Share this Digg Del.icio.us Reddit StumbleUpon Slashdot Furl Yahoo Technorati Newsvine Googlize this Blinklist Facebook Wikio Print E-mail

I grew up in a believing family with Presbyterian roots.  The faith became my own at the Air Force Academy, where I was initially discipled through a para-church organization.  My first discipleship studies in Scripture were straight out of Calvin’s theology though I did not realize it at the time.  

After I married, we moved several times, joining congregational churches until we came to the desert in California 16 years ago. There we joined a PC(USA) congregation.  Over time, I came to love the theology that emphasized God and Christ’s redeeming work over human endeavors.  I also came to appreciate Presbyterian polity and how we discern God’s will with others.  I see the value of a Session.  I appreciate the roles of deacons.  I have learned about the richness of our connections outside the local congregation through the Presbytery and beyond.  I love the openness on financial matters.  I understand the value of “decency and order”.   I also appreciate the room the PC(USA) gives us to be who and what we are in Christ.  I remember a young man with a green Mohawk, spiked dog collar, chains, and a leather jacket accepted in a youth group with my children.   Fully accepted by our congregation, that young man went on to graduate from BIOLA and is now in full time Christian education. 

I also came to appreciate the depth of the Confessions, our passion for learning, and our insistence on doing our best in acts of service.  My spiritual gift is teaching and, over the past ten years or so, I became the de facto summer teacher for adult education.  As I grew in my ability, I came to appreciate the value of preparation and the deep joy of meditating on the thoughts of God.  Because of all of this, I agreed to be ordained an elder and serve in the local congregation as well as the Presbytery.

I saw that the denomination was not perfect.  Indeed, the broadness that I so appreciate is so broad that it affirms people’s claims to be biblical while directly disobeying the very Word of God.  I have met people who believe we must follow Christ apart from the clear teaching of the Bible, and that we must never allow the Bible to interfere with following Christ--a dichotomy that I do not understand to this day.  I see intentional decisions to establish rules that don’t have to be followed.  It seems to me that our own love of learning has left us “ever learning, yet never able to come to knowledge of the truth.”  Hence, portions of the denomination and our seminaries have come to follow the world.  It appears that many are following their own appetites and are even getting confused on who Christ is.  Paradoxically, while allowing “scruples”, our polity forces compliance with and submission to things that, through my studies, I believe Scripture clearly condemns.

Take as an example the ongoing debate over ordination standards.  Some say that ordaining to leadership people who openly disagree with the teaching of Scripture and the confessions is to follow the will of God in love and justice.  They say that the Scripture condemning the practice of homosexuality is not applicable and the homosexuals that they experience are more than qualified to be leaders in the Church.  However, from my background, such an approach to Scripture is unthinkable.  By faith, I choose to accept the authority of the plainly expressed words of scripture.  That means I must obey the Word of God.  Indeed, as we are seeing, if we are facing prophetically predicted apostasy, the issue of ordination standards is only the beginning of the heresies we will face.   

As I listen to the debate, one of the arguments is the plea to acknowledge that it is possible that I may be wrong.  Ultimately, I do not know the things I believe and have come to appreciate as proven “fact”. Others may be “right”, people of my opinion may be “right”.  For that matter, it is more than likely that we are both wrong to at least some extent.  However the very definition of faith requires us to make choices based on evidence of things not seen. For me that evidence is in the Scriptures. 

I believe God has called me to be involved with repairing the broken walls of obedience to Christ within His Church (Isaiah 58:12).  In my obedience to the Christ of Scriptures, I cannot help those who help the wicked and love those who hate the Lord.  (II Chronicles 19:2)  I am called to turn away from those who have a form of godliness, but deny its power. (II Timothy 3:5)

So I am conflicted.  I am committed to hold to the truth as I have learned it.  I have also come to love the elements of the Reformed Tradition over the years.  I have also come to love many of those who disagree with me on these and other issues.  I have no desire to break relationships with them, or to leave the denomination I have come to appreciate in so many ways.

The overture from Santa Barbra for a “new” non-geographic synod would allow me and thousands of people like me to continue to have relationships with those of the “other side” while still respecting the rich diversity within our denomination that allows me to maintain a clear conscience and not be committed to supporting what I view to be wrong.  We could still be in loving relationships with those with whom we disagree, but I would not have to be connected to the violations of the Word of God that I see currently occurring. 

For me, the bottom line is faith.  By faith, I believe that the clearly expressed Scripture is to be obeyed, regardless of what we experience with others.  By faith, others believe that God has created some people in their homosexuality who are fully gifted for ministry and should be received with all openness.  They are persuaded God never intended Scripture to be used the way I use it.  The notion that somehow we should “tolerate” each other’s point of view is to deny each other’s conscience and convictions of faith.  If both “sides” maintain their conviction of conscience, the conflict can never end. 

By supporting the proposed non-geographic synod, we will not have to expend further energy in pointless dialogue over an irresolvable issue.  We then could focus on working toward true fellowship, encouraging each other to live deeper into our faith, and reach the world with the Good News of Christ in integrity.  By defining and holding to our deeply held principles, together, we might even experience a whole new renaissance of Reformed thinking.  In short, this could be really cool!

The new synod would allow me to act in faith, allow others to act in faith, and still allow fruitful relationships within the PC(USA).  In short, this proposal allows both “sides” to maintain their standards with integrity, remain in dialogue, and focus on mission.  Without something like this Santa Barbra overture, I do not see it possible for me to faithfully continue as a member of the PC(USA), which would be a difficult and sad thing.