Its Only a Matter of Time

We changed our rules to permit homosexuals proudly living out their “true path” to positions of leadership in the PC(USA). That effort began in 1973 with a gay man applying to be ordained in the New York City Presbytery. It was accomplished in 2011 when the last presbytery voted in favor of a new rule giving every presbytery absolute discretion on who they deem fit to serve as a pastor. If my math is true, that is 38 years.

The change will take less time for same gender marriages. The Presbytery of East Iowa is presenting an overture (like a proposed bill in Congress) to change our definition of marriage from “one man and one woman” to “two persons.” The Presbytery of Boston is appealing to next summer’s General Assembly to permit sessions to authorize and ministers to perform “same gender” marriages.

Will either of these two pass the test of winning approval from a majority vote of the next General Assembly and then a majority vote of the 173 presbyteries? Perhaps not this time – though it is quite possible they will. But, with all the negative votes leaving the denomination for more conservative ones, with every passing year their vote will become increasingly favorable. It will not take 38 years for this to happen. It may take less than 38 months. There is a snow ball effect operating here. An outrageous change chases off its opposition. This makes the next outrageous change more likely to pass.  This will chase away even more negative votes, making subsequent changes more and more likely.

Here is the question that haunts me? Where will it end? What is the next “just revision” to our rules? Could it be persons living together before or instead of marriage? I can make a case right now favoring such a change and some of you will endorse this change gladly.

1.       We know that nearly every family in the church has sons and daughters, grandchildren, nieces and nephews who are living together with another person as though they were married. In some cases they are of the same gender but mostly they are heterosexual. These persons often feel shamed from attending worship and thereby stay away from our churches.  We need to become a more welcoming congregations that honors the choices made by grown men and women even if they are choices we would not make for ourselves. Therefore we should change the definition of marriage to include any two persons living in mutual fidelity and common bonds of love. We should consider such persons as married in the eyes of God if not in the eyes of the State.

What about open marriages where there is an agreement between partners that they are free to have emotional and sexual relationships with persons outside of their marriages? This would liberate all those who consider themselves to be bi-sexual to have a same-gender spouse and other-gender lovers. To do otherwise who only oppress one part of their god-given set of sexual preferences.

Okay, then what’s next? If a person is bi-sexual or even one who is not satisfied with one partner, why not polygamy? After all, in the Old Testament these social configurations are given casual treatment and maybe even tacit approval. If one man can have several wives, why should one woman not be allowed to have several husbands. If that is allowed for heterosexual marriages it must also apply to same-gender relationships. Why not simply make marriage far more fluid and less rigid?

  

Then there is age discrimination. Some boys and girls, in early pubescence, can enjoy sexual relationships with men or women ten or twenty years older than them. If no one is being harmed and it is not forced, why do we forbid it? This can happen by lowering the age of consent to 13 or even 12 years old. 

Once we have broken the century old taboo of same gender marriages – it is merely a matter of tweaking the argument just a little and all these new configurations begin to sound reasonable and even necessary for the sake of simply fairness.

At age 63, I may have twenty or thirty more years of life. What changes will I witness in that span. Mara-natha. "Even so, Lord come quickly."

Fearing the Winds of Change

This morning I am preaching, if the Lord wills, on the subject of fear. My text is Mathew’s version of the story of the storm at sea while Jesus was separated from the disciples. Jesus sees their fear and comes to them. It is Peter who separates himself from his fear only to find it again. I know that many who may read this biblical passage better than me; that is, with greater precision. I tend to look for the story and at the characters. Since I preach with an outline the sermons sometimes goes into unexpected places – I trust by the prompting of the Spirit but I know it could be inspired by my lack of communication skills or my impulse to address an issue that interests me.

Some say preaching is the Word of God plus a human personality. I view the content of preaching the way the Barthian views the Bible – it is inspired only to the extent that the Spirit inspires the hearers through it. I believe in plenary verbal Divine inspiration of the Bible. I believe this story to be God breathed.

 I first preach the text to my own soul. If it has a good effect on me, then it might have a good effect on the hearers sitting in the pews. Since I don’t (very rarely) select a specific text to address on a particular situation or even a particular subject I let Providence provide the passage for that particular Sunday. I no longer use the common lectionary. I preach through a book of the Bible, without skipping a single verse.

When in a Gospel the story generally becomes the structure for my message. In the story of the storm, apart from a few egotists with Messianic Complexes, most hearers will identify with Peter. He steps out on faith. Others will see themselves in those who remain in the boat. They feared the winds of fates that took them to places they knew were dangerous. Their intended path was no longer under their control. A blind force of nature had taken over the course of their lives. It was a force that neither hated nor loved them. The storm was an impersonal threat. Behind it, they thought was only chaos.

There is at least two other storm stories in the Bible. Jonah, who set out to go anywhere but Nineveh, and Paul being transported to stand trial for his life. Unlike Peter Jonah and Paul bring calm to the fearful crew. Peter only adds comedy to the tragedy with his momentary burst of bravado.

I am afraid as I write this. It may be better if I deliver this message from a disposition of confidence that manifests itself in a calm resolve. “Everything will be okay if we simply place our trust in God who will surely see us through.” I can say that in heartfelt earnest. But that message certainty doesn’t correspond to my emotional state. Maybe this calls the genuineness of my faith into question? Maybe this adds some human element to the measure of faith assigned to me. That element is fear.

Does fear strengthen faith? Does fear cause doubt? Is fear the opposite of doubt? Is doubt the absence of faith? Is this whole question one of theology or psychology? If it is theology, it is one that addresses what John Calvin considers in the second book of his four volume Institutes (our certain hope found in Christ alone) and in the third book where he deals with the working of the Holy Spirit and the Christian Life. One of my favorite quotes from Calvin’s works is this.

The believer finds within himself two principles: the one filling him with delight in recognizing the divine goodness, the other filling him with bitterness under a sense of his fallen state; the one leading him to recline on the promise of the Gospel, the other alarming him by the conviction of his iniquity; the one making him exult with the anticipation of life, the other making him tremble with the fear of death.

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion - book three, section two.

It is in my flesh that I find my fear resides. In the sanctifying work of the Spirit, that fear is gradually, I am ashamed to admit not steadily, replacing my fears with the joy of the Lord. I trust there is no more fear in that state of eternal Glory. "Tis so sweet to trust in Jesus. Just to take him at his word."

We are having a meeting this Wednesday Evening to express our thoughts and feelings to each other regarding where the congregation stands in relationship with their continued participation in its current denominational affiliation. I love these people. They, each one of them, are the people God has called me to serve as their pastor. As their shepherd I sense an imminent threat to their peace and unity. I’m scared. I must listen to Jesus when he speaks to my troubled mind, “Take heart, have no fear, it is I.”

I'll post the audio of the sermon I preach this morning to panel on the right of this page. It will be the one at the top of this list entitled "fear."

Studying the Problem of Pain

On my third time through one of his books I am learning that C.S. Lewis is not easy reading. But he is well worth the effort.

As I had posted earlier, someone from our Wednesday Night Bible Study suggested we next take up one of Lewis' books. I gave it prayerful (or thoughtful) consideration and decided to go for it. When I presented the idea to the group some, well, most were a bit reluctant. They agreed to it provided I write a study guide with Scripture to support each chapter.

There are ten chapters. Lewis is elegant in his logic so it is not difficult to outline his reasoning. His introduction covers "why I wrote this book" kind of themes. In the following two chapters he considers the person of God - first he details God's all powerful nature, then he explores the goodness of God. By doing that he sets up the classical problem of pain - how can a God who is all powerful and perfectly good allow pain and suffering? If suffering happens apart from God's will, then God is not omnipotent (almighty) - if He can stop suffering and chooses not to, he cannot be a good God. So the false choice is between a God who can't or a God who won't end human torment.

In the next two chapters Lewis turns his keen intellect and sharp wit toward the human condition. If God's goodness is in question, human wickedness is clearly not. It would take someone with very dark rose colored glasses to deny that people are, as one of my parishioners once put it, "no damn good."

After establishes the goodness of God and the wickedness of human beings, he get on with the subject of the book. Two chapters on human pain, per se. After this the book is basically ended. He ends his argument on the problem of pain and suffering.

His final three chapters deal with topic loosely associated with main notion of the book. He considers Hell, Animal Pain, and Heaven.

This book is not difficult to comprehend but my task is to help others understand its message - that, my friends is, as they say across the pond, a "kettle of another fish."