(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.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
A Fun Little Tag
I've been tagged again, by Judy at Stitch Along with Me. This time I need to give answers to a bunch of categories, and they all need to start with the same letter as my first name. So here goes:
What is your name? Debbie
Four letter word: deer
Vehicle: Dodge
TV Show: Dr. Kildare (OK, it's old, but he sure was cute!)
City: Downey (where I grew up)
Boy's Name: David
Girl's Name: Diana
Occupation: developer
Something You Wear: dress
Food: dim sum
Something Found in a Bathroom: dental floss
Reason for Being Late: disaster
Something You Shout: Don't jump!
What is your name? Debbie
Four letter word: deer
Vehicle: Dodge
TV Show: Dr. Kildare (OK, it's old, but he sure was cute!)
City: Downey (where I grew up)
Boy's Name: David
Girl's Name: Diana
Occupation: developer
Something You Wear: dress
Food: dim sum
Something Found in a Bathroom: dental floss
Reason for Being Late: disaster
Something You Shout: Don't jump!
Monday, April 14, 2008
No to Torture
Because of a comment that was left on my blog recently, I want to make sure that my position is clear to everyone: I am categorically against torture. Moreover, my husband, Jim Berkley, director of Presbyterian Action at IRD, is categorically against torture, and IRD itself is categorically against torture.
Also, here is an example of another IRD staff person stating his position on torture, which is that he is completely against it:
http://www.newsobserver.com/663/story/481121.html
People who say that IRD supports torture have misinterpreted what IRD has written. Sometimes it's just because of their prior assumption that IRD is evil. Other times it's because they misinterpret the facts, which are the following: 1) IRD does not want to join people who blame only the US for torture, since the evidence that the US does indeed engage in officially sanctioned torture is not clear, and 2) IRD wishes that people who are against torture would focus on nations that are truly egregious torturers. The people who misinterpret these facts take them to mean that IRD is for torture. This is logically fallacious thinking. It's analogous to this situation:
Group A: "There's a guy that we know, and we think he killed another guy. Join us in a campaign against him!"
Group B: "We don't know that he killed him, and we think efforts should be focused on known murderers, so we won't join your campaign at the present."
Group A: "From what Group B just said, we can tell that Group B is in favor of murder, and we will now proclaim this to everyone."
Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who have decided, on faith, without any facts to back up this faith, that IRD is evil. And so whenever they read or hear about anything that IRD says or does, they do so through an IRD-is-evil filter, and they interpret what they read or hear accordingly. It thus becomes extremely difficult for IRD to do anything at all that is not interpreted as more evidence of evil. For example, my husband once wrote to Steven Martin, who has made an anti-IRD film. His note to Martin was polite and kind, and Martin acknowledged that it was when he wrote about it in a comment on the Talk2Action website. The politeness and kindness was, to Martin, evidence that Jim was similar to Osama bin Laden. So, Jim was condemned ahead of time. There was no manner in which Jim could have written to Martin that would not have been taken as evidence of evil. IRD has been pre-judged (what stands at the root of the meaning of prejudice) as evil.
It is a sad state of affairs to see people who consider themselves to be open, liberal, and broadminded, fallen into prejudice, suspicion, and poor reasoning, and it is more than sad when this leads them to do injury to others.
Also, here is an example of another IRD staff person stating his position on torture, which is that he is completely against it:
http://www.newsobserver.com/663/story/481121.html
People who say that IRD supports torture have misinterpreted what IRD has written. Sometimes it's just because of their prior assumption that IRD is evil. Other times it's because they misinterpret the facts, which are the following: 1) IRD does not want to join people who blame only the US for torture, since the evidence that the US does indeed engage in officially sanctioned torture is not clear, and 2) IRD wishes that people who are against torture would focus on nations that are truly egregious torturers. The people who misinterpret these facts take them to mean that IRD is for torture. This is logically fallacious thinking. It's analogous to this situation:
Group A: "There's a guy that we know, and we think he killed another guy. Join us in a campaign against him!"
Group B: "We don't know that he killed him, and we think efforts should be focused on known murderers, so we won't join your campaign at the present."
Group A: "From what Group B just said, we can tell that Group B is in favor of murder, and we will now proclaim this to everyone."
Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who have decided, on faith, without any facts to back up this faith, that IRD is evil. And so whenever they read or hear about anything that IRD says or does, they do so through an IRD-is-evil filter, and they interpret what they read or hear accordingly. It thus becomes extremely difficult for IRD to do anything at all that is not interpreted as more evidence of evil. For example, my husband once wrote to Steven Martin, who has made an anti-IRD film. His note to Martin was polite and kind, and Martin acknowledged that it was when he wrote about it in a comment on the Talk2Action website. The politeness and kindness was, to Martin, evidence that Jim was similar to Osama bin Laden. So, Jim was condemned ahead of time. There was no manner in which Jim could have written to Martin that would not have been taken as evidence of evil. IRD has been pre-judged (what stands at the root of the meaning of prejudice) as evil.
It is a sad state of affairs to see people who consider themselves to be open, liberal, and broadminded, fallen into prejudice, suspicion, and poor reasoning, and it is more than sad when this leads them to do injury to others.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
I can't imagine
For years, I have been praying the Lord's prayer in my own words. I don't think that Jesus meant it to be something that we learn by rote and then recite to God; I think he meant it as a template for the things that we should pray about. When I restate it in my own words, I really think about what I'm saying to God when I pray it.
I have learned a lot in the process of doing this, and one of the things I've learned just came to me the other night. It was when I was asking God for his kingdom to come soon, and for his will to be done here on earth, perfectly and all the time, just the way it is in heaven. I do long for that, because I think it will be the most wonderful thing imaginable to have everything happen all the time only in accordance with God's will.
But then a little stray (and very immature) thought of my own wandered in, and I thought, "What if, when God's will is the only thing that is ever done, I don't ever get to sit on my comfy chair and do my favorite puzzles any more?"
First the part of me that thinks I have everything all analyzed responded back to myself that, whatever I can and can't do then won't matter, because it will be so glorious to do God's will, and everything will be on such a different plane, that I won't think about comfy chairs and puzzles and things like that.
But then I remembered (or perhaps God reminded me of) something else. I have a relative who is an alcoholic. She has been sober for a few years now. But before that, she has told me, she was reluctant to go to Alcoholics Anonymous, partly because she thought that life would be too boring without drinking. What she couldn't imagine, until she became sober, was how much more fun, fulfilling, and interesting her life was without alcohol. She just didn't know how to picture it, but once she got there, she loved it. She would never go back to her old life. She is so happy being sober! Her life is so much better now!
I think it will be like that when God's kingdom comes. We just don't know how to imagine what it will be like, and sometimes, with our small imaginations, we fear that it might be boring or that we might not get to do the things we like to do best, because, perhaps, like my favorite puzzles, they're not centered around serving others, or worshipping, or so on. But what we can't picture is how much more fun and fulfilling and interesting our lives will be once we experience the fullness of God's kingdom, whenever that will be, at our death, or when he comes again. We won't want to go back to our old lives. It will be so much better!
Actually, already I can't wait. I'm so excited to be where glorious and perfect worship is taking place; it must be magnificent. And to catch a glimpse of God himself! One day....
I have learned a lot in the process of doing this, and one of the things I've learned just came to me the other night. It was when I was asking God for his kingdom to come soon, and for his will to be done here on earth, perfectly and all the time, just the way it is in heaven. I do long for that, because I think it will be the most wonderful thing imaginable to have everything happen all the time only in accordance with God's will.
But then a little stray (and very immature) thought of my own wandered in, and I thought, "What if, when God's will is the only thing that is ever done, I don't ever get to sit on my comfy chair and do my favorite puzzles any more?"
First the part of me that thinks I have everything all analyzed responded back to myself that, whatever I can and can't do then won't matter, because it will be so glorious to do God's will, and everything will be on such a different plane, that I won't think about comfy chairs and puzzles and things like that.
But then I remembered (or perhaps God reminded me of) something else. I have a relative who is an alcoholic. She has been sober for a few years now. But before that, she has told me, she was reluctant to go to Alcoholics Anonymous, partly because she thought that life would be too boring without drinking. What she couldn't imagine, until she became sober, was how much more fun, fulfilling, and interesting her life was without alcohol. She just didn't know how to picture it, but once she got there, she loved it. She would never go back to her old life. She is so happy being sober! Her life is so much better now!
I think it will be like that when God's kingdom comes. We just don't know how to imagine what it will be like, and sometimes, with our small imaginations, we fear that it might be boring or that we might not get to do the things we like to do best, because, perhaps, like my favorite puzzles, they're not centered around serving others, or worshipping, or so on. But what we can't picture is how much more fun and fulfilling and interesting our lives will be once we experience the fullness of God's kingdom, whenever that will be, at our death, or when he comes again. We won't want to go back to our old lives. It will be so much better!
Actually, already I can't wait. I'm so excited to be where glorious and perfect worship is taking place; it must be magnificent. And to catch a glimpse of God himself! One day....
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
A Gracious Response in the Midst of Controversy
My husband, Jim Berkley, heads up Presbyterian Action, a division of the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD). Jim's goal in his work is to bring the PC(USA) back to Biblical faithfulness as he understands it, and to influence the social witness of the PC(USA) so that it is not merely a reflection of certain secular political ideologies, but instead represents the membership of the entire PC(USA) and reflects the whole biblical witness.
I have probably stated the above somewhat poorly, so please do not take it as definitive.
Unfortunately, the IRD has become the bête noire of many progressives (progressives are those with a theologically liberal point of view). For some reason, these particular progressives (not just Presbyterians, but from many denominations) have decided that the IRD is not what it says it is. Instead, they claim that it is only masquerading as a theological organization, and is instead a rightwing secular political organization, deeply funded by rightwing politics, and led by Catholics, that aims at destroying mainline denominations. In their view, my husband and his coworkers do not care at all about faith.
Amazingly, the people who propound this theory of a supposed IRD conspiracy do not have any facts to support it. (The closest they get to facts is that there are Catholics on the board of IRD. The board meets once or twice a year. By the way, the objection of these progressives to Catholics is quite unecumenical of them.) Nevertheless, these anti-IRD progressives have been able to convince all sorts of well-known people, such as Bill Moyers, or John Thomas (the head of the United Church of Christ), that their theory is true.
Now, I do not take offense at people differing from me theologically. Of course I would love it if everyone agreed with me! But realistically I know that there won't be complete theological agreement among Christians this side of heaven. So I'm not upset that many progressives deplore the goals that the IRD works for. However, it does upset me for some people to state as fact things that they do not know to be true. For example, they state publicly that my husband, or others of his colleagues, spend their time figuring out how to destroy churches, or that they get secret orders from Bush's White House. But when I have communicated with many of the progressives who promote these ideas, to try to persuade them to look at facts instead of conspiracy theories, they have ridiculed me (for example, John Dorhauer of Talk2Action tells me that he responds with any random thing that he thinks will make me angry) and refused to listen seriously to anything I might have to say.
That's why I was so happy that, yesterday, I had a really great e-mail conversation with a progressive acquaintance about this topic. He had been commenting on the blog Shuck and Jive, which is currently hyping the anti-IRD dogma. He had mentioned my husband, and I had told him how we had understood what he said. He hadn't meant what we thought, and we both discussed how written communication can sometimes go awry. He ended up, on his own initiative, writing a blog posting in which he said he would no longer discuss IRD, and apologized for any personal offense he might have caused.
This was a truly gracious and generous Christian reaction to what is going on, and I wish that all progressives would be as reasonable as he is about the IRD situation. (I am also sure that there are areas in which evangelicals need to take a closer look at their public reactions to situations.) I am looking forward to my husband's seeing it when he returns from a mountain conference where he is presently.
Thanks to my progressive friend and brother in Christ!
I have probably stated the above somewhat poorly, so please do not take it as definitive.
Unfortunately, the IRD has become the bête noire of many progressives (progressives are those with a theologically liberal point of view). For some reason, these particular progressives (not just Presbyterians, but from many denominations) have decided that the IRD is not what it says it is. Instead, they claim that it is only masquerading as a theological organization, and is instead a rightwing secular political organization, deeply funded by rightwing politics, and led by Catholics, that aims at destroying mainline denominations. In their view, my husband and his coworkers do not care at all about faith.
Amazingly, the people who propound this theory of a supposed IRD conspiracy do not have any facts to support it. (The closest they get to facts is that there are Catholics on the board of IRD. The board meets once or twice a year. By the way, the objection of these progressives to Catholics is quite unecumenical of them.) Nevertheless, these anti-IRD progressives have been able to convince all sorts of well-known people, such as Bill Moyers, or John Thomas (the head of the United Church of Christ), that their theory is true.
Now, I do not take offense at people differing from me theologically. Of course I would love it if everyone agreed with me! But realistically I know that there won't be complete theological agreement among Christians this side of heaven. So I'm not upset that many progressives deplore the goals that the IRD works for. However, it does upset me for some people to state as fact things that they do not know to be true. For example, they state publicly that my husband, or others of his colleagues, spend their time figuring out how to destroy churches, or that they get secret orders from Bush's White House. But when I have communicated with many of the progressives who promote these ideas, to try to persuade them to look at facts instead of conspiracy theories, they have ridiculed me (for example, John Dorhauer of Talk2Action tells me that he responds with any random thing that he thinks will make me angry) and refused to listen seriously to anything I might have to say.
That's why I was so happy that, yesterday, I had a really great e-mail conversation with a progressive acquaintance about this topic. He had been commenting on the blog Shuck and Jive, which is currently hyping the anti-IRD dogma. He had mentioned my husband, and I had told him how we had understood what he said. He hadn't meant what we thought, and we both discussed how written communication can sometimes go awry. He ended up, on his own initiative, writing a blog posting in which he said he would no longer discuss IRD, and apologized for any personal offense he might have caused.
This was a truly gracious and generous Christian reaction to what is going on, and I wish that all progressives would be as reasonable as he is about the IRD situation. (I am also sure that there are areas in which evangelicals need to take a closer look at their public reactions to situations.) I am looking forward to my husband's seeing it when he returns from a mountain conference where he is presently.
Thanks to my progressive friend and brother in Christ!
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Manning the Gate of the Soviet Embassy
I have been asked to explain item #3 in the list of 6 quirky items about myself that I posted on my blog last night, so here it is.
In 1970-71 I spent my college junior year in France, and for spring vacation, I took a tour, designed for American students living in Europe, of Prague, Moscow, Leningrad (now back to its original name of St. Petersburg), and Warsaw. It was thrilling because very few Americans at that time had ever been to these cities, and I was stunned with the beauty and charm of Prague, which few living Americans had as yet discovered (now it is overrun with Americans.)
Anyway, after our 3 days there, at the airport for our flight to Moscow, I discovered that all my money and papers were missing; I had apparently been pickpocketed. The tour guide gave me some money, and then everyone flew off and left me there. They did at least leave me in the hands of a couple of Czech college guys who had been our official escorts (in those days in those countries, Western tourists didn't go anywhere on their own.)
I was allowed to stay in the same hotel with a group of Swedish students who were on a tour, and then the Czech boys helped me go around to the Czech police, the American embassy, and the Soviet embassy, in order to get a new Czech exit visa, a new passport, and a new Soviet entry visa. The American passport was the hardest, that is, they were the least willing to give me new papers, because I had no proof of who I was, but I think I must have looked pretty harmless, because they finally relented. (It was cool having a passport issued in Prague; I was sorry when I had to surrender it when it expired and I needed a new one.)
It took 3 days to get everything, and in the interim I went places with the Swedes, or the Czech guys, and was mildly romanced by the Swedish tour leader's very handsome son, so all in all it was kind of fun, and I fell head over heels in love with Prague. One day one of the Czech boys and I stood talking on the Charles bridge for an hour or two, and no one ever passed by. Now the Charles Bridge is filled with tourists and hawkers selling trinkets.
Finally all I needed was the Soviet visa, and at the Soviet embassy they said that they were waiting for a telegram to arrive saying that it was OK. It was getting late in the day, and they were going to lock their gate. So they suggested that I walk down to the end of the driveway where the locked gate was (the embassy was like a mansion in estate-like grounds), so that I could let the car in that was bringing the telegram.
So there I stood, a 20-year-old American girl, with the power to give access to the Soviet Embassy to anyone I wanted to! It was a funny feeling. Of course I didn't let anyone in who didn't belong there, and I got my visa, and then that evening I flew off to Moscow on a plane full of Russians, and another part of the adventure began (it started with an official in the Moscow airport saying to me, "What are you doing coming into Russia ALONE?")
The postscript to this episode is that as soon as I realized my predicament, I sent off a postcard to my parents telling them that I was in Czechoslovakia (as it was called then) with no money or papers. Then three days later I sent them another postcard saying I was fine and was rejoining my tour group. But that postcard was delayed for two weeks, and so they spent two weeks worried about their daughter, lost behind the Iron Curtain. Now that I'm a mother, I know how awful that must have been!
In 1970-71 I spent my college junior year in France, and for spring vacation, I took a tour, designed for American students living in Europe, of Prague, Moscow, Leningrad (now back to its original name of St. Petersburg), and Warsaw. It was thrilling because very few Americans at that time had ever been to these cities, and I was stunned with the beauty and charm of Prague, which few living Americans had as yet discovered (now it is overrun with Americans.)
Anyway, after our 3 days there, at the airport for our flight to Moscow, I discovered that all my money and papers were missing; I had apparently been pickpocketed. The tour guide gave me some money, and then everyone flew off and left me there. They did at least leave me in the hands of a couple of Czech college guys who had been our official escorts (in those days in those countries, Western tourists didn't go anywhere on their own.)
I was allowed to stay in the same hotel with a group of Swedish students who were on a tour, and then the Czech boys helped me go around to the Czech police, the American embassy, and the Soviet embassy, in order to get a new Czech exit visa, a new passport, and a new Soviet entry visa. The American passport was the hardest, that is, they were the least willing to give me new papers, because I had no proof of who I was, but I think I must have looked pretty harmless, because they finally relented. (It was cool having a passport issued in Prague; I was sorry when I had to surrender it when it expired and I needed a new one.)
It took 3 days to get everything, and in the interim I went places with the Swedes, or the Czech guys, and was mildly romanced by the Swedish tour leader's very handsome son, so all in all it was kind of fun, and I fell head over heels in love with Prague. One day one of the Czech boys and I stood talking on the Charles bridge for an hour or two, and no one ever passed by. Now the Charles Bridge is filled with tourists and hawkers selling trinkets.
Finally all I needed was the Soviet visa, and at the Soviet embassy they said that they were waiting for a telegram to arrive saying that it was OK. It was getting late in the day, and they were going to lock their gate. So they suggested that I walk down to the end of the driveway where the locked gate was (the embassy was like a mansion in estate-like grounds), so that I could let the car in that was bringing the telegram.
So there I stood, a 20-year-old American girl, with the power to give access to the Soviet Embassy to anyone I wanted to! It was a funny feeling. Of course I didn't let anyone in who didn't belong there, and I got my visa, and then that evening I flew off to Moscow on a plane full of Russians, and another part of the adventure began (it started with an official in the Moscow airport saying to me, "What are you doing coming into Russia ALONE?")
The postscript to this episode is that as soon as I realized my predicament, I sent off a postcard to my parents telling them that I was in Czechoslovakia (as it was called then) with no money or papers. Then three days later I sent them another postcard saying I was fine and was rejoining my tour group. But that postcard was delayed for two weeks, and so they spent two weeks worried about their daughter, lost behind the Iron Curtain. Now that I'm a mother, I know how awful that must have been!
I've Been Tagged
I've been tagged by Viola Larson at Naming His Grace. Apparently a tag is kind of like the game of tag, and now I'm It. I have to do what the tag is about (if I want to.) I'm supposed to tell 6 quirky or unimportant things about me, so here goes, in no particular order.
1. My favorite food is cereal.
2. I always know how many days old I am. This is a result of my liking to play with numbers in my head, whenever I'm not doing anything else.
3. In 1971, fully in the midst of the Cold War, I once (as a 20-year-old American college girl) manned the gate of the Soviet Embassy in Prague, allowing vehicles in and out. This was behind the Iron Curtain.
4. Several times, to accompany the church choir I sing in, I have played a percussion instrument called a VibraSlap.
5. In college I studied Mandarin Chinese for two years. I took Sanskrit, too.
6. I know all 50 states in alphabetical order. Also backwards alphabetical order. Also their capitals.
That's it! This is trivia. Now I think I will tag Judy Shaw at Stitch Along with Me.
1. My favorite food is cereal.
2. I always know how many days old I am. This is a result of my liking to play with numbers in my head, whenever I'm not doing anything else.
3. In 1971, fully in the midst of the Cold War, I once (as a 20-year-old American college girl) manned the gate of the Soviet Embassy in Prague, allowing vehicles in and out. This was behind the Iron Curtain.
4. Several times, to accompany the church choir I sing in, I have played a percussion instrument called a VibraSlap.
5. In college I studied Mandarin Chinese for two years. I took Sanskrit, too.
6. I know all 50 states in alphabetical order. Also backwards alphabetical order. Also their capitals.
That's it! This is trivia. Now I think I will tag Judy Shaw at Stitch Along with Me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
