about "moving forward." I think this describes in a nutshell the nature of Progressive thought. The underlying assumptions (read Richard Rorty for more) are several:
1. Convictional knowledge is always suspect. "Being right"--or even wanting to be right--is seen as a touchstone of inflexibility, narrowmindedness, and an inability to sympathize with other points of view. To have a conviction is to be unable to objectify your own belief system. Better (so the assumption would play out) to reside in that objectifying state, never standing "in" your beliefs so much as "alongside" of them. This is antithetical to confessional language, confessional faith, and our Confessions per se.
2. Progress (q. v.) is correct. It is okay to keep moving forward on the path we are on simply because we are on it and traveling. This means that change is self-authorizing and self-legitimizing--these too are touchstones of Progressivism. All judgment is suspended because suspending judgment per se seems like a good thing to do. This is a particularly bad idea if you happen to be on the Highway to Hell.
3. Who says that "forward" is in fact "forward," or "back" back for that matter. Isn’t this just another way of being right?
4. Whatever the options, apparently doing nothing is superior to doing whatever is the “right” in “being right.” This is a presumption.
5. Indecision and the “paralysis of analysis” is held up as a better position than one of direct, decisive action. Whenever “we do not know” is followed as if it were “we can not know,” then we have surrendered our moral agency, and replaced the Reformation Faith (Luther’s “love and do what you will” ) with functional agnosticism--even functional atheism.
Is it time to pray more or time to act?
Shall we pray more? Yes, right, well and good--as long as its not a time-out or delay-of-game. Neither should it be a cozy anodyne for indecision.
If two parents watch their child go running toward the street, and one says to the other "What shall we do?" the answer had better not be "let's take some more time to pray about it and see what conclusion the Spirit leads us toward." Pray yes, but do so as you run to stop that child.
The question is whether or not we are at a real point of crisis and whether the situation does in fact demand immediate action--and decisive action at that.
"The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crises maintain their neutrality" --Dante Aligheri
'The worst evils in the -world are not done by evil people, but by good people who do not know they -are not doing good' - Reinhold Niebuhr
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke (17291797), Irish philosopher, statesman.
September 9, 2008 11:26 AM
Ron, if prayer is right, action will be right. If prayer is anemic or false, so action shall be as well. Prayer is union with God through Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit. It is no triffle. It is the center of all human life.
It is impossible for me to imagine some dualism between prayer and action. Prayer is the most fundamental form of action. "The weapons of our warfare are not worldly, but might from God." They pull down strongholds (2 Cor. 10). And from the supreme from of action, prayer, will spring the other forms of action you want.
I sense many think this appeal to prayer is a smokescreen for inaction, a delay tactic. No! There's nothing behind my appeal but the conviction that God alone gives answer to our desperate times. My critics, some of whom treat me as an enemy try to discredit my appeal to this most fundamental discipline of Christian existence.
How long to we pray? Forever. Our prayer must be continuous. Prayer is not as Noel suggests, "good men doing nothing." I
sn't it Jesus Christ that we most long for? Isn't it Jesus Christ who will lead his church? Isn't it Jesus Christ who will judge our every action? Isn't it Jesis Christ who sends us in mission? How then can we dismiss prayer itself and choose action instead. There is no opposition between prayer and cation. We ought to dwell much longer and more self-critically in Jeremiah 23 if we wish to be reminded of the need for us to "stand in God's counsel" and not run off half-cocked like the false prophets. Prayer will spring forth in the only kind of action that matters.
Thank you, Chris.
Ron
Hi All,
I am a novice so I am just checking to see if this is how to post.
Tom Elson
Dear Friends,
(I tried this once and it didn't post so I am trying again.)
I think I agree with Noel but from a different point of view. I don’t think anyone in this presbytery is asking for indecision or inaction. The question is what is our action and what decision is our action based on. I don’t think any of us want to move simply for the sake of moving, as if moving is the goal (the assumption I think you are making about progressives). We all want to move forward based on the right reasons for that action. I don’t think the direction of forward or backward is an issue for us. Whether we base our movement on past action or future hopes we are all basing it on our understanding of biblical authority and theological integrity, as Ron suggested the other night at presbytery.
Ron summarized the present dilemma the church faces by suggesting three areas of concern, biblical authority, theological integrity, and ecclesiastical fairness. I want to reflect on some of Ron’s concerns but not with exactly the same outline, and other comments that were made that night by Chris and Jayme. I would like to enter the discussion about cultural influence, about the presumption of (absolute?) correctness of one’s understanding of what the text says and means (does this mean I am a progressive? Maybe), and about the use of the threat of leaving to get our way, not just someone’s attention. Let me address these in order.
It seems to me (is that a wishy washy statement) that the cultural trend that has dominated our politics and public life as a nation in recent years is the move toward conservatism. From the time of Barry Goldwater (for those of you who remember him), to Reagan, and both Bushes conservatism has made an increasing influence. To this litany of people could be added Newt Gingrich’s movement, and the conservative (or fundamentalistic) religious political movements lead, for instance, by Jerry Fallwell and James Dobson. This cultural conservative influence has been significantly felt in the church. One sees this in the students coming into seminaries as well as in the issues the church confronts, no longer a ‘clear’ distinction between social action on the one side, held by liberals, and evangelism on the other side, held by conservatives. Although there were debates on how one should properly live out one’s faith, in action or evangelism, the questioning of the denomination’s commitment to Christ was not as front and center as today’s debates have placed it. The questioning of one’s commitment to Christ in our denomination seems to me to be similar to the questioning of one’s patriotism, especially in election year politics, and I think this theological questioning has come in recent years from the conservative right not the liberal left. The cultural influence of conservatism into the church brings this questioning spirit (in culture of patriotism, in the church of other peoples’ commitment to Christ) into our denomination. People who think about and interpret the Bible and theology differently than ‘we’ do are often suspect and their faith questioned.
This questioning spirit can be seen in some responses to GA’s statement concerning Christians interactions with Jews and Muslims. The GA’s statement encouraging the religious traditions worshiping the God of Abraham has been criticized for being theologically imprecise. I wonder if this criticism is like criticizing the parable of the prodigal son because it does not speak of the cross (even though Ken Bailey has made a case for the cross in the parable)? Is the parable meant to say everything, or based on other texts in Luke do we understand the significance of the parable in light of the cross? Our GA’s statement on Abrahamic faiths getting together for special events does not say everything about Christology, or maybe anything, but should we really isolate this statement from our denominations confessions and commitment to the Bible’s authority in faith and practice? Is the GA’s statement meant to say everything? Does it have to? Is what it suggests important in today’s volatile world? I think so. Was this statement by GA any more agenda driven than many other statements by GA on both sides of critical issues?
With regard to absolutism in one’s interpretation I would say that it is not that people have not held strong opinions and interpretations and convictions before, but the spirit today is one of either/or rather than both/and, or even the less divisive stance, I think you are wrong but you are still my brother or sister in Christ. Today also differences come with threats of leaving, beginning something new, withholding funds, etc. I am not suggesting that biblical relativism should be adopted. I don’t think the bible gives us that option. But I do think there are differences even within scripture that have to be acknowledged and accepted, which the early church did accept by including these contradictions or differences into its and our canon. A study of the differences between the Synoptics and John will point up several significant differences in the length and location of Jesus’ ministry, the vocabulary and emphasis of Jesus’ teaching, and even the date of the death of Jesus. Some of these differences cannot be historically literally resolved, yet from a literary and theological perspective there are valid and necessary ways to embrace the differences, but not historically. Beyond the Synoptic/John differences there are verses carrying important theological weight that give different views of such critical issues as Christology, salvation, and eschatology. We all have to live with these differences in scripture concerning biblical and theological issues.
My final comment concerns the posturing or threatening attitude we seem to be developing. Threat might work to get people to agree with us, but I don’t think it is a Christian or a biblical method of behavior. I think I am changing my mind about those who are threatening to leave. If people feel the church has gone apostate, and they can no longer affiliate with it, then if they feel they must, they should leave. It would be with great sadness that we would see them go. But if they go let them do so with integrity. I am speaking now about church property. I don’t think the reformers fought for the right to property from the church. Nor do I think the confessing church in Germany wanted to leave (although I don’t think they were trying to leave) only if they could take their church property. Nor do I think people who feel they must leave our denomination should argue for taking church property with them. They made vows in ordination to be part of a church leadership that supports and loves and strengthens each other. If someone must leave then let them leave with the courage and integrity. The property isn’t theirs. It belongs to all of us. The protestant church thrived without taking church property during the Reformation. Maybe those who leave will also. But so did the Catholic church not only survive but eventually thrive, although reform was necessary it got back to its purposes and became stronger in the long run. If people must leave then that is between them and God, but please do so with integrity and don’t take what belongs to the rest of us also with you. For those of us who stay and fight for the soul of the church, praise God, even if we are not in total agreement on how that soul should look. We stand together under the word of God and struggle together for the correct understanding of the heart of the gospel. This struggle for the right understanding of the gospel is worth our best thinking and action. Like the Jerusalem council, spoken of in Acts 15, however, let us hold on to the center and let some differences of interpretation (in their case regarding the place of the law in the life of the Christian) exist, for the sake of the gospel.
Well, that was too much. But there it is.
Tom Elson
I'm beginning to feel as old as dirt. Well, That notion actually pops up on a rather frequent basis of late. The present causal nexus for this feeling is what I see as an ironic discussion here on the place and time of prayer.
When I was a young turk of a Christian back in the late 60's, those of us who were seen as the evangelicals and fundamentalists were known to call for prayer in the face of needs that others perceived as requiring action, not prayer.
The activist Christians of the left thought that those of us who were calling for prayer were delaying the critical actions needed in our society.
In the San Joaquin Presbytery, I find myself in the funny position of standing once again with those who are calling for more and deeper lives of prayer. Once again we are being criticized for slowing down an urgent need for action, but today we am being criticized from the right.
I would answer critics from both sides that prayer IS action, unless, of course, one believes that God has no power to intervene in our lives and in the life of our church and world.
Do we need to act in addition to praying? Absolutely, but not before we have prayed sufficiently to be convicted that we know what we are doing when we act.
Rick Irish has been prophetic in calling us to bathe the life of our presbytery in repentance, prayer, and listening for God's voice as we seek to discover how and when to act. We so need the idea of the sacred assembly, each of us coming before our Creator and Redeemer on our knees.
It was in the late 1970s that I read an article in the American Humanist that pointed out how secular humanist thinking affected evangelicalism of that day. If I recall correctly the article pointed to communication methodologies employed by a variety of televangelists. A few years later I became aware of the footnote in Bellah's Habits of the Heart, which cited research by James Davison Hunter. Hunter noted a growing phenomenon he called "psychological Christocentrism," which since the early 60s spelled a shift in mainstream American evangelicalism from its embrace of a traditional ascetic piety toward a gospel that says "Jesus meant for the Christian life to be an exciting, abundant adventure." Suffering and sacrifice are now downplayed and happiness and fulfillment are in. So I've paid attention with some interest for years to the tendency of Christians to allow the dominant culture subtly to influence our thinking.
So it was with interest that I read Tom Elson's comments last week suggesting that the growth of conservative political philosophy has contributed to the "questioning spirit" seen in some responses to GA's interfaith statement or responses to people who think about and interpret the Bible and theology differently. Fascinating. (Though I'm just as fascinated by the memory that it was a liberal politician and his Sunday school teaching that played a big role in the American evangelical movement becoming a part of mainstream America.)
But even though I am uncomfortable with how conservative Christians have at times become uncritical in regard to right wing allegiances, I think it's a matter of history that evangelicals in America tended to be politically conservative long before the Reagan Revolution. So I would be very cautious suggesting that a conservative "questioning spirit" is driven by political philosophy. Frankly, I would have raised the same concerns about the wording of the interfaith statement even in the days that I voted for George McGovern and Jimmy Carter. Fuzzy thinking and shoddy argument know no political bounds.
As for Tom's question of whether GA's statement meant to say everything and whether it is clear to isolate it from other existing confessional statements of the denomination, it is all about context. I did exercise restraint when I drafted for Presbytery the response statement. Much worse has been said about the statement than that it is theologically imprecise. Some of what has been said borders on hysteria, since the statement is not as bad as I could have been. But even the hysteria is understandable. For the statement comes to us in a context. Included in that context is a new freedom in the PCUSA to scruple what many still believe are essential teachings. In such a context Scriptural authority is up for grabs and with that authority, the confessions. In this context it is inevitable that imprecision sets off alarm bells. It is indeed tragic that in the ruckus over the statement's wording the importance of supporting interfaith dialogue gets lost. But that's the price of poor communication.
Not incidentally, I wonder if the growth of "psychological Christocentrism" has contributed to the way that some evangelicals have given ground in the movement to become more inclusive of gays?
Ron Owens
Ron,
Thank you for your thoughtful and articulate response to my comments. My response will hopefully be brief.
My only point in the cultural influence discussion is that I believe cultural influence has come from both directions, i.e., from the left and from the right. I believe I mentioned that conservatives have been around as long as liberals (if those labels mean anything). My litany of political influences from Reagan on merely meant to suggest that what has pushed forward the cultural and political conservative agenda, has also made its influence within the church. Cultural influence on the church comes from both directions. And, it seems to me, the spirit of many in the neo-fundamentalistic influence in the church is much more judgmental in tone than the pre-Reagan conservatism. I grew up in a very conservative Christian sub-culture and my first steps into political discussions were as a Goldwater Republican. It is partly because of the spirit of judgmental exclusivity of the neo-fundamentalists that I am no longer there. (By the way, I do not believe all conservatives demonstrate this spirit.) The deeper reason I not longer fit there is that I think scripture can and should be read differently than I was taught in that context. What I have seen growing in our church is a neo-fundamentalism that carries that same judgmental tone one often sees in our culture, that is so antithetical to the gospel.
With regard to GA’s theological fuzziness, I wonder if our statement in Response doesn’t do the same thing. That is, if the context is really the issue then our statement should be addressed to the context of the statement and not to the statement itself. If the statement of GA would be fine if the context was different, then we have fuzzied up our own statement by criticizing the wrong thing. Maybe we should leave the statement alone and criticize the context. A discussion about the theological drift of our denomination, which I believe is the context that concerns you, might well be more to the point, but that is a different discussion than the discussion about the actual statement GA made. Have we aimed our Response at the wrong target?
Tom Elson
Ron,
I have one follow up comment. I am beginning to think our discussion about cultural influence is a distraction. The issue for all of us is whether we will place ourselves under the Word of God. I would say even our interpretations need to come under the scrutiny of the Word. The question is not so much are we letting the culture influence the church, but are we letting the gospel challenge or confirm our ways of thinking and understanding. Have we become so certain of our views that we think the Word of God has nothing new to show us or challenge us with, even on this issue?
Tom
Friends:
I am probably being optimistic when I assume this blog site will be read by anyone other than a small number of us pastors. Yet I do hope we pastors make our church leaders aware at least of this blog’s existence. But now that our story has received newspaper attention, I am also aware of the possibility that our friends at the Fresno Bee may discover this site. With that in mind I'm concerned about some of my own “over the top” that is posted here where I raised the issue with Chris Erdmann about being "ecclesiastical terrorists."
These words were originally a part of widely broadcast e-mail exchanges day after the September for Presbytery meeting, which were then introduced into this blog. In the context of the original e-mail exchanges the Rev. Dr. Greg Horn called us to task for this "extremely pejorative and inflammatory terminology."
Greg is wise, his words are being heeded, and I thought it good that they should be added to the record of this conversation.
Fri 9/5/2008 1:41PM Greg wrote:
Dear fellow Presbyters:
I apologize for not attending the special meeting last night.
However, I must ask, are we really using the term “terrorist?”
If so, I am thankful I was not present for that meeting. I would not have remained silent. The good news is that at least I can respond more thoughtfully and temperately in this format.
Are we really willing to illustrate our commitment to our EVANGELICAL (= good new) values and truths by (per below)…
“we must strap some truth to our chests and do what a "ecclesiastical terrorist" does”
Please do not ask me to assume that methodology. Please do not accord that approach to the impeccable integrity of a Martin Luther, who through prayerful and peaceful persistence procured our protestant reformation by taking a “stand.”
Quite on the other hand, the authors of “911” were ecclesiastical terrorists. They validated their absurd violence upon innocents through their particular and peculiar theological viewpoint. Today “ecclesiastical terrorists” in the Middle East continue to “strap some truth” (explosives) to their chests and demolish their enemy.
Personally I have been in too many hospital rooms in Bethesda and Walter Reed with the remnants of humans who have been the target of those “ecclesiastical terrorists,” to be other than horrified at the thought of applying that terminology to our actions in support of evangelical Biblical truth.
I may be simplistic or confused, but I was of the perception that Christ was more insistent on our winning over our enemy vice his/her annihilation.
Please accept and act quickly on this very respectful suggestion that such extremely pejorative and inflammatory terminology immediately be deleted from any and all of our conversations.
In our discussions in front of our flocks and others in our communities, we need to be seen as wise and considerate counselors.
Then on On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Ron Owens wrote
Greg:
You rightly chasten us for our use of terrorism language. One of the great needs all of us face as we dialog is to guard our rhetoric. There are truths we will all try to speak, and at points this truth will likely hurt. So I will commit myself to avoid the unnecessary hurt of ill chosen or overstated rhetoric. … Ron Owens
Post a Comment