Notwithstanding my criticisms of the Fellowship of Presbyterians' (now called the Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians) project, I really affirm their just released Covenant statement. I especially appreciate the affirmation about the sanctity of life. I plan to sign the Covenant and will encourage our session to consider supporting it as well. This does not mean we are considering leaving the PC(USA). It does mean that we are looking for a way to be faithful followers of Christ, relying on the Word of God, while remaining in the PC(USA).
I am grateful to the ECO for issuing this.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Does the Fellowship of Presbyterians Actually Make Sense, Part 3
I was wondering how to write down what I have been considering about the Fellowship of Presbyterians project. A letter written to the Layman, published today, encapsulates my thoughts quite well. I am grateful to J.T. Tate of Asheville, NC for laying it our so clearly.
Presbyterian ‘Split-P soup’ does not need any new ingredients
Posted Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Ok, so now they're talking about forming a "New Reformed Body." Why?
1) If you want to have female preachers, the EPC has gone out of its way to welcome you, as I'm sure the CRC and RCA would. Will the NRB mandate female ordination and ban complementarianism, like the PCUSA has for so long?
2) If you want to keep the full Book of Confessions, keep in mind the N(e)O-Orthodoxy of the Confession of 67 is hostile to a Biblical view of Scripture, and has promoted the prevalent mainline view of the Bible as a nice "record of man's religious experiences" but full of myths and certainly not the written Word of God. Per this view, if we don't like what's in there, we can say "that part isn't God's word" and we get to make God in our image!
The Presbyterian "Split-P soup" does not need any new ingredients. Want to stay liberal in theology? I'm sure the PCUSA will allow minimal conservative scruples. Think the PCUSA is Babylon? The EPC, PCA, RCA, CRC, OPC, ARP, and numerous other denominations will be happy to have you join their ministry.
J.T. Tate
Asheville, N.C.
Although the Fellowship has some good proposals on the table regarding polity (no property trust clause) and theology (the importance of the incarnate AND the written Word of God), in some ways it looks like the PC(USA) with all confessions included. That makes little sense to me. It also makes little sense that the Fellowship leadership invited Joe Small, who does not even endorse the Fellowship, to help craft the statement of theological essentials. Rev. Small has written some great things during his time leading the PC(USA) Office of Theology and Worship, but he is committed to the PC(USA) as "the Church." Why a group that wants to facilitate a new denomination would turn to someone who opposes that makes no sense to me. I think it leads to incoherence and a dilution of the Fellowship's focus.
Presbyterian ‘Split-P soup’ does not need any new ingredients
Posted Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Ok, so now they're talking about forming a "New Reformed Body." Why?
1) If you want to have female preachers, the EPC has gone out of its way to welcome you, as I'm sure the CRC and RCA would. Will the NRB mandate female ordination and ban complementarianism, like the PCUSA has for so long?
2) If you want to keep the full Book of Confessions, keep in mind the N(e)O-Orthodoxy of the Confession of 67 is hostile to a Biblical view of Scripture, and has promoted the prevalent mainline view of the Bible as a nice "record of man's religious experiences" but full of myths and certainly not the written Word of God. Per this view, if we don't like what's in there, we can say "that part isn't God's word" and we get to make God in our image!
The Presbyterian "Split-P soup" does not need any new ingredients. Want to stay liberal in theology? I'm sure the PCUSA will allow minimal conservative scruples. Think the PCUSA is Babylon? The EPC, PCA, RCA, CRC, OPC, ARP, and numerous other denominations will be happy to have you join their ministry.
J.T. Tate
Asheville, N.C.
Although the Fellowship has some good proposals on the table regarding polity (no property trust clause) and theology (the importance of the incarnate AND the written Word of God), in some ways it looks like the PC(USA) with all confessions included. That makes little sense to me. It also makes little sense that the Fellowship leadership invited Joe Small, who does not even endorse the Fellowship, to help craft the statement of theological essentials. Rev. Small has written some great things during his time leading the PC(USA) Office of Theology and Worship, but he is committed to the PC(USA) as "the Church." Why a group that wants to facilitate a new denomination would turn to someone who opposes that makes no sense to me. I think it leads to incoherence and a dilution of the Fellowship's focus.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Does the Fellowship of Presbyterians Actually Make Sense (Part Two)?
In my last posting, I briefly discussed the appearance of the Fellowship of Presbyterians and the reaction it engendered among some people in the denomination. I also expressed my cautious hope that perhaps the Fellowship was truly something "new" for evangelicals in the PC(USA) to support.
Now I would like to briefly write about the first big event held by the Fellowship, the meeting in Minneapolis held in late August. Almost two thousand Presbyterians came to this meeting. Most of these were supporters of the Fellowship to some degree, but there were also some important denominational and Presbytery officials present, as well as a few skeptics (most likely). By common consent, the worship and tone of the Gathering were hailed as generally positive and uplifting.
Some harder work was also being done. During the Gathering four possible "tiers" of involvement for evangelical congregations were presented for discussion. These were, as described on the Fellowship webpage:
• Tier 1: Some who are coming to Minneapolis do not want or need to change any part of their structural reality. They are either in a healthy and nurturing presbytery or they are called to ministry where they are despite a less than healthy presbytery environment. We honor and affirm this, and will be offering ideas and options for nurturing Christ-honoring ministry in place.
• Tier 2: Some who are coming are part of a presbytery where innovation, entrepreneurial vision, and creative leadership are enabling substantive change within the current presbytery structure. A few of these models will be explained and explored.
• Tier 3: For those who need more distance and differentiation from their current presbytery or the PC(USA), new possibilities for “affiliate” congregations will be introduced. We will provide information on how this new type of relationship could work and language for possible overtures to the 2012 General Assembly.
• Tier 4: There is increasing interest in the creation of a “new Reformed body,” distinct from the PC(USA) and distinctly different from any other existing “denomination” in its structure and focus. The idea is to recapture our core identity, believing that Reformed theology has much to say to our contemporary culture, and that Calvin’s original vision for the nature and role of presbyteries offers a better way of relating to one another than most of us are experiencing now. In forming this new Reformed “body,” there is also the opportunity to move with imagination and energy into the reality of a post-denominational world.
To my recollection, Tier Two ended up being about reforming existing Presbyteries to, for example, have two Committees on Ministry and Preparation for Ministry, one of each would be evangelically-oriented. I always thought that was a very poor idea. Whoever comes through a Committee on Ministry or Committee on Preparation for Ministry will still be part of the whole Presbytery. I think we have too many committees and bureaucracy as it is.
I have had the privilege of serving on CPMs in two Presbyteries (just started serving on the CPM of the Presbytery of Florida) and the experience has been fine. The Committees are theologically diverse. Possibly I was (and am) the most conservative member on them. It doesn't seem to be so bad. And even if there was a CPM that was 100% conservative or evangelical, I would still belong to a Presbytery that would have inquirers/candidates from the "liberal" CPM. Whatever.
I think there was also discussion of forming theologically oriented Presbyteries that could cross current geographic boundaries. I think that idea might have had more merit, but it seems to be going nowhere. I have the impression that, at the General Assembly level at least, the consensus is that we must have geographic Presbyteries, except for some racial-ethnic Presbyteries. Speaking purely personally, I think that is not a good exemption. I mean, it is explicitly based on race and ethnicity! It's like soft apartheid.
Well, that is another issue. In any case, Tier Two seems to be nearly moribund.
Tier Three, if I am not mistaken, would advocate for Union Congregations, where a congregation could belong to both the PC(USA) and the "New Reformed Body" which has not yet been formed. And perhaps this Tier includes different levels within it as well ... congregation "A" affiliates with the NRB but stays a member of the PC(USA); congregation "B" does the opposite; congregation "C" belongs to both denominations.
Again, this proposal seems to be going nowhere, at least in its purest form ... congregations belonging to both denominations. And I wonder if that is for the best. Despite all of the attempts to be conciliatory on the part of the Fellowship and the leadership of the PC(USA) (and I think the General Assembly Moderator and Stated Clerk have tried strike the right tone), a new Reformed denomination would be formed necessarily in opposition to the direction the PC(USA) has been on for decades. Belonging equally to both denomination seems akin to having one foot on the train as it is leaving the station while having another foot on the station platform.
For what it's worth, our congregation is most likely to stick with Tier One, remaining engaged on our Presbytery as it is while lifting up an evangelical witness. In November we released a Statement of Dissent and Disavowal to our Presbytery and all the Sessions within the Presbytery, in opposition to the recent change in ordination standards. No one has to guess where we stand. But we are still strive to support the Presbytery in different ways. That option will not be for everyone, but it seems to work for us. And I think that is a good Tier to advocate. Of course, I think we would have done this in any case. I don't think we needed the Fellowship to give us this particular idea. Anyway, Tier One is certainly a real option.
Finally, the other likely option presented by the Fellowship is for evangelical congregations to move to a "New Reformed Body." I will concentrate on the "New Reformed Body" in my next posting.
UPDATE: I should have mentioned that this proposal of several "tiers" raised some misgivings for me, because they might serve to fracture the evangelical movement or witness in the Presbyterian Church (USA). I also have concerns about the cafeteria style of offering different options. It seems to me there are two choices for an evangelical congregation in the Presbyterian Church (USA): stay or leave.
Now I would like to briefly write about the first big event held by the Fellowship, the meeting in Minneapolis held in late August. Almost two thousand Presbyterians came to this meeting. Most of these were supporters of the Fellowship to some degree, but there were also some important denominational and Presbytery officials present, as well as a few skeptics (most likely). By common consent, the worship and tone of the Gathering were hailed as generally positive and uplifting.
Some harder work was also being done. During the Gathering four possible "tiers" of involvement for evangelical congregations were presented for discussion. These were, as described on the Fellowship webpage:
• Tier 1: Some who are coming to Minneapolis do not want or need to change any part of their structural reality. They are either in a healthy and nurturing presbytery or they are called to ministry where they are despite a less than healthy presbytery environment. We honor and affirm this, and will be offering ideas and options for nurturing Christ-honoring ministry in place.
• Tier 2: Some who are coming are part of a presbytery where innovation, entrepreneurial vision, and creative leadership are enabling substantive change within the current presbytery structure. A few of these models will be explained and explored.
• Tier 3: For those who need more distance and differentiation from their current presbytery or the PC(USA), new possibilities for “affiliate” congregations will be introduced. We will provide information on how this new type of relationship could work and language for possible overtures to the 2012 General Assembly.
• Tier 4: There is increasing interest in the creation of a “new Reformed body,” distinct from the PC(USA) and distinctly different from any other existing “denomination” in its structure and focus. The idea is to recapture our core identity, believing that Reformed theology has much to say to our contemporary culture, and that Calvin’s original vision for the nature and role of presbyteries offers a better way of relating to one another than most of us are experiencing now. In forming this new Reformed “body,” there is also the opportunity to move with imagination and energy into the reality of a post-denominational world.
To my recollection, Tier Two ended up being about reforming existing Presbyteries to, for example, have two Committees on Ministry and Preparation for Ministry, one of each would be evangelically-oriented. I always thought that was a very poor idea. Whoever comes through a Committee on Ministry or Committee on Preparation for Ministry will still be part of the whole Presbytery. I think we have too many committees and bureaucracy as it is.
I have had the privilege of serving on CPMs in two Presbyteries (just started serving on the CPM of the Presbytery of Florida) and the experience has been fine. The Committees are theologically diverse. Possibly I was (and am) the most conservative member on them. It doesn't seem to be so bad. And even if there was a CPM that was 100% conservative or evangelical, I would still belong to a Presbytery that would have inquirers/candidates from the "liberal" CPM. Whatever.
I think there was also discussion of forming theologically oriented Presbyteries that could cross current geographic boundaries. I think that idea might have had more merit, but it seems to be going nowhere. I have the impression that, at the General Assembly level at least, the consensus is that we must have geographic Presbyteries, except for some racial-ethnic Presbyteries. Speaking purely personally, I think that is not a good exemption. I mean, it is explicitly based on race and ethnicity! It's like soft apartheid.
Well, that is another issue. In any case, Tier Two seems to be nearly moribund.
Tier Three, if I am not mistaken, would advocate for Union Congregations, where a congregation could belong to both the PC(USA) and the "New Reformed Body" which has not yet been formed. And perhaps this Tier includes different levels within it as well ... congregation "A" affiliates with the NRB but stays a member of the PC(USA); congregation "B" does the opposite; congregation "C" belongs to both denominations.
Again, this proposal seems to be going nowhere, at least in its purest form ... congregations belonging to both denominations. And I wonder if that is for the best. Despite all of the attempts to be conciliatory on the part of the Fellowship and the leadership of the PC(USA) (and I think the General Assembly Moderator and Stated Clerk have tried strike the right tone), a new Reformed denomination would be formed necessarily in opposition to the direction the PC(USA) has been on for decades. Belonging equally to both denomination seems akin to having one foot on the train as it is leaving the station while having another foot on the station platform.
For what it's worth, our congregation is most likely to stick with Tier One, remaining engaged on our Presbytery as it is while lifting up an evangelical witness. In November we released a Statement of Dissent and Disavowal to our Presbytery and all the Sessions within the Presbytery, in opposition to the recent change in ordination standards. No one has to guess where we stand. But we are still strive to support the Presbytery in different ways. That option will not be for everyone, but it seems to work for us. And I think that is a good Tier to advocate. Of course, I think we would have done this in any case. I don't think we needed the Fellowship to give us this particular idea. Anyway, Tier One is certainly a real option.
Finally, the other likely option presented by the Fellowship is for evangelical congregations to move to a "New Reformed Body." I will concentrate on the "New Reformed Body" in my next posting.
UPDATE: I should have mentioned that this proposal of several "tiers" raised some misgivings for me, because they might serve to fracture the evangelical movement or witness in the Presbyterian Church (USA). I also have concerns about the cafeteria style of offering different options. It seems to me there are two choices for an evangelical congregation in the Presbyterian Church (USA): stay or leave.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Does the Fellowship of Presbyterians Actually Make Sense (Part One)
I have tried not to spent much time commenting on denominational issues in this blog, but as someone who identifies as an evangelical pastor in the Presbyterian Church (USA), I think recent events are worth discussing. Specifically, given these recent developments, I think the question must be asked if the Fellowship of Presbyterians enterprise makes any sense. You will recall that the Fellowship began in early 2011 and was revealed by the release of a "White Paper" which diagnosed serious problems within the Presbyterian Church (USA), going so far as to call the denomination "deathly ill." The initial Fellowship leadership was a group of tall steeple church pastors of the evangelical persuasion.
My first reaction to the news was "yet another evangelical group that probably will huff and puff and go nowhere." I had in mind the Confessing Church movement, which signed up over 1,300 congregations, held a huge "Confessing Church Celebration" in Atlanta, and then ... disappeared. I also had in mind the New Wineskins group, which sounded like a group that wanted to change ministry in the PC(USA) but developed more into a transmission belt for congregations seeking to leave for the Evangelical Presbyterian Church denomination. Plus there is a plethora of conservative or evangelical groups in the PC(USA) that have been around a long time.
However, the vitriolic response to the Fellowship's initial documents from many theological progressives and PC(USA) institutional loyalists (one letter to the Presbyterian Outlook even criticized the drafters of the "White Paper" for calling it the "White Paper" because that showed racial insensitivity. Such a reaction is a self-parody.) suggested to me and others that perhaps this Fellowship was indeed proposing something that could make a difference ...
My first reaction to the news was "yet another evangelical group that probably will huff and puff and go nowhere." I had in mind the Confessing Church movement, which signed up over 1,300 congregations, held a huge "Confessing Church Celebration" in Atlanta, and then ... disappeared. I also had in mind the New Wineskins group, which sounded like a group that wanted to change ministry in the PC(USA) but developed more into a transmission belt for congregations seeking to leave for the Evangelical Presbyterian Church denomination. Plus there is a plethora of conservative or evangelical groups in the PC(USA) that have been around a long time.
However, the vitriolic response to the Fellowship's initial documents from many theological progressives and PC(USA) institutional loyalists (one letter to the Presbyterian Outlook even criticized the drafters of the "White Paper" for calling it the "White Paper" because that showed racial insensitivity. Such a reaction is a self-parody.) suggested to me and others that perhaps this Fellowship was indeed proposing something that could make a difference ...
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
An Attempt at Clarity
The Presbytery of Stockton in California is trying to establish some clarity for Presbyterians when we discuss "Essential Tenets." Presbyterians say they have Essential Tenets but they never identify them (or, I should say, the national denomination never defines them, except for support of women's ordination, which is explicitly endorsed by only one of our Confessions.).
Stockton is attempting to describe some Essential Tenets as guidelines. I appreciate their hard work and irenic spirit.
Read the document for yourself.
Stockton is attempting to describe some Essential Tenets as guidelines. I appreciate their hard work and irenic spirit.
Read the document for yourself.
Monday, November 7, 2011
Former President Gillespie of Princeton Seminary has died
I am saddened by Dr. Gillespie's death, although it is true he lived a full life (he was 83) and I have faith that he is with his Savior at this very moment. I was fortunate to attend Princeton Seminary when he was President. I appreciated his pastorally-oriented sermons in Miller Chapel, as well as his plainspoken nature and sense of humor. He was a success as a pastor and an academic, and led Princeton Seminary to great heights as its President (for 21 years!). He is one of those transformative figures in higher education, much like another great President, Frank Rhodes, who led Cornell University for 18 years, including my time there.
Tom Gillespie will be missed greatly. May God bless and comfort his dear wife Barbara, and their children and grandchildren, at this time of loss for them.
Princeton Seminary's current President, Ian Torrance, has written a gracious tribute to Dr. Gillespie.
Tom Gillespie will be missed greatly. May God bless and comfort his dear wife Barbara, and their children and grandchildren, at this time of loss for them.
Princeton Seminary's current President, Ian Torrance, has written a gracious tribute to Dr. Gillespie.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Sermon on October 16, 2011
“Church and State” (Psalm 9:1-9; Matthew 22:15-22)
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Rev. John B. Erthein
How providential that these lectionary readings, which are set without regard to current events, sometimes coincide with relevant current events. I am thinking specifically of a controversy that arose when a minister who supports Governor Rick Perry for President said one should support a born-again Christian for President, such as Governor Perry, even if another candidate (meaning Mitt Romney) was a good person. The minister later said Mormonism (Romney's faith) was not Christian and was a cult.
Quite aside from whoever should be President, and quite aside from whether the Mormon faith is Christian or not, some important questions were raised in my mind as a result of this controversy. What should Christians look for in a political leader? How much can or should our political system reflect Christianity? What is the proper relationship between church and state?
I am not going to spend a lot of time on Psalm 9 this morning, except to say that it affirms the whole Word of God affirms … the God is sovereign over his creation. Nations rise and fall, but God stands forever. Everything in creation, including every government, exists under the judgment of God.
So what does that mean? For a time, it meant that God's chosen people were to live under a theocracy, where God's laws would be the law of the land. That was Israel. And it was not wrong for Israel to be a theocracy. But I have two observations to make about that. First, the theocracy frequently did not operate as God desired. There were frequent outbreaks of corruption, of abuse of power, of heresy in high places, and social unrighteousness, in which the poor and widows were not aided and where God's moral laws were transgressed. Second, the language in Psalm 9 does not, I believe, refer only to Israel, but to all nations. In other words, all nations even then were under God's ultimate authority and judgment. The people of Israel understood God as the great liberator, the One who had freed them from Egyptian oppression. God exercised his authority and judgment over Egypt. And, I would further say that, while God ordained a theocracy in the past (Israel) and will do so in the future (meaning when Jesus Christ comes again in glory to reign over us, that will be the perfected theocracy), God does not ordain a theocracy for every nation in every time. God does, however, always have the nations under observation. And no matter what kind of government exists, and no matter how powerful the country, God is the ultimate authority.
By the time Jesus walked the earth, Israel was no longer a free nation. It was under the domination of the Roman Empire. The Romans were actually religiously tolerant to a point: Jews could practice their faith, for instance. But obviously the Roman Empire was not a Jewish theocracy. Indeed, at the time of Christ the Romans were exalting their Emperors so highly that they were being seen as virtual gods. Rome was proudly pagan. It must have been incredibly galling to be a Jew living under the yoke of pagan Rome. Many Jews were hoping for a Messiah who would throw off the Roman occupiers and restore Israel as an independent kingdom. Some saw Jesus as this kind of savior.
But not everyone looked to Jesus as a political or a spiritual savior. He threatened many people, including many members of the religious establishment. We are looking at the 22nd chapter of Matthew today, which takes place after Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem and his highly controversial cleansing of the Temple of the moneychangers. There has been constant back and forth between Jesus and his detractors, giving Jesus the occasion to share some of his parables which have since become famous. Jesus' opponents have not yet been able to trap him into making any damaging statements, but that does not stop them from trying. The Pharisees send one of their number to question Jesus on the sensitive matter of taxation. I don't know of anyone who likes to pay taxes, but at least we are paying taxes to our own elected government. But the people in Israel had to pay taxes to the Roman occupiers, a source of enormous (and understandable) resentment. Notice that the Pharisee ludicrously tries to soften up Jesus by flattering him, “Teacher, we know that you are a truthful person and take no notice of anyone, since you are not impressed by people's status.” Ironically, that was a true statement: Jesus really is like that. But this Pharisee does not believe so, so he is knowingly saying something he considers dishonest.
Jesus, of course, is not someone prone to false flattery, and he calls the Pharisees “hypocrites.” One reason he says this is because of the false flattery: if the Pharisees said what they thought they would yell at Jesus being an arrogant blasphemer. But there may be another reason for the charge of hypocrisy. I am indebted to R.T France's excellent commentary on Matthew for this information. Jesus asked the Pharisees to give him a denarius coin. And as we know he pointed to the inscribed portrait of Caesar on the coin and told his listeners to give to Caesar what is due Caesar, and give to God what is due God. But Jesus is not merely using the denarius as a visual aid. Pious Jews considered the denarius an “idolatrous” coin because it carried a human portrait (thus violating the second commandment). And worse than that, it had an inscription referring to the Roman Emperor as Divi Filiuis, or “son of a god” (violating the first commandment). On the other side of the coin was the inscribed phrase “pontifex maximus,” or “high priest.” The denarius could hardly have been better designed to offend pious Jews.
But the Romans, who were often brutal but not usually irrationally brutal, actually tried to honor Jewish sensibilities (or they did not want to cause unrest for no good reason), so they allowed the Jews to coin their own, non-idolatrous copper money, which was fine for normal, everyday business; there was no need for a Jew to possess the denarius. Jesus apparently did not have one … but the Pharisees did, and within the temple at that! Since the Pharisees were using the coins with the Emperor's image on it, they could hardly object to paying tax to the Emperor. Indeed, one way of translating the Greek phrase in verse 21 is “to give back to the Emperor.” In saying this, Jesus is affirming that one can respect the pagan Emperor, but continue to worship the one true God.
Now, why would the pagan Emperor even merit respect? Certainly, among the Jews were a group called the Zealots (a word that carries meaning to this very day). They favored violent revolution. The last thing they would advocate would be respect for Rome. And yet, there were some things that the Roman Empire did that benefited people, including the Jews. The Romans provided peace and predictable laws; they built amazing infrastructure. So the tax was not just an imperial imposition, but a logical payment for services rendered.
Much of the New Testament advocated that Christians respect the ruling authorities. Paul famously wrote in Romans 13:
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God … Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment … For [the authority] is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer … For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God … Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed (Romans 13, selected verses. ESV).
Peter wrote similarly in 1 Peter 2:
Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and praise those who do good … Honor everyone. Honor the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor (1 Peter 2, selected verses. ESV).
Remember, Paul and Peter were talking about a pagan Emperor in charge of a pagan Empire. They were talking about a government that frequently did not reflect Christian values. The Romans had slavery and gladiatorial games; they were militaristic and imperialistic. And yet Christians were called upon to pay taxes to Rome, obey the Roman laws, and honor the Roman Emperor.
There are areas of the New Testament that give a much different picture of Rome, such as Revelation, during a period of persecution against the church. Christians would honor the emperor, but they certainly would not worship him. In that instance, the state was demanding too much allegiance. And in Acts, there were examples of disciples disobeying laws that prohibited them from sharing the Gospel.
So how can the Scriptural teachings be applied today? Well, I think most issues before us as Christians living in the United States of America are primarily prudential, meaning one can reach different conclusions without violating the Gospels. In other words, whoever is our President, and whatever his (or her!) program might be, we can certainly disagree if we feel the policies are wrong, but we should not assume “the church” can reflect what Jesus would have definitely said on, for example, what kind of health care reform we should have; or what our tax rates should be; or how we should reduce debts and deficits; or how we can best help the poor. There are many ways in which to do all of these things. I think the church has a better chance of influencing debate if it chooses its causes carefully. I personally dislike the hyperactivity of our denominational officials and assemblies that feel the need to address every issue that occurs to someone. My personal favorite example of this occurred at a past General Assembly (it might have been in 2004 or 2006). The Assembly actually spent time considering an overture from a Presbytery (meaning the Presbytery had spent time considering it) addressing an aspect of global warming caused by an excess number of cows … excess because we eat too much beef. Because we have so many cows, they release a disturbing amount of methane gas into the atmosphere, thus contributing to global warming. Yes, friends, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) took up the issue of cow flatulence.
That's a funny example, but what is less funny is that most overtures to General Assembly seem to concern every aspect of politics and public policy … far more so than spreading the Gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ. So, what are we known for as Presbyterians? Are we known for the Gospel, or for political and social pronouncements? Now, surely politics and policy have their place, and the church should speak on some issues … but is it too much to ask for some reserve, some discernment, some recognition that when we talk about politics we are generally not talking about essentials of the faith? I mean, surely we can spend more time and effort talking about how to reach the unsaved with the message of eternal life through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ!
There are many, many important issues that perhaps deserve comment, as well as theories about church and state, but that is not really the purpose of this particular sermon … and I don't think that is the purpose of the Scriptures, either. The Bible tells us how God will grant us salvation if we come to him in faith through Jesus Christ. THAT must be the primary calling of the church … not to run the government or demand a policy to address every conceivable issue.
Now, if the government were to demand that we stop worshiping Christ and spreading the Gospel, and that we instead worship the government, then we would have cause to resist its authority. But otherwise, whatever we think of the President, whether or not we think the President is a Christian, however much we like or dislike what he is doing, his authority still comes from God, and we are called upon as followers of Jesus Christ to respect and honor the Presidency … and all other institutions of authority in our nation. Is it important to have a born-again Christian as President? Well, it would be nice … but being a born-again Christian is no guarantee that a person will make a good President. Who has the best mixture of character and qualifications to be President? That is, again, a prudential judgment.
Whoever is elected President next year, do be in prayer for that person, and for our nation, as we continue to live under God's ultimate authority. And be confident in God's providence and care for his creation, including our great country, while remembering that we also stand under his ultimate judgment. Amen.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Rev. John B. Erthein
How providential that these lectionary readings, which are set without regard to current events, sometimes coincide with relevant current events. I am thinking specifically of a controversy that arose when a minister who supports Governor Rick Perry for President said one should support a born-again Christian for President, such as Governor Perry, even if another candidate (meaning Mitt Romney) was a good person. The minister later said Mormonism (Romney's faith) was not Christian and was a cult.
Quite aside from whoever should be President, and quite aside from whether the Mormon faith is Christian or not, some important questions were raised in my mind as a result of this controversy. What should Christians look for in a political leader? How much can or should our political system reflect Christianity? What is the proper relationship between church and state?
I am not going to spend a lot of time on Psalm 9 this morning, except to say that it affirms the whole Word of God affirms … the God is sovereign over his creation. Nations rise and fall, but God stands forever. Everything in creation, including every government, exists under the judgment of God.
So what does that mean? For a time, it meant that God's chosen people were to live under a theocracy, where God's laws would be the law of the land. That was Israel. And it was not wrong for Israel to be a theocracy. But I have two observations to make about that. First, the theocracy frequently did not operate as God desired. There were frequent outbreaks of corruption, of abuse of power, of heresy in high places, and social unrighteousness, in which the poor and widows were not aided and where God's moral laws were transgressed. Second, the language in Psalm 9 does not, I believe, refer only to Israel, but to all nations. In other words, all nations even then were under God's ultimate authority and judgment. The people of Israel understood God as the great liberator, the One who had freed them from Egyptian oppression. God exercised his authority and judgment over Egypt. And, I would further say that, while God ordained a theocracy in the past (Israel) and will do so in the future (meaning when Jesus Christ comes again in glory to reign over us, that will be the perfected theocracy), God does not ordain a theocracy for every nation in every time. God does, however, always have the nations under observation. And no matter what kind of government exists, and no matter how powerful the country, God is the ultimate authority.
By the time Jesus walked the earth, Israel was no longer a free nation. It was under the domination of the Roman Empire. The Romans were actually religiously tolerant to a point: Jews could practice their faith, for instance. But obviously the Roman Empire was not a Jewish theocracy. Indeed, at the time of Christ the Romans were exalting their Emperors so highly that they were being seen as virtual gods. Rome was proudly pagan. It must have been incredibly galling to be a Jew living under the yoke of pagan Rome. Many Jews were hoping for a Messiah who would throw off the Roman occupiers and restore Israel as an independent kingdom. Some saw Jesus as this kind of savior.
But not everyone looked to Jesus as a political or a spiritual savior. He threatened many people, including many members of the religious establishment. We are looking at the 22nd chapter of Matthew today, which takes place after Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem and his highly controversial cleansing of the Temple of the moneychangers. There has been constant back and forth between Jesus and his detractors, giving Jesus the occasion to share some of his parables which have since become famous. Jesus' opponents have not yet been able to trap him into making any damaging statements, but that does not stop them from trying. The Pharisees send one of their number to question Jesus on the sensitive matter of taxation. I don't know of anyone who likes to pay taxes, but at least we are paying taxes to our own elected government. But the people in Israel had to pay taxes to the Roman occupiers, a source of enormous (and understandable) resentment. Notice that the Pharisee ludicrously tries to soften up Jesus by flattering him, “Teacher, we know that you are a truthful person and take no notice of anyone, since you are not impressed by people's status.” Ironically, that was a true statement: Jesus really is like that. But this Pharisee does not believe so, so he is knowingly saying something he considers dishonest.
Jesus, of course, is not someone prone to false flattery, and he calls the Pharisees “hypocrites.” One reason he says this is because of the false flattery: if the Pharisees said what they thought they would yell at Jesus being an arrogant blasphemer. But there may be another reason for the charge of hypocrisy. I am indebted to R.T France's excellent commentary on Matthew for this information. Jesus asked the Pharisees to give him a denarius coin. And as we know he pointed to the inscribed portrait of Caesar on the coin and told his listeners to give to Caesar what is due Caesar, and give to God what is due God. But Jesus is not merely using the denarius as a visual aid. Pious Jews considered the denarius an “idolatrous” coin because it carried a human portrait (thus violating the second commandment). And worse than that, it had an inscription referring to the Roman Emperor as Divi Filiuis, or “son of a god” (violating the first commandment). On the other side of the coin was the inscribed phrase “pontifex maximus,” or “high priest.” The denarius could hardly have been better designed to offend pious Jews.
But the Romans, who were often brutal but not usually irrationally brutal, actually tried to honor Jewish sensibilities (or they did not want to cause unrest for no good reason), so they allowed the Jews to coin their own, non-idolatrous copper money, which was fine for normal, everyday business; there was no need for a Jew to possess the denarius. Jesus apparently did not have one … but the Pharisees did, and within the temple at that! Since the Pharisees were using the coins with the Emperor's image on it, they could hardly object to paying tax to the Emperor. Indeed, one way of translating the Greek phrase in verse 21 is “to give back to the Emperor.” In saying this, Jesus is affirming that one can respect the pagan Emperor, but continue to worship the one true God.
Now, why would the pagan Emperor even merit respect? Certainly, among the Jews were a group called the Zealots (a word that carries meaning to this very day). They favored violent revolution. The last thing they would advocate would be respect for Rome. And yet, there were some things that the Roman Empire did that benefited people, including the Jews. The Romans provided peace and predictable laws; they built amazing infrastructure. So the tax was not just an imperial imposition, but a logical payment for services rendered.
Much of the New Testament advocated that Christians respect the ruling authorities. Paul famously wrote in Romans 13:
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God … Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment … For [the authority] is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer … For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God … Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed (Romans 13, selected verses. ESV).
Peter wrote similarly in 1 Peter 2:
Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and praise those who do good … Honor everyone. Honor the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor (1 Peter 2, selected verses. ESV).
Remember, Paul and Peter were talking about a pagan Emperor in charge of a pagan Empire. They were talking about a government that frequently did not reflect Christian values. The Romans had slavery and gladiatorial games; they were militaristic and imperialistic. And yet Christians were called upon to pay taxes to Rome, obey the Roman laws, and honor the Roman Emperor.
There are areas of the New Testament that give a much different picture of Rome, such as Revelation, during a period of persecution against the church. Christians would honor the emperor, but they certainly would not worship him. In that instance, the state was demanding too much allegiance. And in Acts, there were examples of disciples disobeying laws that prohibited them from sharing the Gospel.
So how can the Scriptural teachings be applied today? Well, I think most issues before us as Christians living in the United States of America are primarily prudential, meaning one can reach different conclusions without violating the Gospels. In other words, whoever is our President, and whatever his (or her!) program might be, we can certainly disagree if we feel the policies are wrong, but we should not assume “the church” can reflect what Jesus would have definitely said on, for example, what kind of health care reform we should have; or what our tax rates should be; or how we should reduce debts and deficits; or how we can best help the poor. There are many ways in which to do all of these things. I think the church has a better chance of influencing debate if it chooses its causes carefully. I personally dislike the hyperactivity of our denominational officials and assemblies that feel the need to address every issue that occurs to someone. My personal favorite example of this occurred at a past General Assembly (it might have been in 2004 or 2006). The Assembly actually spent time considering an overture from a Presbytery (meaning the Presbytery had spent time considering it) addressing an aspect of global warming caused by an excess number of cows … excess because we eat too much beef. Because we have so many cows, they release a disturbing amount of methane gas into the atmosphere, thus contributing to global warming. Yes, friends, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) took up the issue of cow flatulence.
That's a funny example, but what is less funny is that most overtures to General Assembly seem to concern every aspect of politics and public policy … far more so than spreading the Gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ. So, what are we known for as Presbyterians? Are we known for the Gospel, or for political and social pronouncements? Now, surely politics and policy have their place, and the church should speak on some issues … but is it too much to ask for some reserve, some discernment, some recognition that when we talk about politics we are generally not talking about essentials of the faith? I mean, surely we can spend more time and effort talking about how to reach the unsaved with the message of eternal life through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ!
There are many, many important issues that perhaps deserve comment, as well as theories about church and state, but that is not really the purpose of this particular sermon … and I don't think that is the purpose of the Scriptures, either. The Bible tells us how God will grant us salvation if we come to him in faith through Jesus Christ. THAT must be the primary calling of the church … not to run the government or demand a policy to address every conceivable issue.
Now, if the government were to demand that we stop worshiping Christ and spreading the Gospel, and that we instead worship the government, then we would have cause to resist its authority. But otherwise, whatever we think of the President, whether or not we think the President is a Christian, however much we like or dislike what he is doing, his authority still comes from God, and we are called upon as followers of Jesus Christ to respect and honor the Presidency … and all other institutions of authority in our nation. Is it important to have a born-again Christian as President? Well, it would be nice … but being a born-again Christian is no guarantee that a person will make a good President. Who has the best mixture of character and qualifications to be President? That is, again, a prudential judgment.
Whoever is elected President next year, do be in prayer for that person, and for our nation, as we continue to live under God's ultimate authority. And be confident in God's providence and care for his creation, including our great country, while remembering that we also stand under his ultimate judgment. Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)