Rev Wright, Etc.

As I listened to Rev. Jeremiah Wright over the past few days, I began to wonder.

I wondered about Rev. Wright's hatred. I could certainly understand Rev. Wright being angry, but it is really difficult for me to understand Rev. Wright's hatred. I wonder why he calls down God's damnation upon this country. I can understand someone being angry at what the US has done, but why would anyone want God to damn the US? It's the hatred I don't understand -- especially from a Christian pastor.

I also wonder about Rev. Wright's divisive comments. Aren't Christians supposed to be about reconciliation? Does it really serve the cause of reconciliation to make comments that divide and alienate?

I also wonder about Sen. Barak Obama. Can it really be possible that Sen Obama -- who sat in the pews of Rev. Wright's church for 20 years, who had Rev. Wright as his spiritual advisor, who was married by Rev. Wright, who had his kids baptized by Rev. Wright -- not to know about Rev. Wright's hatred and divisive spirit? Why did Sen. Obama remain?

I'm pretty sure I would know if my own pastor held views of hatred and divisiveness. I would certainly confront (lovingly and graciously) my own pastor if I found hatred. But, if my pastor persisted in hatred and divisiveness, I would find another church.

Arsenokoitas, Etc

Recently, I was surfing the web. I was interested in how people try to square the language of ICorinthinans 6: 9-10 with the notion that practing, self-affirming homosexuals ought to be ordained to be Ministers of Word and Sacrament.

I found onw webpage (http://www.gaychurch.org/Gay_and_Christian_YES/calling_the_rainbow_nation_home/7c_gac_clobber_passages_arsenokoitais.htm) which attempted to do so.

Here is the language of ICorinthians 6:9-10: "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Seems rather clear -- homosexuals shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

"Elaine" makes an effort to say that some homosexuals may, in fact, inherit the kingdom of God.

Here is how she does it: She takes the word that is translated "homosexuals" -- arsenokoitais -- and says that it can be translated a number of different ways -- it does not, according to Elaine, always mean "homosexuals", at least as she understands that word today.

Elaine observes this: "God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33) and given half a chance, Scripture will interpret Scripture. Furthermore, all Scripture (if properly interpreted) will ‘line up’ with other Scriptural truths, such as the Law of Agape love that is the great commandment and covenant we are now under (Matthew 22:37-40; Galatians 5:14; Romans 13:8-11; John 13:34). If our conclusions don’t line up with these truths or contradict other Scriptural truths, then we’ve missed it and we need to begin again."

In other words, if we conclude something, based on our interpretation -- or the tranlsation of a word -- of scripture, and if the conclusion contradicts another Scriptural truth (for instance, what Elaine calls "the Law of Agape Love" that Elaine says "is the great commandment and covenant we are now under"), then our conclusion (or the translation of a given word) is in error.

Then Elaine asks this question: "Does being a homosexual seem to fit into the same ‘line-up’ as the ones Paul describes in these passages?"

She quickly responds to her own question with this remarkable statement: "We can easily see how fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, thieves, drunkards, swindlers, murderers and the like break the great commandment of Agape love."

She then says this: "But does a loving homosexual relationship? I just don’t see it. Sometimes a good dose of common sense is good when interpreting the Word of God."

I have a couple of observations. First, if, as Elaine postulates, we are now under the "Law of Agape Love", and if the Law allows loving homosexual relationships, then wouldn't the same Law (which Elaine seems to suggest is that we should just love everyone who loves) apply to people in loving polyamourous relationships? What would Elaine say about whether three, four, or more people all in a "loving relationship"? Would she say that they "break the great commandment of Agape love", or not. If not, why not? All three, four, or more, of the people involved are, after all, in a "loving relationship".

Moreover, what would Elaine have to say about two siblings who are in a "loving relationship"? Isn't incest forbidden only in the Old Testament? And aren't we living now under a New Covenant and a New Commandment -- the Law of Agape Love? Just what would be wrong with a brother and a sister (or two brothers and one sister or three sisters and one brother) being in a "loving relationship"?

There's another curious thing about what Elaine says. She says that "We can easily see how fornicators,...break the great commandment of Agape love." But I don't think that we can "easily" see that at all -- based on Elaine's description of the "Law of Agape Love". What, after all, is a fornicator? I understand a fornicator to be someone who has sex with a person he or she is not married to. But can't people who are not married be in a "loving relationship"? (Note that fornicators are not the same as adulterers. Adulterers are people who are married but who have sex with someone other than their own spouse.) I wonder why Elaine thinks it is so easy to see nhow fornicators break the great commandment of agape love. She seems to be quite judgmental -- suggesting that fornicators are never in "loving relationships". Perhaps Elaine just doesn't know any fornicator who is in a "loving relationship". I bet there are several. Or perhaps Elaine will find some way to say that the word translated as "fornicator" really doesn't mean "fornicator" -- as we use that word today.

Elaine's conclusion is this: "So what is God teaching us through these passages? First, that He is not for or against any particular sexual orientation. What God is against is a lifestyle of casually jumping from one bed partner to the next without regard to the consequences of such a union. Such sexual practices are self serving (read SELFISH), don’t foster long lasting commitments between partners and can spread diseases such as AIDS like wildfire!"

Note what she says: God is not for or against any particular sexual orientation. Would that include pedophilia, I wonder. Elaine would seems to suggest that pedophilia is OK -- as long as a pedophile doesn't "jump from one bed partner to another without regard to the "consequences" of such a union". Elaine seems to suggest that God would approve of a "loving relationship" between a 70-year-old man and a 15-year-old woman as long as it "fosters a long lasting commitment" and doesn't spread diseases like AIDS.

And what would Elaine say to all the young men and women who are bombarded with sexual images daily? Would she suggest abstinence until marriage? (Remember, Elaine said that we can easily see that "fornicators" will not inherit the Kingdom of God). Somehow, I don't think Elaine support abstinence education for young people. I bet she support teaching young people that sex is OK if it takes place in a "loving relationship", and if the young people take precautions to guard against the spread of STD's -- like AIDS.

I think Elaine is not quite right in her analysis.

Last Night's Presbytery Meeting

This is my first post to this blog.

I normally attend meetings of the National Capital Presbytery, and this blog will contain my observations about the meetings I attend.

The Elders and Ministers of the NCP met last night (April 1, 2008). Here are some of my observations:

The Presbytery approved its Omnibus Motion. In the Omnibus motion, there was a motion concerning a the process for equalizing the elder-commissioners to resident ministers. As part of that process (and in accordance with the policy adopted by the NCP in January, 2001), it was moved that people with the following first names be elected to serve as voting members of the Presbytery: Margaret, Eleanor, Cynthia, Mark, Brenda, and Sheryl. It was also moved that people with the following first names (who are Certified Christian Educators) be elected to serve as voting elders: Priscilla, Carroll, Betsy, Elllie, Julia, Ann, Marilyn, Melissa, Betty, Karen, Jane, and Carolyn.

Not a single concern was raised about this motion.

Do you notice anything about all those first names? They are overwhelmingly the names of women.

I'm sure that all those women are capable, Godly women.

But I am also just as sure that if there had been a motion to include as voting Elders in the Presbytery a group of people who were overwhelmingly men, someone -- and more likely, several someones -- would have voiced outrage that a group were being recommended.

Several overtures to the General Assembly were presented to the Presbytery last night.

One overture would have requested the GA to entrust the report and recommendations of the Form of Government Task Force (FOG) to the church for a period of study of at least two years. My goodness, you would have thought that the Presbytery was being asked to disrespect one of its own members. Nevermind that the Bills and Overtures Committee had not been able to make a recommendation on this overture -- because it has not yet read the FOG report! Apparently, it is much more important to show solidarity with members of the Presbytery tha n it is to carefully read, discuss, and consider an entire re-write of the Denomination's Constitution.

Another overture dealt with gun violence. The Elder who presented this overture said that he was sure that God was in favor of gun control. It was a call to action!! I found the entire discussion -- what little of it there was -- to be fascinating.

Think for a minute about other social issues. Like obscenity and pornography, for instance. It could be argued that pornography and obscenity do serious damage to our society. It could also be argued that God is not in favor of obscenity and pornography. But we, as a Presbytery, seem oblivious to that evil, and want to focus instead on guns.

I imagine we don't want to attack pornography and obscenity because we don't want to be seen as "prudes" -- or worse, as being judgmental. In addition, when you start talking about pornography and obscenity, you soon start talking about the possibility of abridging the rights of people -- things like freedom of speech. No one wants to do that.

And yet, it's somehow OK to go after the rights people have under the Second Amendment.

The entire overture -- more than five pages -- had precious little to say about the roots of violence. It was all about guns. The overture did not say, for instance, that the church should do all it can to discern the root causes of violence and work to eliminate those. No, let's just go after guns. Because we are just certain that God is on our side.

Another overture dealt with collecting and disseminating best practices from around the Denomination on examining candidates for ordination. One minister objected, saying that when it came to PUP, there were "no good questions". I guess she meant that we should just let anyone who wants to become a minister in the PC(USA) do so -- without any questions.

Another minister said that he was "offended" by some of the questions people ask candidates for ordination. He said that he just thought it was terrible that people are asked about their sexuality.

I'm almost certain, though, that that same pastor who found some questions "offenisve" would not be offended at all if a candidate were to be asked why his or her Statement of Faith referred to God in masculine terms. Recently, one candidate for ordination did just that. The poor soul was questioned about that, and he was not approved for ordination until he had confessed his sin and had said he was sorry for referring to God as "he" and "him". It was "gotcha" at its best when the Elders of the NCP got that candidate for ordination on the floor of Presbytery.

Somehow, asking someone if he or she supports a particular provision in the Church's constitution -- one arrived at after lengthy debate througout the Demonination -- is offensive. But it is completely alright -- and not at all offensive -- to quibble over pronouns in a candidate's Statement of Faith. We have our standards, after all, and it is important to make sure that candidates for ordination use the proper pronouns!!

There was another overture that requested the GA to be a voice for victims of violence in both Israel and Palestine. It comdemned all acts of violence against innocent civilians. The overture passed, but there was some discussion. Someone suggested that we needed more time to consider this.