Selective Rigidity

I hear folks speak of “setting a bad precedent.” This is always the price of solving a problem using the most expedient method and means. In novels we might read the line, “It is not my habit to invite a man I have just met back to my hotel room, but I was too lonely to spend the night alone.” Her standards were adjusted to address her perceived loneliness. Perhaps she was just fooling herself with this rationalization because her established principles remained the wisest long term course while her momentary desires ruled the moment.

If we continue establishing a novel solution to fit every situation we win points for creativity but lose points for integrity. If practiced long enough, this flexible morality, makes us “a law unto ourselves.” It demands us to admit we have followed the biblical description of moral decay where “everyone did what is right in his own eyes.”

The pure existentialist will do whatever is most meaningful to him in any given situation. If the lonely woman is an existentialist, she is being “true to the moment” when she spends a portion of the night enjoying the pleasures of companionship and sensuality with a stranger. Under this standard, it is “bad faith” or  being “inauthentic” for her to deny her momentary desires.

 I think the PC(USA) exercises a bastardized mixture of legalism and doing whatever is “true for the moment.” If the strict enforcement of rules brings the greatest meaning, then strict enforcement is demanded. If setting aside those same rules produce an end that is meaningful and true to the moment, then that is what you must do.

If you would ask why a restrictive decision was made, a presbytery’s stated clerk will explain that we are duty bound  conform our actions to the Book of Order standards. If you ask why a permissive decision was made and the same clerk or executive will explain that we must be flexible and consider every situation on “its own merits.” It is the spirit of our age to conform our decisions to whatever seems right in any given moment. This might be called the age of Selective Rigidity. Church properties decisions are restrictive, sexual ethics are permissive. Loyalty to the denomination is restrictive, declaring a sincerely held scruple against a tenet of doctrine or procedure is permissive.

 

My own presbytery has informed me, through its executive presbyter and committee on ministry, that I will not be considered for temporary supply positions after I retire because I have demonstrated, in their judgment, disloyalty to our the denomination. Without formal discipline I am censured. Did I teach something contrary to the Gospel? No. Did lie, cheat, steal, or committ adultry? I did what the homosexual ordination activists did for thirtyfive years. I expressed my disagreement with the status quo.

After retirement, my voice is silenced from all pulpits in the PC(USA). Disloyalty is defined as expressing disapproval of the current ordination standards of the church. The “revisionist” pastors were not considered disloyal when they did the same for more than thirty years. Why two sets of standards? Because, it is what is called for in the times in which we live.