(This post was originally written for Presbyterian Action's General Assembly blog.)
Thursday morning at General Assembly, various elected positions were filled for entities such as the Permanent Judicial Commission and the board of the Presbyterian Foundation. Each position had a nominee proposed by the General Assembly Nominating Committee (GANC).
For some positions, there was also a nominee made from the floor, and for those positions, each nominee (both the floor nominee and the GANC nominee) was presented in a three-minute speech by a person familiar with the candidate.
One person describing a nominee chosen by the GANC said that the nominee liked to describe himself as "an evangelical with a conscience." Undoubtedly this was meant to be seen by the voting audience as a positive quality, but it is in fact a slur, though veiled, against evangelicals.
I am a linguist. Linguists know that some terms in language are "unmarked,” and others are "marked." The unmarked terms, the ones without anything overt added to them, are considered basic and normal and definitional. The marked terms are considered unusual and remarkable.
For example, "president" is an unmarked term, and "lady president" is marked, because the word "lady" has been added to it. Therefore, due to the linguistic structure in "lady president,” it is implied that the normal, basic president is a man, but it is unusual to find a president that is a woman. This is why the women's movement has worked so hard to remove from our language the type of distinction such as "president" versus "lady president.”
Similarly, the term "evangelical" alone is unmarked. Therefore a phrase such as "evangelical with a conscience" is marked, because the phrase "with a conscience" has been added to it. By finding the marked term "evangelical with a conscience" a significant way to describe the candidate, the speaker was implying that the normal, basic, definitional evangelical is one without a conscience, because the unusual type of evangelical is an evangelical with a conscience.
I don't know if many people picked this up or not. Probably the speaker didn't even realize that evangelicals had just been insulted. If so, this may be because the speaker's prejudice against evangelicals is so ingrained that the speaker unconsciously assumed that everyone agrees that there is a lack of conscience in evangelicals.
The conscience that the speaker implied that evangelicals lack is most likely a social-witness conscience. In fact, however, a recent study has shown that evangelical churches give more money and participate in more actual social-witness programs (as opposed to doing social-witness political lobbying) than progressive churches do. The idea of a lack of conscience for evangelicals is not only insulting and prejudiced, it is based on incorrect information. Sadly, this shows up in everyday conversations and news stories all too often, and, as I saw Thursday morning, even in our church assemblies.
Friday, June 27, 2008
How Do We Love Our Neighbor?
(This post was originally written for Presbyterian Action's General Assembly blog.)
Wednesday morning at General Assembly I had the chance to listen to a short talk by the Bible scholar Robert Gagnon, who is the foremost authority on the Bible and homosexuality. He reiterated some important points in the ongoing debate.
Often people will say that since Jesus hung out with prostitutes, who are we to judge anyone? Jesus didn't condemn them, so neither should we. They use this argument by extension to say that Jesus did not condemn homosexual activity.
Dr. Gagnon pointed out, however, that the reason that Jesus hung out with these people was not that sexual sin was so inconsequential; it was rather that their sin was so serious that they needed his personal attention in order to be rescued from it. So he hung out with them, but not merely to say to them, "You're fine just as you are." Instead, he said, "Repent, and sin no more." He said this because he loved them so much. He loved them so much that he wanted them to live, and it was only through their repentance, their turning from sin, that they could find life.
One important way that we love our neighbors as Jesus did is by pointing them away from their sin--from what is injurious to them--and towards life. But Dr. Gagnon said that if we don't know what is injurious to them, we can't know how to love them. In fact, we may actually act in a way that is in truth hateful towards them, if we don't know what is injurious to them. So we need to know what the Bible tells us: that sexual activity outside of marriage between one man and one woman is sin, and that sin is injurious to us.
In Ezekiel 13:19b it says "By telling my people lies they wish to hear, you bring death to those who should not die." This is something that we need to remember. Love isn't just saying, "I love you. You're special. You're fine the way you are. Do what feels right to you." People do want to hear that; they don't want to hear that their behavior is wrong. But hearing these "lies they wish to hear," and believing them, brings them death, and they should not die. So telling them lies is not love; it is hate. Instead, love is reaching out and bringing our neighbors back from the brink of the pit.
Dr. Gagnon said that if we speak this truth in order to extend this love, we will doubtless be abused by those who disagree with us. But, as he said, behind us lies the cross; before us is the Lamb who was slain. We must go ahead and bear the abuse for the sake of our neighbors and our Lord.
Wednesday morning at General Assembly I had the chance to listen to a short talk by the Bible scholar Robert Gagnon, who is the foremost authority on the Bible and homosexuality. He reiterated some important points in the ongoing debate.
Often people will say that since Jesus hung out with prostitutes, who are we to judge anyone? Jesus didn't condemn them, so neither should we. They use this argument by extension to say that Jesus did not condemn homosexual activity.
Dr. Gagnon pointed out, however, that the reason that Jesus hung out with these people was not that sexual sin was so inconsequential; it was rather that their sin was so serious that they needed his personal attention in order to be rescued from it. So he hung out with them, but not merely to say to them, "You're fine just as you are." Instead, he said, "Repent, and sin no more." He said this because he loved them so much. He loved them so much that he wanted them to live, and it was only through their repentance, their turning from sin, that they could find life.
One important way that we love our neighbors as Jesus did is by pointing them away from their sin--from what is injurious to them--and towards life. But Dr. Gagnon said that if we don't know what is injurious to them, we can't know how to love them. In fact, we may actually act in a way that is in truth hateful towards them, if we don't know what is injurious to them. So we need to know what the Bible tells us: that sexual activity outside of marriage between one man and one woman is sin, and that sin is injurious to us.
In Ezekiel 13:19b it says "By telling my people lies they wish to hear, you bring death to those who should not die." This is something that we need to remember. Love isn't just saying, "I love you. You're special. You're fine the way you are. Do what feels right to you." People do want to hear that; they don't want to hear that their behavior is wrong. But hearing these "lies they wish to hear," and believing them, brings them death, and they should not die. So telling them lies is not love; it is hate. Instead, love is reaching out and bringing our neighbors back from the brink of the pit.
Dr. Gagnon said that if we speak this truth in order to extend this love, we will doubtless be abused by those who disagree with us. But, as he said, behind us lies the cross; before us is the Lamb who was slain. We must go ahead and bear the abuse for the sake of our neighbors and our Lord.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
What Might God Be Doing?
(This post was originally written for Presbyterian Action's General Assembly blog.)
There are a lot of people all over the USA who believe a lot of untrue things about the IRD. Without speculating about who started these rumors or why, I'll just say that the gist of it is that the IRD is supposedly just masquerading as a Christian renewal group, but in reality is a conservative political group whose aim is to silence or sabotage the liberal social witness of the mainline denominations, or, failing that, break up those denominations. Supposedly the IRD has deep pockets and takes orders, according to some of these rumors, from the Bush White House itself.
Of course this is all nonsense, but it's surprising how many people believe these things.
I found this out in person Saturday here at GA when another volunteer and I were manning the Presbyterian Action (IRD) booth in the exhibition hall. A woman started to walk by, and then stopped and said that we had no right to be there. I said that we were Presbyterians, and she said, no, we were not. I replied that I had been a Presbyterian for 34 years, and she still insisted that we were not really Presbyterians. She started to talk about all the evil that she "knew" about that the IRD had done to the PCUSA, and I started to tell her that those things were all myths, but as her voice became more and more raised, I realized that conversation would not be fruitful. So I told her that we would pray for her. She angrily replied that she would pray for us, and then she left.
My fellow volunteer, who had been unware of the anti-IRD rumors, was stunned, as were the people in the neighboring booths, and even I was left a little shaky.
Later that day, walking along the sidewalk outside, I passed the same woman, and we eyed each other uneasily and exchanged wary smiles.
The next day, Sunday, which was yesterday, committee meetings began, and, to my surprise, I discovered that the same woman is a commissioner member of the committee that I am observing. I started wondering if God was placing her deliberately in my path, and began wanting to reach out to her.
That evening, I prayed about the situation, asking God that if he was putting this woman and me together, that he would make it clear, and that he would help me know what to say.
This morning, Monday, I sat in on her committee meeting again. During a break, I was washing my hands in the restroom, when I looked to the right, and there she was, at the very next sink. It could hardly have been more clear that God was putting her and me together! So I said hi, and she said hi too. We ended up telling each other our names and having a conversation right there.
We did not convince each other of anything in that conversation. She still believes that the IRD has no right to be at GA, and that the IRD is harming the PCUSA. But she knows my name, and she knows that I love Jesus. She knows I'm a linguist, not some IRD automaton. I know her name, and that she has been a presbytery moderator. We told each other a little bit about our views. We named each other sisters in Christ. We even hugged. I hope that in her mind, I am not the enemy; she is certainly not the enemy to me.
I saw her again across the balcony this evening at the worship service held across the street in the civic auditorium. I'm interested to see what God is going to do with this. Or maybe I'll never know, but whatever it is, it should be good.
There are a lot of people all over the USA who believe a lot of untrue things about the IRD. Without speculating about who started these rumors or why, I'll just say that the gist of it is that the IRD is supposedly just masquerading as a Christian renewal group, but in reality is a conservative political group whose aim is to silence or sabotage the liberal social witness of the mainline denominations, or, failing that, break up those denominations. Supposedly the IRD has deep pockets and takes orders, according to some of these rumors, from the Bush White House itself.
Of course this is all nonsense, but it's surprising how many people believe these things.
I found this out in person Saturday here at GA when another volunteer and I were manning the Presbyterian Action (IRD) booth in the exhibition hall. A woman started to walk by, and then stopped and said that we had no right to be there. I said that we were Presbyterians, and she said, no, we were not. I replied that I had been a Presbyterian for 34 years, and she still insisted that we were not really Presbyterians. She started to talk about all the evil that she "knew" about that the IRD had done to the PCUSA, and I started to tell her that those things were all myths, but as her voice became more and more raised, I realized that conversation would not be fruitful. So I told her that we would pray for her. She angrily replied that she would pray for us, and then she left.
My fellow volunteer, who had been unware of the anti-IRD rumors, was stunned, as were the people in the neighboring booths, and even I was left a little shaky.
Later that day, walking along the sidewalk outside, I passed the same woman, and we eyed each other uneasily and exchanged wary smiles.
The next day, Sunday, which was yesterday, committee meetings began, and, to my surprise, I discovered that the same woman is a commissioner member of the committee that I am observing. I started wondering if God was placing her deliberately in my path, and began wanting to reach out to her.
That evening, I prayed about the situation, asking God that if he was putting this woman and me together, that he would make it clear, and that he would help me know what to say.
This morning, Monday, I sat in on her committee meeting again. During a break, I was washing my hands in the restroom, when I looked to the right, and there she was, at the very next sink. It could hardly have been more clear that God was putting her and me together! So I said hi, and she said hi too. We ended up telling each other our names and having a conversation right there.
We did not convince each other of anything in that conversation. She still believes that the IRD has no right to be at GA, and that the IRD is harming the PCUSA. But she knows my name, and she knows that I love Jesus. She knows I'm a linguist, not some IRD automaton. I know her name, and that she has been a presbytery moderator. We told each other a little bit about our views. We named each other sisters in Christ. We even hugged. I hope that in her mind, I am not the enemy; she is certainly not the enemy to me.
I saw her again across the balcony this evening at the worship service held across the street in the civic auditorium. I'm interested to see what God is going to do with this. Or maybe I'll never know, but whatever it is, it should be good.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Faithful or true?
(This blog posting was written for Presbyterian Action's General Assembly blog.)
As a member of the Presbyterian Action GA team, I was one of the observers last night (the 21st) in the back of the hall when Bruce Reyes-Chow was elected Moderator of the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA).
Reyes-Chow has a broad appeal due to his youthfulness and engaging manner. He injected an air of freshness and humor into his remarks. Much of this, in addition to his positions on theology and issues, undoubtedly went into his election. However, as I listened to his 5-minute statement, and to his answers to questions posed by commissioners and advisory delegates, one remark struck me and caused me to ponder its meaning.
Reyes-Chow said he wants the PC(USA) to be a church that "cares more about being faithful than about being right."
I understood this to mean that he hoped Presbyterians would care more about being faithful than about being doctrinally correct--care more about being faithful than about what they are faithful to. Later my husband said that he thought Reyes-Chow meant that he hoped that Presbyterians would care more about being faithful than about being the right one in a dispute--care more about being faithful than about winning an argument.
Let me discuss this second view first.
If Reyes-Chow meant that he hoped that Presbyterians would come to care more about being faithful than about winning arguments, this implies that he believes that now there are at least some Presbyterians who do care more about winning arguments than they care about faithfulness. No matter who he might have in mind, this is a patronizing attitude to take towards any group of people, let alone fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.
If this is indeed his meaning, it implies that there are some Presbyterians that he has not gotten to know well enough to understand their motives. It is also disappointing to think that a candidate for Moderator--who now actually is our Moderator--would have such an uncharitable attitude towards any group. One always hopes that anyone would attribute the best possible motive to anyone until there is concrete evidence of a worse motive.
If this was indeed Reyes-Chow's meaning, let us hope that, as he grows into his role as Moderator, he will get to know all groups in the PC(USA) well enough that he will understand their motives and support them as fellow Presbyterians, even if he disagrees with them. I think he has expressed such intentions at least, and, since Reyes-Chow has shown kindness to our family in the past, I do not think that he intends a putdown to anyone. Perhaps the full implication of his words--if this was his meaning--have not occurred to him.
I thought, however, that what Reyes-Chow meant was that he was looking forward to Presbyterians caring more about being faithful than about being right or wrong in their beliefs. And after he said it, it struck me that--if that was his meaning--I didn't know how that could actually be possible in a meaningful way. How can anyone be faithful to anything if they don't know whether or not they're right about it? Or, at least, how can their faithfulness be meaningful in such a situation?
Faithfulness needs to be faithfulness to something. It's wonderful to care about faithfulness. But if we don't know whether or not we're right about what we're faithful to, then no matter how much we care about our faithfulness to it, we may actually be doing harm in the world rather than good, if we are wrong about what we're being faithful to.
For example, white supremacists may be very faithful to their cause. But, as I'm sure Reyes-Chow and most people reading this blog would agree, the white supremacist cause is both wrong and harmful. Faithfulness alone, without being right, is not sufficient.
Rightness, and truth, matter if we want to love the world with God's love, rather than blunder through it willy-nilly, even while being faithful. When we care about being right, we don't care about it for the sake of winning arguments, or for the sake of pride in the correctness of our doctrine, but rather we care about it so that we can serve God in the way that God knows best, to his glory, the furtherance of his reign, and the better love and care of all his people.
It sounds very friendly and inclusive to hope that Presbyterians will care more about being faithful than about being right, but it is actually careless and dismissive. I hope to hear better things in the future from our new Moderator.
As a member of the Presbyterian Action GA team, I was one of the observers last night (the 21st) in the back of the hall when Bruce Reyes-Chow was elected Moderator of the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA).
Reyes-Chow has a broad appeal due to his youthfulness and engaging manner. He injected an air of freshness and humor into his remarks. Much of this, in addition to his positions on theology and issues, undoubtedly went into his election. However, as I listened to his 5-minute statement, and to his answers to questions posed by commissioners and advisory delegates, one remark struck me and caused me to ponder its meaning.
Reyes-Chow said he wants the PC(USA) to be a church that "cares more about being faithful than about being right."
I understood this to mean that he hoped Presbyterians would care more about being faithful than about being doctrinally correct--care more about being faithful than about what they are faithful to. Later my husband said that he thought Reyes-Chow meant that he hoped that Presbyterians would care more about being faithful than about being the right one in a dispute--care more about being faithful than about winning an argument.
Let me discuss this second view first.
If Reyes-Chow meant that he hoped that Presbyterians would come to care more about being faithful than about winning arguments, this implies that he believes that now there are at least some Presbyterians who do care more about winning arguments than they care about faithfulness. No matter who he might have in mind, this is a patronizing attitude to take towards any group of people, let alone fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.
If this is indeed his meaning, it implies that there are some Presbyterians that he has not gotten to know well enough to understand their motives. It is also disappointing to think that a candidate for Moderator--who now actually is our Moderator--would have such an uncharitable attitude towards any group. One always hopes that anyone would attribute the best possible motive to anyone until there is concrete evidence of a worse motive.
If this was indeed Reyes-Chow's meaning, let us hope that, as he grows into his role as Moderator, he will get to know all groups in the PC(USA) well enough that he will understand their motives and support them as fellow Presbyterians, even if he disagrees with them. I think he has expressed such intentions at least, and, since Reyes-Chow has shown kindness to our family in the past, I do not think that he intends a putdown to anyone. Perhaps the full implication of his words--if this was his meaning--have not occurred to him.
I thought, however, that what Reyes-Chow meant was that he was looking forward to Presbyterians caring more about being faithful than about being right or wrong in their beliefs. And after he said it, it struck me that--if that was his meaning--I didn't know how that could actually be possible in a meaningful way. How can anyone be faithful to anything if they don't know whether or not they're right about it? Or, at least, how can their faithfulness be meaningful in such a situation?
Faithfulness needs to be faithfulness to something. It's wonderful to care about faithfulness. But if we don't know whether or not we're right about what we're faithful to, then no matter how much we care about our faithfulness to it, we may actually be doing harm in the world rather than good, if we are wrong about what we're being faithful to.
For example, white supremacists may be very faithful to their cause. But, as I'm sure Reyes-Chow and most people reading this blog would agree, the white supremacist cause is both wrong and harmful. Faithfulness alone, without being right, is not sufficient.
Rightness, and truth, matter if we want to love the world with God's love, rather than blunder through it willy-nilly, even while being faithful. When we care about being right, we don't care about it for the sake of winning arguments, or for the sake of pride in the correctness of our doctrine, but rather we care about it so that we can serve God in the way that God knows best, to his glory, the furtherance of his reign, and the better love and care of all his people.
It sounds very friendly and inclusive to hope that Presbyterians will care more about being faithful than about being right, but it is actually careless and dismissive. I hope to hear better things in the future from our new Moderator.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
